Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order 2015
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 19th 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, the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order delivers one of the measures promised in the outcome of the Government’s public bodies review, as announced in October 2010. We are proposing to use the powers in the Public Bodies Act 2011 to abolish the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee—the HGTAC. Section 1 of the Public Bodies Act permits a Minister to abolish by order a body or office specified in Schedule 1. The HGTAC is specified in Schedule 1. It was originally formed under the Forestry Act 1951 and was preserved in the subsequent Forestry Act 1967. No provision was made in either of these Acts for its abolition; accordingly, legislation is now required to do so.
The HGTAC has not had physical form for almost 10 years and exists now only on the statute book. It last met in 2005 and the terms of office of the last members expired in 2006. Those were not renewed by mutual agreement between the forestry commissioners and the final committee members themselves, having considered how the commission should operate, given that forestry is now a devolved policy matter.
The purpose of the HGTAC was to advise the forestry commissioners with regard to their general duty to promote,
“the establishment and maintenance … of adequate reserves of growing trees”,
across Great Britain. It was also to advise on the exercise of their powers to control the felling of trees and to make regulations. Following the devolution of forestry policy and the subsequent cessation of the HGTAC’s activities, advice is now provided to the Forestry Commission through several types of expert advisory groups and other specialist committees with specific knowledge.
As required by due process, we conducted a public consultation on the proposal to abolish the HGTAC in the spring of last year. The consultation was specifically brought to the attention of key forestry-related interests, but was also open to all stakeholders and the wider public via my department’s public website. We received only five responses. A timber-based business and consultancy felt that there could be a role for the HGTAC as the,
“public face of British timber”,
while the RSPB questioned whether the abolition would adversely affect oversight of forestry at national, GB and UK levels to ensure sustainability.
It is not appropriate for the HGTAC to be the public face of British timber. Its role was to advise the forestry commissioners in relation to the exercise of certain duties and functions, not to act as a representative body. Indeed, British timber has many public faces in the form of the various well known representative bodies within the sector, with which the commission has very good relations.
Furthermore, I believe it is not appropriate to suggest that abolishing the HGTAC would adversely affect oversight of forestry at national, GB and UK levels, for several reasons. The HGTAC has not existed nor performed any kind of advisory role for almost 10 years; it never had a UK remit; and in 2013 its remit in relation to Wales ceased to exist. The devolved arrangements now in place provide for very good advisory engagement within each Administration, and through its cross-border functions in particular, the Forestry Commission continues to support a wider overview.
Beyond those concerns, the remaining three respondents to the consultation supported the abolition. These included the Confederation of Forest Industries and the UK Forest Products Association.
There will be no jobs lost as a result of the abolition of the HGTAC, and no loss of rights, privileges or protections. Its role was purely advisory to the forestry commissioners and this is now done by other means. Its abolition does not compromise the ability of the commissioners to access the most informed advice because they are supported in that regard now by the Scottish Forestry Forum, which is supported by five regional forestry forums; the regional advisory committees in England, now called forestry and woodlands advisory committees; the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics, developed from the HGTAC’s previous Supply and Demand (of Timber) Sub-Committee; and the Expert Committee on Forest Science. Indeed, one of those bodies, the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics, is an essential quality assurance element of the Forestry Commission’s own forestry statistics publications.
In April 2013, the functions of the forestry commissioners in Wales were transferred to Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales. At that time the HGTAC ceased to have a remit extending to Wales. However, it remained a cross-border body in relation to England and Scotland and, accordingly, a consent Motion to its abolishment was agreed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 January. A similar Motion has not been required in Wales because of the changes I have mentioned, and the HGTAC provisions did not extend to Northern Ireland.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have placed great emphasis on creating a more efficient policy delivery landscape through our public body reforms. There is broad agreement, as demonstrated by the support of representative bodies, that the HGTAC is no longer required. Abolishing this defunct body will also help the Forestry Commission operate more efficiently within the current devolved arrangements.
I hope from this explanation that the Committee will understand why we have decided to bring forward this order to abolish the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. I commend the order to the Committee.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend say what recent measures of government forestry policy have usefully derived from national advisory committees or, indeed, any of the other bodies to which he has just referred and which the Government may be in the habit of consulting from time to time?
How consistent has that advice been; for example, over the desirable economic target to plant more in order to import less?
The Forestry Act 1967 stressed the need for,
“adequate reserves of growing trees”.
To continue to achieve that aim, what planting and maintenance targets are now envisaged for the Forestry Commission and the private sector respectively?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the order today. We agree with him that this advisory committee has gone the distance and that it serves no useful function, not having met since 2005, with its role having been devolved to national committees. I note that its former functions are now discharged through separate arrangements in each Administration and it has no property, rights or liabilities, so a transfer scheme under Section 23 of the Public Bodies Act 2011 is not required.
The Minister makes the order under the provisions of the Public Bodies Act 2011, and it meets the tests under that Act that it improves the exercise of public functions, does not remove any necessary protections and does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom.
Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is content with the order and considers that the Minister’s department has handled the consultation process appropriately. I have asked the Minister on previous occasions when considering organisations under the Public Bodies Act to update the Committee on progress generally. If the Minister has any further news, that would be instructive for the Committee.
The measure today is non-contentious, the Minister’s department is to be congratulated on its presentation to the Committee, and I approve the order. Meanwhile, I would be grateful to hear from his department whether the forestry estate is now safe in public hands, and to hear what delayed his department from bringing forward legislation as promised.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. My noble friend Lord Dundee asked what recent measures of government forestry policy have usefully derived from the national advisory committees. In my opening presentation I mentioned various bodies which now act in place of the former HGTAC in advising the Forestry Commission on the discharge of its functions. However, the totality of that advice adds to the Forestry Commission’s overall ability to advise the Government on development of forestry policy. Additionally, the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics has influenced policy on supply and demand of timber in that it quality-assures the Forestry Commission’s production of forestry statistics, which policy analysts interpret and use as the basis to inform the development of forestry policy.
My noble friend also asked, essentially, about how we will ensure adequate reserves of growing trees. We have not set planting targets for England, but in refreshing forestry policy we have set out an aspiration to increase woodland cover in England from 10% to 12% by 2060. That would require on average creating 5,000 hectares of new woodland per year. We readily acknowledge that that is a challenging aspiration, and we have been clear all along that it will require the Government’s support measures plus private-sector investment to make it happen. The Rural Development Programme currently supports about 2,000-plus hectares of new woodland per year, but non-RDP-funded expansion is currently quite low, at about 800 hectares.
To maintain our woodlands, we have also set an aspiration to bring 66% of them into management by 2018 and expect the proportion to rise beyond that, towards 80%, in due course. Since 2011, we have already progressed from 52% to 57% of woodlands under management.
My noble friend Lady Parminter asked how we would monitor our performance. I have already partly explained that the Forestry Commission will be responsible. It is exciting that the sector has seen British sawn timber grow its market share of UK consumption from 8% to 38% over 30 years. Softwood deliveries have grown steadily from just over 8 million tonnes in 2009 to closer to 11 million tonnes now. UK businesses have invested in some of the most advanced sawmills and panel board mills in the world. We are supporting growth in the wood-based economy in several ways. We have worked closely with the sector’s Grown in Britain initiative and welcome regional growth initiatives such as the northern Roots to Prosperity strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked what progress we were making under the public bodies programme. We have made quite good progress in that area. So far, we have abolished 52 NDPBs, including the Commission for Rural Communities, and transferred the functions of British Waterways in England and Wales to the Canal & River Trust. There are now only one or two bodies still to be abolished, which are mainly defunct or non-operational.
The noble Lord asked, rather provocatively, whether the forestry estate was now safe in public hands. Yes, it is—I do not know how many times I have to say that. I think that the noble Lord is quite aware that we were unable to secure a legislative slot in this Session of Parliament, but we remain committed to setting up an independent body to manage the public forest estate.
I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions. I will of course check Hansard and write if I need to. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, we are rightly proud of the environment in our country. Many facilities which could harm the environment or human health are regulated under the environmental permitting regime. We are today considering one type of enforcement, and as noble Lords know, enforcement is an important part of environmental regulation. In the past, it has generally relied on criminal prosecution with fines and imprisonment, or formal cautions which result in a criminal record. For some cases, prosecution and cautions can be heavy-handed and slow. Currently, there is no proportionate alternative for offences under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. The regulations we are considering today will enable the Environment Agency to accept enforcement undertakings for certain offences at facilities where an environment permit is required.
Originally introduced in 2008, enforcement undertakings give greater flexibility to regulators in the way they secure compliance, reserving criminal prosecution for the most serious offences. The Environment Agency started to use enforcement undertakings, as well as other civil sanctions, for some of its regulatory activities in January 2011. These regulations will allow it to start accepting enforcement undertakings for offences in the environmental permitting regime.
Enforcement undertakings are voluntary offers made by offenders to restore and remediate damage and, importantly, to ensure compliance both now and in the future. There are around 90,000 Environment Agency permits which cover a diverse range of facilities including scrapyards, landfill sites, sewage works, chemical plants and nuclear power stations. It is a relatively new framework that has brought clarity and cohesion to permitting regulation without reducing levels of protection for the environment and human health. It is important to confirm that the worst offenders will continue to be prosecuted. Enforcement undertakings will be most appropriate for normally compliant people and businesses as long as they address the causes and effects of their offending. Where they are used, they will streamline enforcement, put compliance and restoration first, and encourage dialogue between the Environment Agency and business.
Let me give your Lordships an example of where these regulations could be used. I shall take an industrial company with high environmental performance standards which accidentally pollutes a river with sediment run-off from an on-site development project. Rather than being subject to prosecution, the company could in the future offer an enforcement undertaking. That offer might explain how the company would prevent the offence happening again, perhaps by changing procedures and possibly by making a board member responsible for future development projects and environmental performance as a whole. The enforcement undertaking would also quantify the environmental harm that had been caused and propose investment to that value, perhaps to a local environmental project or charity that works to improve the river which has been polluted.
As regards how the decision on accepting the offer of an enforcement undertaking is made, the Environment Agency, Defra’s regulator, has already put in place robust guidance and governance for its civil sanctions powers. In deciding appropriate enforcement, it will continue to apply a stringent assessment of what it calls “public interest” factors. In my example, if the offender’s compliance history had previously been good, the offence was not foreseeable and the environmental effect was minor, it may be appropriate to accept an enforcement undertaking. The regulations we are considering would extend enforcement undertakings to the Environment Agency’s largest regulatory regime. It is estimated that around 50 prosecutions or formal cautions could be avoided each year.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Once again, the Minister has provided the Committee with an excellent introduction to, and explanation of, the regulations. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, brought up the situation regarding farming and these regulations. In case there should be any anxieties, I declare my interest as an owner of a dairy farm. However, my reading of the regulations is that of the nine classes of regulated activity to which they pertain, none applies to dairy farming—except, possibly, the water discharge activity. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify the extent to which farming is affected by these regulations, and how they might work together with the regulations under the common agricultural policy.
The Minister has clarified that these regulations introduce no new requirements and make no changes to existing offences and existing enforcement mechanisms, but merely allow the Environment Agency to accept enforcement undertakings when they are on offer. I agree that the order is constructive in that it allows the Environment Agency greater flexibility in its approach to transgressions, and follows his department’s Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, which was initiated by the previous Labour Government. The regulations will make a positive addition to the Environment Agency’s ability to do its job well. The benefits to society include giving priority to restoration of harm ahead of criminal convictions.
The Explanatory Memorandum states, with regard to guidance, that the department will write to the Environment Agency setting out the expectation of how these enforcement undertakings will be used to ensure that enforcement is in accordance with Better Regulation principles. Will the Minister update the Committee on this progress? When does he expect that the Environment Agency will be able to publish its guidance on enforcement matters?
As the Minister explained, the Explanatory Memorandum provides no impact assessment, on the basis that the order has no impact on business or other organisations unless they fail to comply with the law. However, this was the subject of extensive discussions in the other place. The changes proposed in 2010 would have significantly reduced costs to both the Environment Agency and Natural England. As the Minister said, at the very least the order will help to free up the Environment Agency’s time.
In addition, since 2010 it is understood that consideration has been given to costs recovery. Did the Minister’s department give any consideration to recovery of the Environment Agency’s costs for monitoring and administering the new enforcement undertakings element of the order? Will he confirm that the Environment Agency can recover its costs from the order? The reply of the Minister in the other place rather missed the point to a certain extent, in his statement that it has no effect on business. It should surely be possible to produce an impact assessment on the benefits to business in this Better Regulation measure. After all, it is the aim of Better Regulation to bring benefits.
Finally, the ability to quantify the value of ecosystem services has also developed greatly since 2010. Are the Government able to give an estimate of the ecosystem services benefit of the increased compliance resulting from this change? I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify his department’s approach to the benefits of this order.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked how farmers will be affected by these changes. Under the new system, farmers will be treated in the same way as any other business. The regulations will enable farmers who have a general approach to compliance to propose enforcement undertakings to the Environment Agency as part of the regime. It will form part of the way in which they can resolve issues. He has reminded me that I should probably declare an interest as a landowner.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a number of questions. He asked about guidance. I am not sure I am going to be able to satisfy him entirely today but I can say that my department will be writing to the Environment Agency, setting out the expectation of how environmental permitting enforcement undertakings will be used. It has already consulted on and will pay heed to the existing guidance on the use of environmental undertakings, which is currently being reviewed. That is probably as far as I can go today on that point.
The noble Lord asked about costs recovery. The regulations do not affect the level of inspection or enforcement. Enforcement undertakings will be an alternative to prosecution in suitable cases. Advice and guidance from the Environment Agency will remain the foundation of the environmental enforcement system. I do not think they will have an upward impact on costs at all. I think he also asked why there is no impact assessment, which I hope I explained. No impact assessment is needed for what is, in effect, a voluntary measure that will impact only on those who are not compliant and who voluntarily offer enforcement undertakings. For the delivery of this final part of the Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, we have chosen to rely on the original impact assessment from 2010.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the question I asked. I well understand the logic in both the Explanatory Memorandum and the noble Lord’s words that this has no impact and does not require any new regulation to be complied with. Nevertheless, this is a measure that will bring benefits, so I wonder whether any assessment has been made to quantify what is likely to result from the benefits of better regulation.
Lord De Mauley
I referred to what I think is the best estimate we can make although, as the noble Lord will understand, it is quite difficult to do because it depends on take-up. However, if I can add anything to what I have already said in my opening remarks, I will write to him.
The noble Lord also asked whether I can update the Committee on the Environment Agency’s guidance. I have already said a few words about that. The agency has its guidance, trained staff and an established approval and governance process, which includes oversight by a director-level national panel to promote consistency and the sharing of full information. On that basis, I hope that I have answered most of the questions that have been put to me, but to the extent that I have not, I will write.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
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.
Deregulation Bill
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, legislation on public rights of way is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. I declare an interest as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of uncontentious footpaths.
In Committee, many of the issues behind the proposals in the Bill were examined. One of these was the question of procedures and costs involved in addressing the complexities highlighted by footpaths going through gardens and farmyards and alongside private homes, with the consequential privacy and safety concerns. I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue and the stakeholder group did address it. However, the measures in the relevant passage of the Bill should alleviate most of the problems. This is not to deny that there may be the further concerns to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has drawn our attention.
In Committee, we were concerned that these measures and others should be subject to follow-up through a report to Parliament. They are, as I have said, very important measures and progress must be made. From the debate in Committee, it is clear that there are several channels of communication through which progress can be monitored and outcomes highlighted, and I am not sure whether there is a need for this proposed new clause to be in the Bill. The Minister at the time may find that a Written Statement would be entirely sufficient and satisfactory as a method of addressing this, but there may be others. The stakeholder working group can issue reports for deliberation. However, if progress is not forthcoming, then we shall certainly return to the issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I declare an interest as the owner of a farm across which there are public rights of way and, indeed, as a user of public rights of way myself.
We have considerable sympathy for those people, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford, who face problems with a public right of way that passes through their farm or garden and who feel that the system has let them down or conspired against them. Where these cases occur, people may indeed experience acute problems, but they are comparatively few and we should ensure that any changes we make to legislation are proportionate to the extent of the problem.
Rather unconventionally, I will go in reverse order, and turn first to Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I understand that the intention behind the regulation it proposes is to enable the creation of rules prescribing how local authorities must make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. We believe that the combined effect of our existing measures, which have cross-party support in both Houses, will make a significant difference and that we should not legislate further before seeing how these measures work out in practice. I will explain why that is.
There is clear agreement among stakeholders on the working group that the major difficulty for landowners is in getting local authorities to make a diversion or extinguishment order in the first place. Our plans to implement the right to apply for such orders are designed to overcome this. The right to apply will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way. With that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it. Therefore, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests or dismiss them out of hand; they will be obliged either to make an order or to be prepared to justify their reasons for not doing so on appeal to the Secretary of State.
The right to apply will be extended to land-use types other than those for agriculture, forestry and the keeping of horses—for example, to private residential gardens. The right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. I suggest that guidance such as this, which has been introduced though agreement among stakeholders, is far more likely to prove successful in practice, regardless of whether it has statutory backing.
I realise that there is the further hurdle of getting an order confirmed. However, my noble friend Lady Byford quoted my words in Committee to the effect that, according to Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the 1,257 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the last three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the 6% that did, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State.
In addition, the guidance will give authorities more scope to confirm orders made in the interests of the landowner in circumstances where a right of way may cause hardship because it goes through the garden of a family home, a working farmyard or other commercial premises where privacy, safety and security are a problem. In light of the guidance, authorities would have to put forward compelling reasons for not confirming an order in such circumstances.
We appreciate, and my noble friend will be the first to point out, that the numbers of orders confirmed without objections may fall under the right to apply. Each case will depend on the merits of the proposal. However, given the statistics I have outlined, we believe that the combination of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect and that we should not rush to legislate before giving these measures a chance to work in practice.
Lord De Mauley
I understand my noble friend’s point, but I hope he would be prepared to give the provisions in the Bill a chance. They are actually quite far reaching. With great respect to my noble friends, who have raised some important points, we are talking here about points which, in their eyes, would make yet further improvements. I think my noble friends acknowledged in their speeches today that there are already some good, positive changes in this Bill. I hope my noble friend would accept that.
Moreover, under the right to apply provisions, the Secretary of State will be the confirming authority for all disputed orders. The Government will therefore be in a prime position to promote implementation of the revised policy set out in the guidance by setting a clear precedent with any cases that come before the Secretary of State. In addition, the Government will work with rights of way officers, through their professional organisations, actively to promote to local authorities the existing guidance on diversion or extinguishment of rights of way which pass through gardens, farmyards or commercial premises.
To return to the amendment, the existing legislation on extinguishments and diversions, in Sections 118 and 119 of the Highways Act 1980, already sets out rules, which Parliament has debated and agreed, under which local authorities make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. My noble friend’s proposed regulation-making power would, in effect, be a power to make new rules by delegated legislation and therefore without full parliamentary scrutiny. I suggest that it is highly unlikely that we would get stakeholder agreement to such a measure, knowing that this was the purpose behind the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale
Will my noble friend give way? I thought, or at least I hoped, that I had made it quite clear that, if my noble friend accepted my amendment—which, clearly, he is not going to—it would be necessary to have a Third Reading amendment to make these regulations by affirmative order. In that case, of course, they would have parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend makes a fair point.
It has been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that Parliament agrees with our view that that the consensus should be supported by keeping the rights of way package as it stands. I spoke to the stakeholder working group at its latest meeting and learnt at first hand that its overriding aim is to get the package implemented intact. We are determined that the consensus should not be put at risk by adding measures that have not been discussed with stakeholders and, of course, not consulted on.
Amendment 7, tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford, is intended to ensure that the Government review the success or otherwise of these measures after their implementation. That is an absolutely laudable aim and one that, in any event, would be a matter of good practice. However, although we agree with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of the right to apply and associated guidance, I hope that my noble friend will agree that it would not be appropriate to use a deregulatory Bill to impose on the Government the statutory burden of making a formal report. That would run contrary to the aims of the Bill.
In the other place, the Government have already put on record that the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of a review panel to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date. I am happy to put on record now that we will ensure that any arrangements to review the rights of way reforms will include an assessment, within two years of implementation of the reforms package, of how effective the right to apply provisions and the accompanying guidance have proved in getting local authorities to respond positively to applications for public path extinguishment or diversion orders.
The proposed assessment will include an opportunity for people to provide evidence to the stakeholder working group either through wider consultation outside the group or a call for evidence. The assessment will send a message to authorities that the Government are determined that the new policy should work and that if guidance does not bring about sufficient change, we will consider introducing further measures.
My noble friend Lady Byford returned to the issue that we discussed in Committee about the authorisation of gates. We recognise that an amendment to extend the powers to authorise gates and similar structures could be helpful to people with a right of way going through their premises or garden. The stakeholder working group discussed this at some length. While there was agreement about the proposal in principle, the group has not yet arrived at a formulation on which it could agree. Those measures have not, unlike the rest of the package, been widely consulted on and are therefore not necessarily agreed by wider stakeholders, whose views we also have to consider.
Concerns have been expressed by users of rights of way about the possible proliferation of gates and other structures across rights of way. Particular concern has been raised with me by equestrian groups in the stakeholder working group that I attended. They are worried about riders with disabilities who may not be able to dismount or who have difficulties in opening and closing gates without risk of injury to themselves or their horse. Since the House of Lords Committee stage of the Bill I have received correspondence expressing concern about the suggestion that the powers of local authorities to authorise gates should be further extended beyond those changes already being introduced by Clause 24.
My noble friend also raised the point about the right to apply not providing a presumption that paths will be diverted away from gardens, houses and businesses. We have covered that quite extensively. The guidance agreed by the stakeholder working group introduces a presumption that paths will be diverted away from houses and businesses. We believe that the guidance, combined with the right to apply, will have the desired effect. My noble friend also asked whether there should not be a time limit on making claims based on long use. The stakeholder working group has not been able to reach an agreement on that, but it will continue to keep it under review.
On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, although I am grateful to my noble friend for his full response to my Amendment 7 and for his acceptance that the review should take place two years after the Bill becomes enacted rather than after three years, as was originally proposed, I will read Hansard carefully—but this is indeed welcome.
I still have some concerns about the important ongoing work by the stakeholder working group. We get such few opportunities of such legislation coming before us in Parliament, when we have a chance to try to make sure that practicalities are overcome if they possibly can be—although that is not always possible. I hope that the stakeholder working group will continue to work closely together to try to resolve some of these issues. They are not impossible to resolve. My noble friend Lord Cathcart said that it is costly to apply for diversions. I gather that unopposed diversions cost about £2,000, but those that are opposed cost more than £8,000 and can be dearer. We need to keep that in the back of our minds when we are talking in fairly general terms about something that was a problem 40 years ago, to which my noble friend Lord Spicer referred.
Although there are improvements in this Bill, which I have publicly acknowledged, there are still things that need addressing. If that cannot be done within the Bill, I hope that the words that my noble friend the Minister has given me today will fill me with confidence rather than suggesting that he thinks that I have got it wrong.
We have another stage. Other Peers have taken part in this short debate: my noble friends Lord Skelmersdale, Lord Cathcart and Lord Spicer, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The noble Lord has, as I do, footpaths across his land and we are happy to have them. Ours are not contentious, but there are people—and 1% is 1% too many—who are having a rough time, because the various interested bodies cannot get together to try to reach a proper outcome to something that I hope is not an insurmountable problem. It may seem a huge problem to those who want the right of way; and those who say that if they were to divert it, that would be of benefit to everybody. Perhaps the working group could attach a little more vigour to some of the outstanding issues.
I thank my noble friend and other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and, with my noble friend’s words saying that within two years there will be a review panel rather than a report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, government Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 in this group are minor and technical in nature and do not make any substantive change to the policy of Clause 25 or Schedule 7. They make in fact the following changes.
One is a correction to new Section 54C(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is concerned with modification consent orders, to make any path or way resulting from such an order “maintainable at public expense” instead of making the surveying authority responsible for its maintenance. This small change in terminology makes the provision consistent with existing rights of way provisions and avoids creating any uncertainty among practitioners. There are extant provisions that enable diversion and extinguishment orders to be severed, where only part of an order is subject to a valid objection. Another change in terminology substitutes “parts” for “modifications” in these provisions. That is because “modifications” has a very particular meaning in relation to definitive map modification orders and is best confined to that context.
The final change is to enable the Secretary of State to decide which procedure to use in deciding appeals and objections on rights of way diversion and extinguishment orders. This will make the procedure consistent with that for recording rights of way. It will enable the Secretary of State to opt for the exchange of written representations rather than a hearing or public inquiry and avoid unnecessary and costly public inquiries where there is no justification for them.
My noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Bradshaw have amendments in this group, but it is appropriate that they introduce them before I respond. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, the problem we are trying to deal with is the unauthorised use of green lanes by 4x4 vehicles and trail motorbikes. This problem is getting worse, making many rights of way impassable and creating an intrusive noise nuisance. Present legislation is entirely inadequate for dealing with this problem. Local authorities which are short of resources are unable or unwilling to commit to dealing with an outdated and burdensome situation.
When the Peak District National Park and other national parks were formed, the use of rights of way by 4x4 vehicles and trail motorbikes for recreational purposes was not foreseen. At present there is no simple way of dealing with this obstructive and noisy nuisance and some fresh way must be found to deal with a problem that prevents walkers and riders enjoying the countryside. The purpose of any new legislation would be to create a right of appeal where a highway authority fails to make a traffic regulation order that excludes motor vehicles from a byway open to all traffic, and other green lanes, where there is evidence that such an action is necessary. At present, local communities have no redress if their highway authority refuses to act.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested groups to recommend the changes to the Bill as a package, to streamline the process, and to make quicker progress with less contention and confrontation, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026, the cut-off date under the CROW Act 2000. We agree with the measures in the Bill as a balanced approach to speed up the process. We wish to retain the consensus and build on it. I am grateful to the Government for listening to our views and those of many others, reflecting on the proposals and coming forward with these further technical clarifications. We agree that the stakeholder working group must be retained following this excellent report, and its remit extended to experience more contentious, protracted issues. Indeed, in the other place, the Minister agreed to set this up.
The problem raised through Amendment 17 is one that needs addressing, but not in the context of this Bill. This is not to deny that there are issues, costs and damage created by the use of off-road all-terrain vehicles. However, they must be addressed in the context that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access, with the remaining 38% due to recreation. The damage done by this 38% cannot be denied, and the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Judd have highlighted this tonight. But 70% of byways are without drainage, and much damage can be done by farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance. The stakeholder working group must be allowed to examine the issue to find solutions first, to be arrived at through dialogue, a process more likely to result in less conflict, more compromise and thus acceptance, reducing the need for enforcement. Ministers could then make better informed decisions. These measures relating to public rights of way will bring benefit to all interests—land owners, local authorities and the public, even with their competing interests.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, and particularly inside national parks, we are addressing similar issues to a debate we had in Committee. We sympathise with genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads, encapsulated in Amendment 17 by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. I have seen some of the pictures that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to. We agree that this is an issue which needs to be tackled and some means of resolution found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Deregulation Bill said as much, but also recognised that this Bill is not the right mechanism for doing so. The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is an emotive and contentious one, where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that by no means all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is by the recreational use of motor vehicles, and I broadly confirm the figures that he mentioned.
We believe that the best way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model. I am grateful to noble Lords who echoed those sentiments. That approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the stakeholder consensus on the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in this Bill form the major part. This has resulted in mutually beneficial solutions being arrived at through dialogue and negotiation.
The Government plan to set up such a motor vehicle working group, with an independent chairman, as soon as possible after the Deregulation Bill has completed its passage. My department will work with Natural England to organise a secretariat, and it will invite stakeholders with the relevant experience and expertise to join the group. We propose to invite interested organisations to put forward their suggestions for suitable members. In response to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s specific question, I say that a key principle is that the group should contain a balance of interests across all sectors. We plan to have members who can represent the interests of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national trails as well as all the different types of users of rights of way.
Within such a group, recognised professionals can explore all the viable possibilities and their likely consequences. Resolutions arrived at in this way, based on agreement and mutual interest, are likely to result in less conflict and reduce the need for enforcement. Solutions will work best if based on compromise, and I have been assured by those representing the anti-vehicle groups that it is not their intention to change the legislation in relation to allowing motor vehicle trials and competitions. I welcome this approach, as I do the points made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised a point about access for disabled people to the countryside. This is a complex issue with many different aspects, which is why it needs to be considered carefully by a working group and fully consulted on.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked about timing. I have said that the stakeholder working group will start its work upon completion of the passage of the Bill. We will set a target time for the group to report. The original stakeholder working group took 18 months to report and I believe that a similar timeframe is realistic for this group to work to. I can confirm that a public consultation will follow the report.
While the group needs to have a clear remit, it will be invited to come up with its own terms of reference. I expect that it will look at all the issues in the round and include assessments of any economic and social benefits of the current recreational use of unsealed roads as well as an assessment of the costs and burdens. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will be prepared not to press his amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank the Minister for what he has said, but what was missing was the question of what happens—
Lord De Mauley
“(3) Where a modification consent order takes effect, any path or way, or any part of a path or way, which is shown in a definitive map and statement in consequence of the order or any special order combined with it under section 54B(5) is maintainable at the public expense”
Lord De Mauley
Lord De Mauley
“( ) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (4) (as inserted by sub-paragraph (4) of this paragraph) insert—
“(5) In the case of an order relating to England, the Secretary of State may, instead of affording a person an opportunity of being heard as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b), (2A)(b) or (3)(b), afford the person an opportunity of making representations (or further representations) to a person appointed by him for the purpose.“(6) Where the Secretary of State acts under sub-paragraph (5) by affording a person an opportunity of making representations (or further representations) instead of an opportunity of being heard as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) or (3)(b), the reference in sub-paragraph (2) or (as the case may be) (3)(c) to the report of the person appointed to hear representations or objections is to be read as a reference to the report of the person appointed under sub-paragraph (5).””
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I can be brief because of the powerful arguments made this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lord Harris. The points they made were extremely telling. It is incumbent now upon the Government and the Minister to try and answer why an approach that is non-localist and bureaucratic should proceed rather than the current arrangements under the London Local Authorities Act 2007. What is the problem with London that this seeks to solve? It is incumbent on the Government to say.
The Government’s focus on this area is all very well, but is it the right priority at the moment? The Minister will be aware of current figures for recycling rates that show that for England household recycling has pretty much flatlined, with a very small increase in the last figures that I have seen. There are real concerns that recycling rates could potentially decline. I would have thought that the Government should be more worried about that than tying up these bureaucratic arrangements that have been so roundly challenged tonight. I hope the Minister will be able to explain very clearly why the Government are where they are on this.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I believe that there is broad political consensus that Clause 44 is needed to introduce a fair system of penalties related to household waste collection in England. This new system will treat individuals more fairly than hitherto and deal effectively with those whose behaviour has a negative impact on residents’ local neighbourhoods, such as leaving bin bags on the street for days on end.
The clause removes the current criminal sanctions available under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The system we propose means that fixed penalties of between £60 and £80 will be available if a person does not present household waste as required and this causes a nuisance or is detrimental to the locality. The clause introduces a “harm to local amenity” test. Civil sanctions will be available to deal with behaviour such as putting waste out in a way that causes obstruction to neighbours, attracts pests, unreasonably impedes access to pavements or is an eyesore.
In Amendments 18 and 19, my noble friend proposes to retain a parallel system in London. We want to change the law so that only people causing real problems for their community will get punished—for example, people leaving bin bags on the street for days on end. The new test of causing harm to local amenity is designed to ensure this. My noble friend’s amendment would enable London boroughs to bypass this important safeguard. That would mean that if a London resident happened to leave a bin lid open or if someone threw the wrong rubbish into someone else’s recycling bin then the householder—that is, someone else—could be punished, in London.
We do not think it appropriate for people to be penalised for a first-time mistake or someone else’s careless action. They should be told what they have done wrong and have the opportunity to rectify their errors. Clause 44 introduces these changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I am confident that this will not add significant burdens compared to how the current arrangements operate in practice. We know that many authorities already communicate well with their residents and seek to educate them if they have difficulties with collection requirements.
Lord Harris of Haringey
Can the Minister tell us how many instances of the cases he has described have led to action under the London local authorities scheme?
Lord De Mauley
I am quite happy to do that. If I cannot do so during this debate, I will let the noble Lord know whatever information I can find for him.
Clause 44 would ensure that this best practice is adopted and that additional safeguards for the individual are available across all boroughs.
I understand that my noble friend is concerned that the process of issuing penalties will take too long. We need to get the balance right between protecting individuals’ civil liberties and dealing with behaviours which damage local neighbourhoods. We intend that this is reflected in legislation. Since the Deregulation Bill was first published in draft, we have amended Clause 44 so that local authorities will not have to issue multiple warnings to people who repeat the same behaviour of causing harm to the local amenity within a year.
We also believe in a fair and measured approach to penalties. A shoplifter committing a first offence may be issued with a £90 penalty notice for disorder. My noble friend’s amendment would levy penalties of £110 for mistakes and carelessness with Londoners’ bins. Clause 44 allows us to set the level of penalties at between £60 and £80 because we do not believe such mistakes and carelessness should be penalised more heavily than shoplifting. I understand my noble friend’s focus on London and know she would like the city to be treated as a special case. However, other cities in England have, for example, high-density housing, transient populations and student populations. I am sure she would accept that a proportionate, fair approach should apply throughout England.
My noble friend asked why the clause needed to be so wordy. We appreciate that the clause and the schedule are long and look complicated. There are two reasons for that. First, we want to be clear about the process that local authorities must go through as we do not want householders to be penalised for a first-time, inadvertent mistake. Secondly, we are looking to align two different systems, set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the London Local Authorities Act 2007.
To summarise, this clause as it stands will introduce the protection that a household needs from being punished for a simple mistake or for people throwing the wrong rubbish into someone else’s bin. It will align all of England with a sensible approach that keeps residents informed and levels of penalties proportionate.
My noble friend Lord Tope asked whether I would be prepared to meet him about this, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked the same question. Of course I would be prepared to do that, but I would not want to raise any expectation that the Government will change their position on this. I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tope
Is the Minister able to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put to him about the number of prosecutions? As I understand it, he does not have that information to hand. The fact is that in the six or seven years of operating the scheme there has not been one single appeal against the issue of penalty charge notices. Would he conclude, as I do, that that suggests there have been very few issued and even fewer judged to have been unfairly issued?
Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11 December 2014 be approved.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 22 January
Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 13th 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, these regulations deliver one of the main measures contained in the package of policies set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 6 February 2013 to tackle issues relating to dog welfare and irresponsible dog ownership. We have amended the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that its criminal provisions on dangerously out-of-control dogs are extended to private property. We have also increased the penalties available for the worst dog attacks and provided authorities with new preventative powers in the form of community protection notices. In addition, these regulations will make it compulsory for all dogs in England to be microchipped.
Over the past three years, an average of just over 100,000 stray dogs a year were passed to English local authorities and welfare organisations. Of those dogs not able to be reunited with their owners, some 38,000 dogs were re-homed and a further 8,000 were put down. The annual cost incurred by local authorities and welfare organisations in dealing with stray dogs is more than £30 million. That is not to mention the distress caused to dogs and owners.
Since we first announced our intention to introduce this requirement in February 2012, the number of dogs microchipped is estimated to have risen from 58% to 70%; but we consider that we are close to the ceiling of the number of dogs that would be microchipped if we were to maintain the voluntary approach. Microchipping a dog is a welfare measure. Increased traceability allows lost dogs to be reunited with their keepers more quickly and therefore avoids dogs having to spend unnecessary time in kennels with possible resultant welfare problems or the need to be re-homed. I expect compulsory microchipping to have the additional benefits of reducing kennelling costs to local authorities and welfare organisations and allowing abandoned and nuisance dogs to be traced back to their keepers, who may then, if appropriate, be held to account.
The regulations require that, from April 2016—unless a vet has certified that a dog should not be microchipped for reasons of its health—all keepers of dogs in England must have their dogs microchipped. The regulations define “microchipped” as both having a compliant microchip implanted in the dog and, crucially, having the keeper’s up-to-date details on a reunification database. The details of the dog and its breeder, where known, also need to be recorded. This should help to encourage more responsible breeding as breeders will be more traceable.
Only trained people, including vets, veterinary nurses and others who have passed an approved dog microchipping course, will be able to implant microchips. Microchips and database operators must meet certain standards, including the ability to supply information to authorised persons to enable dogs to be reunited with their owners on a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis.
In keeping with the Government’s wish to have light-touch enforcement of the regulations, the microchipping requirement is enforceable primarily by the issue of a notice. Any keeper of a dog found without a microchip can be handed a notice by a local authority authorised person or a police constable requiring them to get their dog microchipped within 21 days. There is then a fine on conviction, currently up to £500, for non-compliance with such a notice. Finally, all dogs must be microchipped before they can be transferred to a new keeper, unless a vet has certified otherwise.
Microchipping is a relatively simple process which a number of animal welfare groups and local authorities have been offering free for many years. Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home offer free microchipping at their respective centres, and the Dogs Trust has offered to meet the cost of microchips and has set aside £6 million to help ensure all unchipped dogs are microchipped ahead of April 2016. Animal welfare groups are already campaigning to raise awareness of this new obligation as well as of the benefits of microchipping. We also plan to undertake significant communications activity ahead of April 2016 to ensure breeders and keepers are aware of this new duty.
These regulations will help tackle the problem of stray dogs and help to reunite keepers with lost pets more quickly. They will also lessen the burden on animal charities and local authorities and protect the welfare of dogs by encouraging responsible ownership. I commend these regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing these regulations forward. The Minister was right when he said that the voluntary scheme is probably reaching its upper limit and that to catch the last pool of dogs that are not chipped, compulsion is needed. At the same time as congratulating the Government, I congratulate the many animal charities he mentioned—Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the Kennel Club—on how proactive they have been in working on this issue. I congratulate Dogs Trust on coming forward with its offer of free chipping because that makes a tremendous difference. The Minister mentioned that the saving to the public purse would be over £30 million every year, which is a significant sum.
I have three questions. First, Regulation 6 relates to the conditions to be met by a database operator. The Minister mentioned that Defra will advertise the reunification databases but, if you are dog owner, how do you know which databases are approved? The regulations state that the database must be approved and lays out all the things that have to be done for it to be approved, but how will the dog owner know which databases advertising on, say, the internet have that approval from Defra and which are just rogue databases which will not meet the conditions?
My second question relates to another detail of the conditions that have to be met by a database operator. I can see why the Minister mentioned that telephone and online requests will need to be answered at all times. Having no knowledge of who is going to be operating these databases, I am slightly concerned about whether a 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week service is practical. I am sure that the Minister’s department may have done some research into this.
My last question relates to Regulation 8, which concerns a change of keeper. It is rather worryingly ambiguous that,
“where a dog is transferred to a new keeper, the new keeper must, unless the previous keeper has already done so, record their full name, address”,
and so on. The point is that the person who is giving up a dog that they do not want might say, “Well, it’s okay Fred. I’ve done all that. There’s no need to worry about it”. How would the new keeper know that the previous keeper had recorded all that information? When you transfer a car, there is a very definite document. Therefore, I wonder whether this regulation depends simply on trust or whether there will be something to back it up.
I congratulate the Government and I warmly congratulate the dog charities and all the other charities involved on all their efforts in this area. I think that this will hugely benefit not only dog owners but lost dogs too.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and questions. Let me do my best to address them. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer raised a number of questions. She started off asking which databases are approved. We will be publishing a list of the databases that inform us that they are compliant by 6 April this year, which is the date by which the microchipping database operators must comply with the requirements set down in the regulations. In answer to her second question, they will not be approved unless they can perform 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She asked a question about change of keeper. I suspect I might return to that but basically the buck stops with the new keeper. The new keepers are the people in whose interest it is to make sure that the dog is microchipped, because they are the ones who will suffer if the dog does not come back to them. I will return to that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised a number of points. He referred to the issue of dog breeding and he should be aware—I know he is—that this is not the primary purpose of these regulations, which is to allow more easy reunification of a dog and its owner when the dog has strayed. I will return to the breeders issue in a moment. The noble Lord raised issues related to the Deregulation Bill. We are looking at those issues and the record-keeping requirements on dog breeding. My colleagues dealing with the Bill are well aware of the issues, and they are considering whether any action or clarification is necessary.
Lord Grantchester
My anxiety is raised because the Minister at the time mentioned a consultation and yet the various sector bodies in the industry seem to be unaware of that consultation.
Lord De Mauley
I understand that. I will return to him in writing on that particular point.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry to add to the cacophony of voices on this. It is not my topic but I am in charge of the Deregulation Bill on this side. I just point out to the noble Lord, and I am sure he is aware of this, that we will be on Report within a few days, so it is important for us to know whether we should be pursuing this issue. We would therefore be happy if the letter could come expeditiously.
Lord De Mauley
I take that point on board: expedition is the name of the game. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether full discussion on guidance would be taking place with a number of interest groups that he referred to. I can assure him that there is very active two-way communication with those groups. He asked about the adequacy of local authority resources. It is very clear from our discussions with both dog welfare organisations and local authorities that this is about saving them money. It is not going to involve them in more expense but will reduce the amount of time it will take to identify who the owner is, so I am pretty confident about that particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, raised a number of important questions. First, I thank him for his support for the regulations and acknowledge his point that these measures, on their own, are not a silver bullet. Indeed, we never expected them to be that, but they will, over time, enable us to tackle some of the other issues that he and I are concerned about. He and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether there would be a single point of contact for the six databases. Regulation 6 requires that database operators must be able to redirect online inquiries to other databases if someone comes through to a database that does not hold the details linked to the microchip. All databases will have a system whereby, if an inquirer enters the microchip number on the wrong database, a pop-up—that may be the wrong technical expression, but I think he and I understand what I mean by that, although perhaps “window” might be a more appropriate word—will be automatically generated on the screen which, when clicked on, will redirect the person to the correct database.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised the important point of whether the first keeper will always be the breeder. There is also the issue of whether that is dealt with in guidance. Yes, the breeder, as defined by the regulations, is always considered the first keeper of a puppy. This is covered in the Explanatory Memorandum to the SI and will be included in the guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked for clarity about who is responsible for change of ownership. I have touched on that already. Regulation 8 is clear that it is the responsibility of the new keeper to update the database where there is a change of keeper. He also suggested that there is some question over the use of the word “transponder”. This is essentially a technical issue but there is not a problem. The chip must conform with the FDX-B protocol set out in ISO standards, which is referred to in the regulations. The important point is that the chip must respond to a scanner at a given frequency.
The noble Lord also asked about the term “authorised person”. To clarify, the reference to authorised person is in respect of someone enforcing the regulations. Vets are not defined as authorised persons in the regulations; there is no provision limiting the provision of information to others to aid reunification of dogs and their keepers or to deal with other matters such as faulty microchips. These relationships will not be affected by the regulations and we would expect relevant consents from keepers to be in place already in relation to disclosing personal data. We would expect vets, re-homing centres and microchip manufacturers that already have a working relationship with database operators to have some secure identifier, if they do not have one already, from the database operators to ensure that they are bona fide inquirers for data protection purposes.
The noble Lord asked about a recommended site for implantation. This will be covered by the implantation training, so we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to legislate on this point. The training also advises implanters to check that the dog does not have a chip in a different implantation site and to check for any microchip migration.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether there were any conditions that database operators must meet and whether they applied to the UK only. Regulation 6 sets out the conditions to be met by the database operator. Databases do not have to be located in any particular country but the conditions apply to any database that holds itself out as being compliant with these regulations. He also asked what happens if a dog strays while it is overseas. I am afraid that that will depend on whether an analogous set of rules applies in that country.
I have done my best, although I suspect that when I go through Hansard, I may find questions that have been left unanswered. If I may, I will write on those. I think noble Lords all share with me the strong view that irresponsible dog ownership is a complex problem to which there is no single, simple solution. We have introduced a series of measures, of which these regulations are the latest. We believe they will help promote animal welfare and encourage responsible dog ownership. The draft regulations will help lost dogs to be reunited with their keepers more quickly, so reducing any suffering of the dogs and distress to their keepers. The increased traceability of dogs to keepers will ensure that keepers can be held to account better if their dogs are allowed to roam and cause a nuisance. They will also save local authorities and re-homing centres money, which can be better spent elsewhere to promote dog welfare and encourage responsible ownership.
Milk Production
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the long-term sustainability of milk production in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, we share farmers’ concerns over the pressures on milk prices caused by the volatility of the global market and we are working closely with industry. It is important to remember that the long-term prospects are good, with exports at record levels. We are helping the dairy industry take advantage of opportunities such as opening new export markets and pushing for better country of origin labelling for British dairy products.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that, should we lose any of our capacity to produce milk due to the very low prices of imported milk at the moment, the nature of the dairy industry is such that you cannot quickly and efficiently turn it back on again when another shortage occurs—as there clearly will be at some point? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to draw together dairy farmers, processors and, above all, retailers so that we can guarantee the long-term viability of our dairy industry and also ensure that the prices of milk reflect the costs of production?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, to address the short-term problem, my honourable friend George Eustice, the farms Minister, yesterday held a farming resilience summit precisely so that this subject could be a central focus. Noble Lords may also have seen that DairyCo has offered advice and assistance to farmers in cash-flow planning and volatility management. Other actions in hand include investigating whether the seasonal cyclicality of prices lends itself to the use of futures markets to smooth the price curve, and we are putting pressure on the commissioner to accelerate the improvement of country-of-origin labelling.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Does the Minister accept that there is a need for long-term stability for the dairy sector to flourish, and that a price below 29 pence a litre at farm gate, which was the average price in November, is not sustainable? Does he accept that action needs to be taken? Does he believe that the steps to which he referred with regard to co-operation with our European partners in dairy matters on the question of labelling is enough to deliver what is needed for that stability?
Lord De Mauley
I certainly agree with the first half of what the noble Lord has said. I am not suggesting that the work on labelling is by any means the only tool. That is why, as I have said, we are looking at the use of futures markets, because there is evidence of a seasonal cyclicality of milk prices. At certain times of the year a crunch tends to be worse, and such crunches can be foreseen, so we want to smooth that curve. But crucial is our work on exports, and noble Lords will be interested to know that exports to non-EU markets of dairy products are up by 47% year on year.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that one of the ways forward could be the model used by Tesco which has a margin-plus deal with farmers where at least farmers have an idea of what the future looks like and they get a decent price for their milk?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, my Lords. Certainly, innovative deals such as that are of real value to farmers. Sadly, not all farmers are able to negotiate those deals, but we are working with them, as I have said, on various ways to resolve the problem.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, I was at the summit yesterday hosted by his colleague George Eustice. While the long-term prospects for the dairy sector would appear to be good, what is also clear is that volatility is now an ongoing feature of global trading. I am concerned, as is the right reverend Prelate, about the long-term sustainability of the British dairy industry and the fact that we may lose market share. I understand that the Irish Government have introduced five-year tax averaging for businesses, which has existed in Denmark for a long time. Would the Minister consider approaching the Treasury to see whether that might be possible?
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Does the Minister agree that one way of reducing the cost of production would be to introduce mega-dairies and very big units in the way that has been done for poultry and pigs? Does he have a view on that and what sort of size would the Government welcome?
Lord De Mauley
Certainly, my Lords, some producers are able to produce milk at a much lower rate—I met a farmer the other day who claimed to be producing milk in the mid-teens. We do not have strong views on the size of units of farms. What matters is stockmanship.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that milk coming from grass-fed cows kept out of doors is of a superior nutritional quality? Further, will he say how important that is to the look of the countryside in all those areas dependent on tourism? Does he think that that would be answered by large industrial units?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, there is a strong case for extensive farming. We see it in this country and some farmers are practising it very profitably. It depends to a large extent on the part of the country—on the rainfall, the quality of the grass and so forth. As I have said before, we think that there is a place for various different types of farming.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding the voluntary codes by Tesco and so forth referred to earlier, which are to be commended, they apply only to a minority of dairy farmers. Is there not a case for extending the Groceries Code to primary producers of such vital products as milk? Most dairy farms are not protected under the code because they do not directly supply retailers; they supply processors.
Lord De Mauley
I have considered that point carefully, my Lords. The scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is based on a report from the Competition Commission, which found that the most significant problems in the area were experienced by direct suppliers to the UK’s 10 largest supermarkets. As a result, the Competition Commission recommended the creation of the GCA and limited its jurisdiction to the relationships between those 10 largest supermarkets and their direct suppliers. Any change to that would require primary legislation. It is a little premature to take the next step, because there is a mechanism in place for conducting a review and the first one of those is set for 31 March 2016.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, the Question talks about the sustainability of the dairy industry. I am sure my noble friend is aware that the milk cheque is one of the most important ways of keeping agriculture going in this country. The number of dairy farmers has reduced from 30,000 about 15 years ago to 10,000 now. It seems that people are giving up. Can we impress this point on the Treasury, or whoever, and particularly on the retailers? Instead of having five private planes—in the case of one of our leading retailers—could not the retailers consider the future of agriculture in terms of the food supply to them in this country?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend, as always, puts her finger on a key part of the problem. I have outlined a number of measures that we are taking. I can also add to that the use of the RDP—the Rural Development Programme—to foster improvement of competitiveness and profitability, for example, by increased emphasis on value-added products, such as cheese and yoghurt. I think that is really important to our market. Once again I have to come back to you on the real importance of our work on exports.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that cash flow, which he touched on in an earlier answer, is a critical matter, both for farmers and co-operatives? Can he say whether he feels that the banks are playing their part in sustaining the farming industry by supporting them through volatility in cash flow?
Lord De Mauley
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Cash flow is crucial. You can be as profitable as you like, but if you have no money in the bank, you cannot pay the bills. The noble Baroness is alluding to the cash-flow problems that face not only farmers but co-operatives. First Milk is a co-operative, wholly owned by farmers, and it is in the interests of farmers that it should survive and thrive. Work such as that being done by Dairy UK, which I referred to earlier, on helping farmers with cash flow is really important. Some of the banks are doing similar work.
United States: Haggis Ban
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McColl of Dulwich
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to persuade the United States to lift its ban on the import of haggis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, the United States Food and Drug Administration does not allow animal lungs in products for human consumption. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State Owen Paterson lobbied the US authorities during his visit in the summer, and we continue to encourage them to adjust their ban on haggis containing sheep lungs as part of the wider European Union negotiations on lifting the transmissible spongiform encephalopathy restrictions on EU lamb.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his usual courteous and informative reply. Is he aware that the United States Government are depriving 24 million American Scots of this wholesome food, which satisfies hunger very much more than the junk food the Americans consume? It would help to deal with the greatest epidemic they have—the obesity epidemic, which is killing millions, costing billions of dollars, and for which the cure is free. Will the Minister encourage the Government to redouble their efforts to persuade the American Government to have much freer trade and lift the 1971 ban on the wholesome haggis?
Lord De Mauley
Well, my Lords, there is quite a lot in that. Perhaps it would help if I explained that two hurdles are involved in what the noble Lord proposes. We have to get over, first, the US restrictions on the import of lamb. We are working with the US authorities towards achieving approval to lift those restrictions with, I think, good prospects. Secondly, there is the US’s unwillingness to recognise animal lungs as an acceptable foodstuff. In this regard the most promising avenue in the short term is the production of haggis omitting the inclusion of lung—and the Scottish Government recognise this.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that not everyone fully understands the haggis. Once for a Burns supper in Germany, Burns’s,
“Great chieftain o’ the puddin-race!”,
was translated into German and then retranslated back as, “Mighty Führer of the sausage people”. Will the Minister make sure that this ridiculous ban comes to an end? If it is not too late, I see that the Prime Minister is with President Obama today, so can my noble friend send an urgent message to make sure that this visit is a triumph by having a private word with the President to make sure that the ban is now lifted?
Lord De Mauley
Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee a rapid resolution of the problem, but I hope I have made clear that we are working extremely hard towards it. Promoting food and drink exports more generally is a key government priority. We are working hard to champion UK food and drink overseas with, I think, considerable success. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently in China doing just that.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I confess to being a little surprised that one of the most senior qualified medical practitioners in the Chamber is asking this Question, seeing that there is a questionable issue about haggis—which I, personally, find a revolting food. Would not charity be better at home? If haggis does indeed deal with obesity, perhaps we should promote it a little in Glasgow.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, what a good idea. As the noble Lord does not appear to like the taste of the,
“Great chieftain o’ the pudding-race”,
I recommend a large tot of whisky.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, given the seriousness of this matter, should the Government not consider appointing a special envoy with energy and imagination to go to the United States and stay there until this matter is resolved? Could I suggest that Alex Salmond is currently looking for work?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I was going to say that it is a question of priorities, but that is an eminently sensible suggestion.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what is served at the British embassy on Burns Night?
Natural Environment
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 1 month 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 De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville for raising a range of important matters today. I warmly welcome the chance to discuss the importance of our natural environment, and the need to reduce emissions, improve green transport and protect wildlife and green spaces.
Most people agree that the environment is important for its own sake. In addition to this intrinsic value, we recognise that the environment provides a range of essential services to society. We all rely on it for our clean air, water, food, energy, opportunities for recreation, and for the contribution that it makes to our well-being. We are deeply committed to improving our natural environment. We have set out that we want ours to be the first generation that leaves the natural environment of England in a better state than when we inherited it.
We know that our environmental goals are challenging and long term, and that they cannot be achieved easily or overnight. Furthermore, government cannot do this alone. We need individuals, businesses, farmers, land managers, community groups and NGOs to work together. We have put in place an ambitious programme of environmental policies to protect the environment for future generations, including bringing forward the first White Paper on the natural environment in 20 years. This has a strong focus on changing how we view the natural environment and on taking better account in decision-making of the many benefits that nature provides to people. We have already implemented the majority of the White Paper’s commitments, putting in place foundations for the longer term.
We are making progress in many areas. For example, our rivers and coastal bathing waters are getting cleaner. Background concentrations of key air pollutants, such as nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, halved in the 20 years up to 2012. We have introduced marine plans for the first time and greatly increased the network of marine-protected areas. We have supported the planting of more than 8 million trees, and woodland cover is at its highest level in 700 years. We have also recently published our pollinator strategy. Looking ahead, we will be investing more than £3 billion from 2014 to 2020 to deliver environmental benefits through the new Rural Development Programme for England. This is in fact a larger share of the overall budget than previously.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell raised the need to reduce emissions, about which we can all strongly agree. The UK is committed under the Climate Change Act to cut emissions by 80% by 2050 and the Government take this extremely seriously. We want to make sure that the UK makes a cost-effective transition to that target. We were pleased to be able to announce in February last year that the UK had met the first carbon budget for the period 2008 to 2012. Furthermore, the latest published projections show that the UK is on track to meet the next two carbon budgets, up to 2022. The Act has helped drive the UK to reduce emissions by almost a quarter since 1990. The Climate Change Act was the first of its kind. Almost 500 climate laws have now been passed in 66 of the largest emitting countries around the world.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell also mentioned green transport. It is well recognised that air quality can affect people’s health, which is why we are investing heavily in measures to improve it. We have committed £2 billion to increase the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles, sustainable travel and green transport initiatives. Overall, air quality has improved significantly in recent decades and the UK currently meets the EU limits for almost all pollutants—though of course we recognise that more needs to be done.
We are also taking action for England’s wildlife through our biodiversity 2020 strategy. For example, since 2010 we have set in hand the creation of nearly 150,000 acres of wildlife habitat, such as field margins, wetlands and woodlands. As part of our strategy, we have established a new, more joined-up approach to conservation—to which my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer referred—through the 12 government-funded nature improvement areas, which are now starting to deliver real improvements on the ground.
Earlier, I mentioned the essential services that nature provides. One important example, to which I have already briefly referred, is pollinators. We are taking action to support bees and other pollinators through our national pollinator strategy, launched in November. The strategy includes actions to improve habitats for pollinators across all land uses in England, enhance our response to pests and diseases, and improve our evidence base, particularly on the current status of pollinators and trends. We have also established a local green-space designation within the planning regime to enable communities to identify green areas of particular importance to them for special protection. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to that.
I will now address some of the matters raised by noble Lords during the debate. My noble friend Lady Bakewell spoke of allowable solutions and zero-carbon homes. The Government consider that retrofitting existing properties with energy-efficiency measures could indeed be an allowable solution that housebuilders can support in order to contribute to the zero-carbon homes target that will be introduced from 2016. New homes from 2016 will still have to meet minimum energy performance requirements, which will be more demanding than those currently required by building regulations.
The noble Baroness spoke about energy efficiency and listed buildings, particularly those with thatched roofs and those unable to take double glazing. Green Deal assessors are trained to assess the energy efficiency needs of all property types and to make recommendations suited to the building, including listed buildings or those with a thatched roof. If a Green Deal plan is put in place, there are specific requirements within the code of practice for Green Deal providers to ensure that the energy-efficient measures are suitable for older or traditional-style buildings.
My noble friend Lord Selborne mentioned the Aichi targets for biodiversity, which form part of the Convention on Biological Diversity strategic plan agreed in 2010. The UK has reported to the convention on its implementation of this plan. The report set out that we are making progress in most areas of the five strategic goals of the plan with substantial progress in some areas. My noble friend asked about the Natural Capital Committee, which we established to advise us on the sustainable use of natural assets and on our priorities for action to improve and protect nature. It is intended to support a transformation in the way we view and value our natural assets. Its third report is due on 27 January. The Government will consider it carefully when it is received before deciding on their response.
My noble friend spoke about hydrogen in the context of transport. We are technology neutral, and we believe that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have a potential role to play alongside battery electric vehicles and plug-in vehicles. In October, we launched the hydrogen technology advancement programme which will see investment from government and industry in new and upgraded hydrogen refuelling stations and support the deployment of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles in public sector fleets. My noble friend Lord Callanan, whose maiden speech we all enjoyed so much, will be pleased that these will contribute to growth and exports in those areas.
My noble friend Lady Miller and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about bats. What is needed is for wildlife and humans to be able to exist in harmony. It is about balance. I am unconvinced that the Private Member’s Bill that my noble friend referred to will achieve that. She will be pleased to hear that we have worked closely with the churches. I visited a church in Norfolk where the damage was very extensive indeed. I am pleased that we have been making important progress with equipment using light and sound to move bats to places where they do less damage. I will look at the railway problem that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised.
My noble friend Lord Bradshaw was one of several noble Lords who focused on air pollution. He is right that emissions from small diesel engines of the type used to power mobile refrigeration units are not currently regulated. The European Commission recently published a proposal to revise the legislation related to exhaust emissions from engines used to power small diesel engines of this type. That proposal, if adopted, would bring those engines into scope. The revision is currently in the early stages of negotiation in the Council and we are considering the proposal, but the general consensus among member states is favourable towards it. My noble friend’s solution is interesting. It is primarily for industry to take forward, but I would be very interested to see the papers he offered.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised the matter of low emission zones. We are working with local authorities on the feasibility and design of such zones and have provided guidance, such as on what vehicles should be covered and what emission standards they should meet. So far, London, Oxford, Norwich and Brighton have introduced low emission zones. While the main reason for poor air quality is vehicle pollution, sources vary from place to place, so measures need to be tailored to local circumstances. My noble friend raised a point about adequate notice, and I take it.
My noble friend Lord Framlingham and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke about trees. As my noble friend kindly acknowledged, I share his passion for trees. I should perhaps declare an interest as I planted 50,000 of them in 2004-05. The forestry and woodlands policy statement sets out our vision for the future of England’s forests, based around the core hierarchy of protecting, improving and expanding our national woodland resources. We have made plant health one of Defra’s highest priorities and taken steps to improve biosecurity through, for example, our biosecurity strategy and our tree health action plan as well as our plant health risk register, which now assesses upwards of 700 pests and pathogens. We have also worked hard on enhanced contingency planning. We have supported the planting of more than 8 million trees, 1 million of them in urban areas, and England now has 10% woodland cover—the highest level in 700 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about local green space. The important thing is that it is for communities to decide. It would typically be land that is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves, is local in character and holds a particular significance for that community—for example, because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value, tranquillity or richness in wildlife. Local green spaces should be designated when a local or neighbourhood plan is prepared, and they are potentially a very powerful tool for communities. Many communities that are preparing neighbourhood plans are seeking to designate green or open areas of significance to them as local green space.
The noble Lord also spoke of the impact of local authority budgets on rights of way. It is the responsibility of local authorities to complete maps of rights of way. Through the Deregulation Bill, we are introducing a streamlined process for recording them to reduce the burden on local authorities in managing this work.
My noble friend Lord Borwick spoke of the effect of air pollution on lungs. Evidence linking air pollution with adverse effects on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems continues to accumulate, and the review by the World Health Organization also notes emerging evidence suggesting a possible association with adverse effects on other body systems, including the endocrine system and the nervous system. The World Health Organization has concluded that the evidence suggests that ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide have direct effects, particularly on respiratory outcomes.
My noble friend asked when we will respond to the Economic Affairs Committee report. I anticipate that, in line with the usual timetable, we will be responding in February. I can confirm that of course my department works very closely with the Department for Transport, the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Public Health England on air quality.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, suggested an interpretation of the proposals that could lead to a downgrading of the local air quality monitoring network. The aim of our review is to reduce administrative burdens to free local authority time and resources so that they can focus on taking action to address air quality. It is important that the consultation proposes the removal of the requirement in regulations for local authorities to report on four pollutants that have been well within limits for many years, and monitoring them will remain at national level. The second part contains a number of proposals to do with improvements to guidance and includes proposals to streamline the local air quality management reporting system for local authorities.
My noble friend Lady Janke spoke of her pride at Bristol having been awarded the title of the European Green Capital of the year. It is the first UK city to have this title. I share her pride in that. It recognises that great city’s environmental performance and vision. We are pleased to be supporting Bristol as the European Green Capital with some extra funding to be invested in a range of projects that will help Bristol remain at the centre of green investment and urban sustainability. We wish Bristol every success with the year’s programme of activities.
My noble friend Lady Ludford raised a number of suggestions for Defra, and I will raise them with my honourable friend Dan Rogerson, the Minister responsible. We are very keen to work in partnership with local authorities and the Commission to avoid any prospect of fines levied from the infraction that she referred to. The main reason for not achieving limit values for nitrogen dioxide is the failure of EU emission standards for diesel engines to deliver the expected emission reductions in real-world driving conditions, and the Commission acknowledges that.
The increase in the number of diesel cars has, of course, exacerbated the problem. All member states, including the UK, are facing difficulties in addressing air pollution. In 2012, 17 out of 27 member states were non-compliant with the annual mean nitrogen dioxide limit value. We are compliant with EU legislation for nearly all air pollutants, although we still face a significant challenge in meeting the nitrogen dioxide limit and we are working very hard on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, should know that defence against floods is alive and well among Defra’s strategic priorities. That is why we have introduced an unprecedented six-year plan, to which more than £2 billion has been pledged.
If I have not been able to address noble Lords’ points and questions I will, of course, write to them. We remain deeply committed to improving our natural environment, which is a vital foundation to both our economy and our future well-being. We know that our environmental goals and ambitions are challenging and long-term. We also know that there is much more to be done and that it will require support from others, not just government. We have put an ambitious programme of environmental policies in place to protect the environment for future generations and we will continue to strive, with a wide range of people and organisations, to ensure that it is achieved.
Health: Diesel Engine Pollution
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 1 month 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 De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, the plan to reduce emissions and pollution is set out in the Sustainable, Resilient, Healthy People & Places strategy. This encourages walking and cycling, which have direct health benefits, and reduces emissions of air pollutants and carbon dioxide. Key to reducing the health impacts of air pollution is reducing emissions at source. We are investing billions of pounds in measures to reduce air pollution, including incentivising low-emission vehicles and sustainable transport.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware—I am sure he is—that, according to Clean Air in London, 55,000 premature deaths a year nationally are attributable to NOx and fine particulates? Already, monitors in Oxford Street and other parts of London have shown that NOx hourly limit values have been breached for the whole of 2015, which is not bad in six days. Why then is Defra consulting on proposals to remove the obligation for local authorities to monitor such pollution? In the absence of that evidence, are the Government trying to avoid blame for denying those 55,000 people their 10 extra years of life, which they could achieve if the policies were implemented?
Lord De Mauley
It is helpful that the noble Lord has asked that question. It gives me the opportunity to clarify that nothing in the consultation could lead to the closure of monitoring stations. It is essentially about streamlining and simplifying the reporting system to reduce unnecessary burdens and speed up delivery of air quality action plan measures to tackle pollutants such as NO2 and particulate materials. We are not proposing a reduction of monitoring by local authorities, but decisions on local air quality monitoring are for them, so ultimately it is up to them to decide what level of monitoring they wish to undertake.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
Does my noble friend recall that until very recently people were encouraged to buy diesel cars because they produced less CO2 and had very attractive rates of vehicle excise duty? What does my noble friend say to those people now?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point, of course. The point is that the EU procedures for testing diesel engines did not deliver the health outcomes that were sought. That is why the Commission is looking at this again.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that the proposal to reduce the reporting requirements of local authorities will not lead to a reduction in the number of reporting stations. But he will have seen analysis that suggests that 600 of them will be closed down because there will be less of a requirement on local authorities to report the provisions. Why will the Government not look again at this?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, to go into a little more detail, the review is aiming, as I said, to reduce administrative burdens to free up local authorities’ time and resources so that they can focus on taking action to address air quality. The consultation was split into two parts. Part 1 proposes the removal of the requirement in regulations for local authorities to report on specific pollutants that have been well within limits for many years. Indeed, monitoring of these will be maintained at national level.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister has considered the use of the petrol and diesel engines which drive the refrigeration units that pervade our high streets, airports and other congested places. Those refrigeration units use fuel but it is not passed through any sort of cleaning-up device to get out the particulates and the NOx. I believe it is a very fruitful field for examination by the Government.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, we have a number of very extensive programmes to reduce the emissions of pollutants from a variety of units, particularly transport. However, I will look into what he says and see if there is anything there that we can do.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, with 4.3 million adults and 1.1 million children suffering from the effects of asthma-related conditions, does the Minister agree that we need to look closely at the World Health Organization’s recent news that an increasing number of British cities are now breaching the safe air pollution levels? In particular, does he agree that we might encourage other cities to follow the example of London, which is now developing a low emission zone for both vehicles and industry, as a way of trying to mitigate some of the huge cost of around £1 billion a year of treating asthma conditions in this country?
Lord De Mauley
I agree with the right reverend Prelate. He will be pleased to know that we are working with local authorities on the feasibility and design of low emission zones and we have provided guidance such as on which vehicles should be covered and what emissions standards they should meet. The right reverend Prelate might like to know that, in addition to London, Oxford, Norwich and Brighton have already introduced low emission zones and other cities are considering them.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are absolutely right to spend—in the Minister’s words—“billions” on seeking to reduce emissions. Will he therefore contact the Mayor of London to tell him how wrong-headed is his policy of reducing or removing the concessions on the congestion charge for very low emission vehicles, which will be brought into effect in December 2016? This is entirely the wrong approach, especially when so many people in the metropolis and elsewhere have bought low emission vehicles specifically to conform with the policy of this and previous Governments.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I understand the noble Lord’s point. He will understand that matters such as this are for London and the mayor to decide, but I will of course do as he asks.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is this issue connected with the quality of imported diesel and, if so, could the Minister say how much of that imported diesel comes from Russia?
Lord De Mauley
I cannot, my Lords. I am not aware that it is specifically to do with the source country of the diesel, but I will look into it.