Dog Licensing
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hoyle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to reintroduce a dog licensing fee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, we have no plans to reintroduce the dog licence. The previous dog licensing scheme ceased in 1987 because it cost more to run than it took in revenue, due in part to the low compliance rate of around 40%.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am sure he will agree with me that this is probably the right time to raise this Question, particularly when people get a dog or a puppy for Christmas, then find it very demanding and turn it out at a later date. I remind the noble Lord that in 2010 70% of those canvassed favoured a return to a dog licensing scheme. Does he know that there is one in Northern Ireland? It functions very well and almost 100% of dogs are microchipped? Dog wardens have more control over the people who own dangerous dogs. Why cannot we follow the example set by Northern Ireland?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is a staunch campaigner on doggie matters. What we are doing—he referred to this—and which goes a long way to achieving what people want from a licensing scheme, is introducing compulsory microchipping under which the record of a dog’s ownership will be maintained on a database.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree—especially as it comes from someone he would describe as a doggie person—that microchipping is particularly important where dangerous dogs are involved, such as dogs listed in the recent Dangerous Dogs Act?
Lord Renton of Mount Harry (Con)
Following on from what has just been said, may I say how delighted I am at what I have just heard the Minister say? It has always seemed to me that there are those who particularly need dogs and who love them dearly. They go out and buy food for them and take them to the vet; the dog is their regular company. I declare an interest; I have a lurcher who is five years old. If I fall asleep after lunch he always wakes me up precisely at 3.30 pm. That shows what a good dog does.
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend has given me the opportunity to declare an interest as a dog owner.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I am one of those who wear a dog collar in this House—and for the privilege of doing so I have to be licensed. But as far as I am aware, no fees have been paid. Might I suggest that enough is enough?
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has stolen my thunder, in a sense. I was going to ask: because of the increasing number of dangerous dog incidents, would it not be worth having a look at licensing the owners?
Lord De Mauley
The noble Lord raises an important point. This is why we have legislated this year to tighten up on the dangerous dogs legislation. Now is not the moment to go into detail, but he has a very important point and the new legislation goes to the particular problems that have arisen in recent years.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, following on from that point, this is a time of year when the number of postal workers attacked by dogs rises quite considerably. We should not underestimate the number of hospital admissions that also take place due to dangerous dogs. Having campaigned on this issue for a number of years, I was encouraged when the Minister said that the Government were looking at further measures to link the owner to the dog through a microchip. Will he say what measures they might well bring forward to reduce the number of dog attacks?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we have worked with the Post Office, Royal Mail and the unions on the legislation that went through this year. Largely, they were extremely happy with what we did and are very pleased that microchipping is coming in.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that perhaps in retrospect he was a little dismissive of our long-standing and much loved dog licensing scheme? Disraeli introduced it in 1874 and the cost—7s 6d—was exactly the same 113 years later. Of how many government schemes can this be said?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, perish the thought that I should be dismissive. My noble friend put his finger on the problem, which was that the price had not gone up and therefore it became uneconomic to continue the scheme.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, if it is acceptable to microchip dogs, why is it not acceptable to have a simple identity card system for humans?
Lord De Mauley
I think the noble Lord will accept that that is somewhat wide of the Question.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I sought in vain to introduce a dog registration scheme allied to microchipping in the mid-1980s. Can my noble friend expand on exactly what the Government plan to do now? He referred to it only briefly.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, with effect from April 2016, it will be a legal requirement that every dog is microchipped and that its owner’s details will be maintained on a database. What is encouraging is that since the time we announced the consultation, when about 58% of dogs were microchipped, the figure has already risen to 70%.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that compulsory microchipping actually achieves the main purpose of dog licensing, which is to know who the owners are of all dogs? Does he also agree that nuisance from dogs, on the street in town centres or wherever, requires quite intensive action by local authorities, which they are increasingly unable to provide because of the draconian spending cuts that are being enforced on them?
Lord De Mauley
I agree with the first half of my noble friend’s contention. In terms of addressing the second half, that is why we introduced the measures that we did in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, which we explained in a manual to authorities to make it easier for them to enforce action against irresponsible owners of dogs.
Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7 and 11 November be approved.
Relevant documents: 13th and 14th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 December.
Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 14th 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, these draft amendment regulations before the Committee today will amend the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013. The SIP regulations, as they are known, concern the provision of large or complex infrastructure for the use of water or sewerage undertakers.
The main purpose behind these amendments is to give Ofwat the power to include conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence that allow for matters or questions to be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority for determination. This will give infrastructure providers the same right as water and sewerage undertakers to require Ofwat to refer its price control decisions to the CMA.
Extending Ofwat’s power to include such conditions will ensure that any potential future disputes between the Water Services Regulation Authority—Ofwat—and an infrastructure provider are resolved promptly. That should minimise the time-related costs of such disputes, which are ultimately met by customers, and will help to keep water and sewerage bills as low as possible.
The SIP regulations came into force in June last year and implement Part 2A of the Water Industry Act 1991. They give the Secretary of State and Ofwat the power to specify, by notice, large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects in certain circumstances: in particular, where the specification of the project is considered likely to deliver better value for money for taxpayers and customers.
Once specified, the relevant undertaker has to procure competitively a separate infrastructure provider to finance and deliver the project. After the successful bidder is designated as “the infrastructure provider”, Ofwat may then grant it a project licence, regulating it under a bespoke regime set out in the SIP regulations. A separate Ofwat-regulated infrastructure provider provides an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of a project are appropriate and reasonable, and allows the Government to target any financial support more effectively.
Following public consultation, the Secretary of State specified the Thames tideway tunnel project as an infrastructure project on 4 June this year. Thames Water Utilities Limited, as the incumbent undertaker, subsequently put the delivery and financing of the bulk of the tunnel works out to tender on 10 June. The tendering process is under way and expected to conclude in the summer of next year. This is the first and currently the only infrastructure project to be specified under the SIP regulations.
The proposed amendments would bring Ofwat’s powers relating to licensed infrastructure providers into line with those which already apply under the Water Industry Act 1991 as regard English water and sewerage undertakers. They would allow Ofwat to include certain conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence, giving the infrastructure provider the right to ask Ofwat to refer certain questions relating to its project licence to the CMA for determination. The proposed amendments would give an infrastructure provider the same right that water and sewerage companies already have to require Ofwat to refer its price control decisions, such as on interim determination of price limits or an increase in allowed revenue, to the CMA.
Without the proposed amendments, the only way for an infrastructure provider to challenge Ofwat price control decisions would be to seek judicial review on a point of law before the High Court. This is a time-consuming and expensive process, the costs of which are ultimately met by customers.
The statutory consultation on the draft regulations ran for six weeks, between 28 July and 8 September 2014. Its purpose was to inform those who represent interests likely to be affected by the regulations. The consultation was based on the GOV.UK website, and it was open to members of the public to submit their comments. Invitations for comments were also issued by e-mail to 324 interested organisations and individuals, including the CMA, Ofwat, the English water and sewerage undertakers, the Consumer Council for Water, Members of Parliament in London and the Thames Water region, members of the Greater London Assembly, and the Mayor of London. Five responses were received and a summary was published on the GOV.UK website last month.
We have noted the range of views and comments received on the proposed amending regulations and those relating more generally to the Thames tideway tunnel project. As a result, we have adopted some drafting points raised during that consultation in the amending regulations and are proceeding with the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, these are the regulations we have all been waiting for. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the instrument before the Committee concerning the amendments to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013.
From this side of the Committee, we support these changes to the SIP regulations. As the Minister has explained, their purpose is to bring Ofwat’s powers to include conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence into line with those which exist for a water or sewerage undertaker. With this inclusion, Ofwat is able to refer any disputes over price determinations to the Competition and Markets Authority on request by the licensed IP, in the same way that a water or sewerage undertaker already can. In the absence of such conditions, as the Minister said, the only route of challenge against an Ofwat determination would be by an application for judicial review on a point of law—a costly and time-consuming activity.
The SIP amendment regulations concern infrastructure providers in their activity of financing and delivering large and complex projects, most notably the Thames tideway tunnel. The SIP regulations are entirely sensible. The public consultation recently undertaken produced the five responses to which the noble Lord referred. The purpose of the consultation was not to review the merits of the tunnel but to consider amendments to the SIP regulations. Although most of the points raised were on aspects of the tunnel project itself, and not relevant to the consultation, nevertheless the respondents were supportive of the draft SIP amendment regulations on the grounds that the availability of an appeal route in common with other water industry companies will help lower perceptions of project risk and keep the cost of procuring a proposed IP as low as possible. It would so remove a distinct disincentive to invest and enable any potential future disputes to be resolved promptly.
I am sure that the use of the CMA to adjudicate will be helpful in convincing consumers that the decisions reached have their best interests at heart. The removal of an unnecessarily burdensome process for the appeals should also help to deliver lower costs for consumers. I see no reason to delay further the Committee’s agreement to these regulations.
Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 13th 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, in introducing these regulations I disclose an interest as owner of a stretch of a tributary of the River Thames and an interest in a lake used—among other things—for fishing.
Diseases and parasites of fish in the wild can, of course, adversely impact fish stocks. Non-native invasive fish species also pose a significant threat to native species through predation and competition as well as being potential carriers of diseases and pests, with additional potential impacts on the biodiversity of habitats. These present risks to the environment and to commercial and recreational fishery waters, so the stocking of fish into inland waters for recreational angling and other purposes has to be balanced with appropriate safeguards for aquatic environments.
Under these regulations a new permitting scheme will enable the regulatory body and the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish in our rivers, lakes and waterways. This will reduce burdens on the angling and freshwater fisheries sector and help promote growth in the rural economy. The legislation, subject to the approval of Parliament, will be made under Section 232 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. These regulations would repeal Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 in relation to England. We will shortly also modify the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014 so that its scope excludes inland waters, to prevent the duplication of legislation.
The proposed regulations introduce a new permitting scheme which would replace the existing legal requirements to obtain the consent of the Environment Agency for each separate introduction of any fish into inland waters, and to obtain a licence for the keeping and release of non-native fish in inland waters. These regulations would make it an offence to keep fish or introduce fish other than in accordance with a single permit granted by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency will also have the power to impose conditions on the permits relating to matters such as the number of fish introduced and minimising the risk of fish escaping from inland waters.
The new permitting scheme will enable the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish. Under this proposal, species that are high-risk are given greater scrutiny while the movement of low-risk species will be allowed to take place more freely. This is a significant improvement on the current system. The Environment Agency will also be able to revoke and vary permits if information comes to light that changes the level of risk the fish pose to the environment. The regulations also provide more effective enforcement powers to enable the Environment Agency to remove illegal non-native fish where they are found in rivers, lakes and waterways.
The Government consulted on these proposals both in 2009 and as part of the water and marine-themed Red Tape Challenge in 2012. As explained in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, most respondents supported the proposals. These regulations would produce a small annual saving for industry and additional savings for the Environment Agency.
The Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015 will also apply to the Border Esk region of Scotland. Freshwater fisheries are best managed on a river basin catchment basis, and England’s Environment Agency has managed fisheries in the Border Esk region for many years. Under similar arrangements, Scotland manages freshwater fisheries in the River Tweed catchment, which is shared with England. The Scottish Government are fully aware of these regulations, which maintain this policy approach, and are in total support of them.
In summary, the Government consider that the approach set out in these regulations will provide a more efficient and risk-based way of protecting local fisheries and biodiversity. They will reduce the regulatory burdens on the angling and fish trade industry. To this end, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the Committee today. I declare my interests as a farmer in Cheshire—the River Weaver defines the farm’s boundary on one side—and as a co-owner of a holiday home in south-west Scotland with fishing rights, although I do not personally partake in the catching of little fishes. I know that there have been many expressions of anxiety concerning the Scottish Government’s upheaval of the governance and jurisdiction structure of inland fishing in Scotland, but that is not a subject for debate today.
Nevertheless, as far as these regulations are concerned, it is good to see that co-operation between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliament is healthy and continuing. As the Minister stated, these regulations replace the current controls on placing fish into inland waters with a new permitting system, requiring all introductions and subsequent keeping of fish to be permitted by the Environment Agency. Transporting fish for introduction must also be permitted. The main objective should be achieved, which is to support the economic value and growth of the angling sector while ensuring adequate risk-based protection for the aquatic environment from risks associated with the use of invasive non-native fish species. Such high-risk species will be given greater scrutiny, while low-risk fish movements will be allowed to take place, as the noble Lord said, much more freely, albeit against the background of full disease control and other measures the Environment Agency will rightly be concerned with. That a permit is not necessarily set in stone for all time but will run until varied is surely the right approach.
Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee inquired why the department had taken so much time since the public consultation concluded in March 2010 to come forward with these quite modest and uncontroversial regulations. It is interesting that the answer was that the election in 2010 gave rise to the regulations having to be fully evaluated against the new Government’s priorities, and that further delay then flowed from the requirement to reconsult under the water and marine Red Tape Challenge initiative. It is very fortunate that the noble Lord brings these regulations before the Committee today, a mere few months before maybe further inevitable delay as a result of the much anticipated change of Government at the general election next May.
I ask the Minister to provide comfort to the Committee. Is he confident that, following this change in licensing, there are adequate plans in place to deal with any outbreak, emerging disease or damage that could result from any eventuality in the future? Are there enough resources to remove any introduction from the environment affected and to tackle any problems resultant from illegitimate action or trade? I note that one of the contentions expressed in the consultation was that this new scheme might lead to an increase in illegal activity.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his helpful and positive points on the regulations. As he points out, we are committed to protecting our environment, including the native fish and fauna in our rivers, lakes and waterways, while at the same time reducing burdens on industry, where these have been identified, in line with our invasive non-native species framework strategy for Great Britain.
The noble Lord asked three questions. First, in relation to the introduction and keeping of fish in garden ponds, I confirm that the statutory instrument will apply to inland waters such as lakes and rivers, which includes small lakes and large ponds over 0.4 hectares, as he said. The keeping of non-native fish in ponds below that size will be regulated through the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014. However, he will be comforted to know that the keeping of common non-native ornamental species such as goldfish does not require a licence.
The noble Lord also asked about cost recovery. In the first year of the scheme, the costs to the Environment Agency will modestly increase. Savings will take effect fully in later years, while future funding decisions will be for the next comprehensive spending review. That is about as far as I can go today. As time goes forward, we will look at cost recovery in different areas. No decisions have yet been made and there will be more consideration of that issue.
Lastly, the noble Lord asked whether I was confident that adequate plans and resources were in place to cover outbreaks of diseases. He puts his finger on one of the most important matters that we address in Defra. We constantly keep an eye on this and, indeed, Ministers meet regularly to discuss it with representatives of all the various bodies that help us with animal and plant diseases, invasive non-native species and so on. We try to look at these matters holistically and in the round. We now take a more strategic approach than we did in the past and I am confident that we have a comprehensive plan and resources in place to do that. Of course, that is not to say that we will never face another disease or pest again, and the business of Defra is in responding to crises. However, in this regard, I can say that this new risk-based permitting scheme, managed in an effective and efficient way by the Environment Agency, will ensure we continue to protect our local fisheries and the environment while allowing the angling and fish trade industries to flourish.
Peatlands
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead 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 am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Greaves for giving me this opportunity to discuss the extremely important topic of peatlands, particularly since Friday marked the start of the International Year of Soils. As we have heard, peatlands are an essential resource and deliver much for the climate, environment and society. I have recently had a number of meetings on peatlands, and it is clear that there is strong support for action on peat from a wide range of organisations. This interest has led to a number of examples of landowners, conservationists, scientists, local communities and businesses being brought together, working together to deliver local solutions to peatland degradation.
Over the past few years, we have had significant successes in the protection of peat soil. There have been reductions in horticultural use, with the total volume of peat used in horticulture having decreased by almost 30% since 2011. I am pleased to see that the Defra family is nearly peat free, and that the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew continues to lead the way in using new alternatives and working with its supply chain to deliver high-quality plants without peat. There have been significant reductions in the amount of peat cut in the UK and, in many locations, peat extraction and milling operations have been brought to an end. One such location is Bolton Fell Moss, where Natural England has now commenced an ambitious programme to restore bog vegetation to the 400-hectare site. This site will complete our network of special areas of conservation for this habitat type, which is an important step forward.
The Committee for Climate Change suggested that we should improve,
“incentives for land-owners to invest in restoration”,
and we are doing just that. Defra has committed over £3 million to peat-related research between 2010 and 2015, improving our evidence base on issues including restoration, lowland peats, peatland-related greenhouse gas emissions and alternatives to horticultural peat. This will be used to inform future policy and to aid landowner guidance. However, of course, there is more we must do to strengthen the policy framework to enable further peatland conservation.
In 2013, through environmental stewardship covering around 98,000 hectares, we committed more than £30 million to management options for the maintenance and restoration of moorland habitats. A further £4 million was committed in capital grants for grip blocking. Support will continue to be provided under the new countryside stewardship scheme, a forward-looking measure seeking to maximise opportunities to deliver biodiversity, water quality and flooding benefits together.
Natural England is developing an operational plan for the strategic restoration of blanket bog, covering special areas of conservation and much of the uplands. The plan flows from work prompted by the uplands evidence review and recognises the need to ensure that this habitat is actively moved towards favourable conservation status.
The protection of our peatlands for future generations is not a challenge that the Government can meet on their own. We need to work with others, encouraging local communities and landowners to deliver the best land use and management for their peaty soils. There are examples of how such partnerships are already delivering results on the ground, such as the Dark Peak nature improvement area, and we should learn from and build on them.
We need to be innovative and explore new economic opportunities as new technologies and approaches become available. For example, some companies are already growing sphagnum moss as a wetland crop. There is ongoing research to explore the economic feasibility of that and other ways of using areas of lowland peat in a manner that both enhances habitats and protects farming livelihoods.
Three billion tonnes of carbon are locked up in UK peat. That makes peat the single biggest terrestrial carbon store in the country—even bigger than forests. By including wetlands in the UK greenhouse gas emissions inventory, peatland restoration will contribute to UK emissions targets. That will provide another incentive to invest in peatland restoration.
We are doing more work to put tangible figures on the benefits that peat delivers, and that will help us to make the business case for saving peat. The UK pilot peatland code is exploring how we can encourage funding from businesses to restore damaged peat bogs. If successful, it will provide standards and robust science to give businesses confidence that their financial contribution will make a measurable and verifiable difference to UK peatlands. That will help to mobilise private sector finance: investing in natural capital because it makes sense for the bottom line but delivering benefits for wider society. The pilot phase is scheduled to finish in July 2015, but early signs are promising. Water companies have been particularly responsive, due to the known improvement of water quality with healthy peat.
My noble friends Lord Greaves, Lady Parminter and Lord Lindsay, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a number of related questions about national peatland planning and how we compare to Scotland. The Natural Environment White Paper set out the Government’s ambition for the environment, including a commitment to sustainable management of all soils by 2030. Natural England is currently developing an operational strategy for upland peat to help to identify where progress has been made and where more work is needed. My officials and I work closely with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and I will consider whether we need to review the joint ministerial statement which commits our four Governments to work together on peatlands, including on the peatland code.
On funding, on which my noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Greaves, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, commented, I can confirm that support for moorland and peatland habitat management will indeed continue to be provided under the new countryside stewardship scheme. The new scheme will be more targeted, aiming to identify the options which should be prioritised in agreements with farmers and other land managers to deliver the right action in the right place.
My noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Lindsay asked about the future of the peatland code. We will continue to support the code’s initiatives to encourage private businesses. Our objectives for the remainder of the pilot phase will be to seek out opportunities to promote the code and attract indications of interest and firm offers from potential private sector sponsors.
We recently held an event with the IUCN for a number of business contacts, run by the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, to seek feedback on the code’s operation and to raise awareness of it in the business community—indeed, to improve the code’s offer to businesses. We are in discussion with the IUCN, the UK peatland programme, the devolved Administrations and others on the possibility of future projects across the UK, building on what the peatland programme has achieved over the past four years.
My noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the burning of moors. Natural England is in the process of reviewing its guidance on burning and blanket bog restoration as part of a broader refreshment of its guidance, working closely with all interested parties and reflecting work undertaken by the Best Practice Burning Group.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke about the role of private owners. The partnerships we already have in the UK are a novel mechanism for delivering results, but we recognise the need to engage a wider audience. Successful engagement depends on a strong evidence base with improved interpretation and dissemination, hence the commitment of over £3 million to peat-related research between 2010 and 2015. All involved will need to use this evidence to engage with landowners and local communities and make restoration decisions around which services are most important for them.
My noble friend Lady Parminter spoke of the inclusion of wetlands in greenhouse gas emission inventories. Including peatland carbon fluxes in the GHG emission inventories will reinforce the value of restoration and contribute to UK emissions targets. Three billion tonnes of carbon are locked up in UK peat, making it the single largest terrestrial carbon store in the UK. As of 2011, damaged UK peatlands are releasing about 3.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is equal to the average emissions of about 660,000 UK houses. Restoration would stop this and eventually lead to slow carbon sequestration once the peatland was back to actively forming condition in many years’ time.
The difficulties in including GHG emission reductions from peatland restoration were due to a lack of an approved international methodology for calculating emission removals from peatland restoration. The methodology now exists, but it still requires significant further work to make it operational in this country. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is leading on this work. The peatland code will provide guidance on quantifying climate and other benefits. To reinforce the value of the sponsoring of restoration, it may also be possible to count these benefits in corporate carbon accounts in future.
My noble friend also asked about Ecosystems Markets Task Force recommendations. The recommendation for carbon reduction through nature resulted in the pilot peatland code, which of course we continue to support. Other recommendations such as using nature to enhance resilience and soft flood defences also have the potential to be addressed by peatlands, but the evidence is limited and needs further work.
My noble friend Lord Cavendish raised a number of issues. Much of what he said needs to be heard, and I propose to send a copy of Hansard for this debate to the chairman of Natural England. My noble friend asked in particular about progress on the bonfire of the quangos. There are now around a third fewer quangos than there were in 2010. We have abolished at least 185 and merged more than 165 into fewer than 70. Over £2 billion has been saved cumulatively since 2010 through reforming and abolishing public bodies, and we are on track to reach the forecast £2.6 billion saving ahead of schedule.
My noble friend Lord Courtown spoke about the use of peat in horticulture. UK sales of peat for horticultural use fell from 2.8 million to 2.2 million tonnes between 2011 and 2012, and the total volume of peat use in horticulture has decreased by almost 30%. The Sustainable Growing Media Task Force report published in 2013 sets out where our resources will be focused over the next few years to assist in the transition to sustainable growing media and reduced peat use.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked what estimate the Government have made of the costs that could be avoided if the water storage and purification services provided by upland peat were restored. There is an estimated overall benefit of £2 billion over 30 years from restoring 200,000 hectares of uplands, due to carbon sequestration, biodiversity and other ecosystem services such as water storage and purification.
Although the scale of the challenge both financially and on the ground is daunting, the size of the prize is great. We have had some successes but I recognise that there is more to do. By building on the wide support for this important ecosystem and the good practice that is demonstrated in so many places across the United Kingdom, I have great hopes that it is a challenge that we will be able to meet.
Flood Defences
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead 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 the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for securing the debate today and giving us the opportunity to discuss flood defences in England. As has been amply explained today, flooding can have devastating impacts on communities, and recovery can be a long and distressing process for those affected. Flood defence is therefore something in which we all have a significant interest. That is why we are investing £3.2 billion in flood and coastal erosion risk management over the course of this Parliament. That money helps the Environment Agency to manage its £24 billion flood defence asset base and continue to invest in new and improved defences each year.
After the winter storms last year, when our defences took a considerable battering, we made available an additional £270 million to repair, restore and maintain critical defences. The Environment Agency and other risk management authorities have undertaken a considerable amount of work since then to ensure that we are ready for the winter ahead. Repairs to damaged flood defences are on track and no communities will be at greater risk than last year going into this winter. Despite the exceptional weather last winter, it is important to remember that our defences protected about 1.4 million properties and more than 250,000 hectares of farmland.
We are spending £170 million on maintenance this year alone, but this is only part of the answer. It allows us to continue protecting those who are currently protected, but capital investment in new or improved defences means that we can reduce flood risk overall. This year, 54 new flood defence projects will begin construction. When complete, they will protect more than 42,000 households. From April next year we will be making record levels of investment through an unprecedented long-term six-year capital commitment, so I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on the need for long-term plans.
We will be spending £2.3 billion on capital investment in improving defences right up to 2021. We will be publishing our long-term investment programme of flood defence improvement projects with the Autumn Statement. This programme will help to secure significant savings through new ways of working made possible by the scale, certainty and length of the capital commitment. These savings, which I am confident will far exceed our 15% target, will be boosted by substantial contributions from other sources. In addition to the total number of properties that we are currently protecting, the programme will also help us to reduce the risk of flooding to an additional 300,000 households by March 2021. This is on top of the 165,000 homes whose protection has been improved over the course of this spending review.
In addition to government funding, through our partnership funding approach we are on course to bring in up to £140 million of extra funding between 2011 and 2015. This approach allows greater transparency, increases certainty and allows local communities to influence what happens in their local areas. It has also meant that significantly more schemes are going ahead than would have been possible under the old approach.
I turn now to some of the points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, drew attention to the NAO report. We do not recognise the assessment that she portrays. The Environment Agency’s own target is to have 97% of its assets in high-consequence systems in the required condition. As the NAO report states, until 2013-14 the agency exceeded its targets. As I said earlier, defences took a pounding over the past winter. However, a national assessment after the damage showed that 94% were still in target condition, and we have provided the Environment Agency with all the funding needed to return its assets to target condition as soon as possible. Good progress is being made, and we will soon be announcing when the Environment Agency expects to get back to target condition.
The noble Baroness also raised a point suggesting a requirement for £8 of benefit for every £1 spent. I should make it absolutely clear that we do not insist on £8 of benefit for every £1 spent; eight to one is the average anticipated benefit that we expect to gain from our overall capital investment in flood and erosion risk management over the current spending period. It is an important measure of the overall value for money that we get in return for taxpayer investment in flood defence, but it has no bearing on funding for individual projects.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lady Bakewell referred to Somerset. Indeed, as my noble friend said, in response to the flooding in Somerset this year we worked with local partners to develop an action plan to manage the risk of flooding there. The plan is wide-ranging. It covers flood risk management projects, farming and land management interventions, transport infrastructure, planning and community resilience issues. We have committed £20.5 million to support the delivery of the action plan. As my noble friend said, the dredging of eight kilometres of the rivers Parrett and Tone was completed to schedule by the end of October. I echo my noble friend’s tribute to the volunteers who worked so tirelessly and offered their services free of charge, and to those farmers from elsewhere in the country who so generously sent feed and other supplies to help out in the farming community. It was a wonderful demonstration of the generosity of our country.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Worthington, commented on the approach taken to climate change. We prioritise the need to adapt to our changing climate across government and well beyond. We will of course look to learn any lessons from the recent extreme weather events. Longer-term impacts, including climate change, are fully taken into account in the Environment Agency’s decision-making processes on flood risk management. Shortly it will publish its updated long-term investment scenarios, which will take full account of climate change in its consideration of longer-term financial sustainability.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan asked about progress with regard to Flood Re. I can tell him that it is on schedule to be established by July next year. After a period of testing, and once the appropriate authorisation is in place, households at high risk of flooding will be guaranteed access to full flood insurance. Insurers have agreed meanwhile to continue to abide by the statement of principles, which ensures continued access to flood insurance until Flood Re is fully operational.
My noble friend asked about progress on the Pitt review, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. The vast majority of the Pitt review’s recommendations have been implemented. We are committed to implementing the remaining four recommendations at the earliest opportunity. Progress on one or two of them has been affected by the need to settle complex issues raised by stakeholders. However, noble Lords may rest assured that those are receiving full attention.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about the Thames Barrier. I agree that it is vital, which is why I have gone to inspect it. The Environment Agency’s latest studies indicate that if the sea level continues to rise in line with the most likely climate change scenario, the Thames Barrier will continue to provide its design standard of service until around 2070.
The noble Lord, Lord Stone, called for more local involvement in action. I agree with him. That is the basis for the partnership funding concept, which stems from recommendations in the Pitt review. The aim of this approach is to give local areas a bigger say in what action is taken to protect them, in return for more local contributions towards the benefits delivered. It provides more transparency over funding levels from Government for each and every potential investment, creates space for local and private contributions to come forward to help to pay for the significant benefits to land, property, infrastructure and other assets realised when defences are built, and focuses government support on areas most at risk and people in the most deprived parts of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Stone, raised another issue, in response to which I will say that Defra is sponsoring three demonstration projects to assess more thoroughly the impacts that land management might make on local flood risk. These are all partnership projects between Government and other entities: Pickering in North Yorkshire, led by the Forestry Commission; Holnicote in Somerset, led by the National Trust, to which the noble Lord referred; and the River Derwent in Derbyshire, led by the Environment Agency and a national park.
The noble Lord also commented on the catchment-based approach. Our evaluation shows that there is potential for the catchment-based approach to support flood and coastal erosion risk management, but the degree to which we use those partnerships for that purpose is something that we are still exploring with them or with the relevant risk management authorities. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not all about hard solutions; he made a point about soft solutions being appropriate in some cases. I have no argument with that; finding the appropriate solution is the important thing. I am of course happy to meet him, as he suggested.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys drew our attention to what happened and is happening in Wales. She knows that I am not responsible for what goes on there, but we are all grateful for her interesting and informative contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Stone, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell both made comments about fragmented sources of funding. It is fair to say that a number of schemes were put in place specifically following the past winter in order to help affected families, businesses and communities to recover from the flooding. In some cases, these schemes were tightly targeted, such as schemes to help farmers or fishermen, or for local authorities to repair damaged roads. The Government will reflect on the lessons from their recovery efforts, and I am sure that the points made by noble Lords will be taken into account as we do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked whether flood protection is a strategic priority for my new Secretary of State. I confirm to her that it is: it is right up there.
We must plan ahead effectively and invest where it will provide the most benefit in protecting people and property from flooding. We are looking at what further flood defences are needed in future, and updated long-term scenarios will be published later this year. These scenarios will take full account of climate change in consideration of longer-term financial sustainability.
EU: Counting the Cost of Food Waste (EUC Report)
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, by 2030 a rising global population is expected to mean that demand for food will have increased by 50%. Food waste requires urgent action across Europe and throughout the world, as several noble Lords have said. A third of the food produced globally is wasted, which is about 90 million tonnes in Europe and 1.3 billion tonnes globally. We must address this if we are to mitigate the increasing demand for food and resources around the world.
I welcome and am grateful for the committee’s report and the direction in which it points as to where we need to take action. It makes an important contribution to the whole subject of food waste and provides some helpful recommendations. It is timely because, as noble Lords know, the Commission is undertaking a review of the revised waste framework directive. Indeed, we do need to work together across Europe to reduce waste. We have now seen the EU Commission’s proposal on food waste, which we broadly welcome. As noble Lords have said, the UK has already taken concerted action to reduce food waste over a number of years, and is recognised as a world leader in food waste prevention through the work of WRAP.
We have built up extensive knowledge in measuring and understanding how to reduce food waste, and a mark of how WRAP’s advice is recognised is through its input to EU projects such as FUSIONS, work by the World Resources Institute and UNEP. The UK’s approach is being used as a case study for the OECD. We are pressing to ensure that the Commission’s target to reduce food waste by 30% recognises our early action. We are currently undertaking an analysis on how any such target might be reached, and its potential impact on the UK.
UK householders waste 7 million tonnes of food—that is £12.5 billion of food per year, which is about £60 a month for an average family. Of that, £5.5 billion is due to food not used in time. Food is also wasted across the supply chain—roughly 4 million tonnes in manufacturing, 0.5 million tonnes in food retail and 1 million tonnes in the hospitality sector. We all know that we ought to be wasting much less food. Food wasted means that we have fewer pounds in our pocket and the energy and water used to produce and transport the food has been wasted. Most people want to do something about food waste and we are taking steps to help them do that. Food waste was identified as a priority nearly a decade ago for my department, and the UK has taken early action. It remains a cornerstone of WRAP’s work and a priority for future work addressing the whole waste hierarchy for food.
The first step of this work was the launch of the Courtauld commitment in 2005—a voluntary agreement with the grocery sector. Under this agreement all the main supermarkets and food manufacturers signed up to targets and action on food and packaging waste in the supply chain and in households. While initially focusing on packaging, a food waste target was introduced in 2007. Over the first two phases of the Courtauld commitment we have seen that: 2.9 million tonnes of waste with a value of £4 billion was prevented; packaging was reduced by 1 million tonnes; and UK annual household food waste decreased by 15%—1.3 million tonnes—between 2007 and 2012. The third phase of the Courtauld commitment is under way, running until the end of 2015, and we expect it to prevent just over 1 million tonnes of waste, with additional savings of £1.6 billion and to lead to a total reduction of household food waste of 20% since 2007.
Running alongside the Courtauld commitment has been the Love Food Hate Waste campaign, providing ideas and information to help households waste less. Around half of food waste is produced by households. We have evidence of increasing positive behaviours among consumers, such as checking cupboards before shopping, making shopping lists and planning meals.
In addition, we have diversified our approach to include the hospitality and food service sector, launching the voluntary hospitality and food service agreement in 2012. There are over 170 signatories and supporters with ambitious targets to reduce the amount of food waste that they produce, and to manage it better by recycling and sending food for anaerobic digestion to produce energy.
In response to my noble friends Lady Scott and Lady Byford, we have also worked with industry to move to a simpler date-labelling system, with the phasing out of “display until” or “sell by” dates. As the committee recommended, the guidance on the Food Information Regulations is now available on the Food Standards Agency website, and will be further improved and moved to the GOV.UK website by the end of the year.
Related to this, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to “buy one, get one free” deals. The majority of promotions are temporary price reductions; examples include “was £8, now £6” or “three for £10”. “Buy one, get one free” deals are often on non-perishable items or items with long lives. WRAP works with retailers to encourage alternative promotions for perishable foods. This approach enables consumers to make savings, but still buy the amounts or range of food that are right for them.
The Product Sustainability Forum, which is a collaboration of organisations made up of grocery retailers and suppliers, academics, NGOs and government, works to measure, improve and communicate the environmental performance of grocery products, using a farm-to-fork approach. This included a project on potatoes that identified points in the whole value chain where waste was created and how it could be reduced. We have also commissioned research to improve our understanding of wastage on farm, as I know the committee’s report has recommended a need to look into this sector.
Action has been taken to ensure that surplus food can be redistributed to people before being put to any other use. While the committee’s report has recommended the need for fiscal measures, WRAP advises that a financial incentive already exists, the redistribution and collection costs being on average cheaper than collection costs and gate fees when sending to anaerobic digestion. The industry working group that we convened has been identifying other barriers and then solutions. The result of this was the publication in March of new research, case studies and guiding principles to enable the industry to redistribute more food.
My noble friend Lady Scott, among others, asked about feeding waste to animals. If not suitable for people, some food waste may indeed be fed to animals. As the committee’s report has recommended, there is a need to seek to increase this. As noble Lords know, there are strict EU regulations governing this, but in response to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, we have commissioned further research to examine the risks to determine whether that approach is still appropriate. WRAP also produced guidance, published in September, to demonstrate that some food, such as bread, cakes, confectionary and cheese, would be permitted for this purpose, and set out the economic case for doing so.
The noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Cameron, and Lord Grantchester, among others, asked about WRAP funding. I am on record as being a huge fan of WRAP and endorse the supportive comments of noble Lords. We worked closely with WRAP and key stakeholders, particularly those in the industry, to ensure that the activities that we fund are targeted and making a critical difference to business performance. WRAP has stepped back from work in areas such as construction and demolition waste, where market failures have already largely been addressed; the industry is now recovering a large amount of the materials used through re-use and recycling.
Food waste, however, remains an area where market failures still exist, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said. So we continue to support WRAP for this work at a level of funding that is broadly similar to that before the review. WRAP will continue to deliver priority projects such as Courtauld, the hospitality agreement and Love Food Hate Waste. It will also develop an ambitious post-2015 programme of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke of wastage in developing countries. I agree that this is an important area. He mentioned research that this country funds and he knows of our agritech strategy, in which DfID is a key participant department. Some £10 million of the funding in that strategy is targeted at developing countries. Indeed, technology could make dramatic improvements in efficiency and bear down on waste.
In response to a question from my noble friend Lady Scott, Defra has been working with the Commission and other member states on the Commission’s communication on sustainable food. The publication of the communication has to be a decision for the new Commission—and I have to say, it is early days.
My noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Grantchester, referred to the Groceries Code Adjudicator and whether she could make a difference in this area. The Groceries Supply Code of Practice aims to prevent retailers from transferring excessive risk to their suppliers through unreasonable business practices—that is what it is about. Two of its conditions cover wastage and forecasting errors, clarifying the conditions on which compensation for these may be sought. The greater certainty provided to suppliers and the role that the Groceries Code Adjudicator will play may indeed help to reduce waste.
My noble friend Lady Parminter asked about the reporting of retailers’ figures. Retailers currently report their food waste figures through the Courtauld commitment. We are working with WRAP and industry partners to develop a collaborative framework for the reduction of waste throughout the food chain. This framework will continue the good work of Courtauld and will be the place for the continued reporting of food waste.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked about publicising Love Food Hate Waste. Information on choosing, cooking and eating a healthy diet is provided via NHS Choices, including the Change4Life social marketing campaign and guidance on healthier and more sustainable catering. The “eatwell plate” displays the proportions and types of foods that should be eaten as part of a healthy lifestyle. The Government’s Change4Life programme provides tools and resources that incentivise and encourage behaviour change; for example, the Meal Mixer app has been downloaded more than 1 million times and contains hundreds of quick, healthy and affordable family recipes.
Some noble Lords asked about collection at local authority level. We have no plans to compel councils to adopt household food waste collections, but WRAP has been working in seven local authority areas to understand methods to maximise resident participation in food waste collections and ensure that all non-preventable food waste is recycled. Early indications are that there are a number of affordable interventions that local authorities can adopt to maximise take-up of existing schemes. WRAP will be providing updated guidance for local authorities in December.
To the extent that I have not answered noble Lords’ questions, perhaps I might write. The committee’s report included a recommendation on the need to work with WRAP to deliver a whole-supply-chain approach. I agree that there is a need for policy and action to evolve to tackle food waste across the whole value chain and I recognise the close relationship between food waste, food security and sustainability. That is why we have been working closely with WRAP in its development of proposals for an initiative that looks at how the food we produce and eat can be more sustainable and secure and where waste can be further reduced. This is more than a mere successor to Courtauld 3 but it will continue and expand that work, and put the onus on industry to take greater ownership. This project should influence global supply chains and could therefore have an impact in the EU and beyond.
That work demonstrates the knowledge we have developed and the tried and tested approaches that we have delivered, and is a model that we encourage others across the EU to take up. This action demonstrates the good work that has already been done and is currently happening, but we are looking to the future to develop a strategic and long-term approach to reducing food waste.
Deregulation Bill
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment probes the changes to Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986, which requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK Government against claims arising from their activities. The clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability, which until now has been unlimited. We accept that for British companies considering projects in outer space, unlimited liability is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of space work—no pun intended—this could result in work being lost to other countries. Indeed, one could say other universes but perhaps one should not.
We support the intention of Clause 13, which is to cap the liability at €60 million for the majority of space missions and to give the Secretary of State powers to vary this limit by secondary legislation. However, I have three questions for the Minister. Where precisely in the government accounts will the uncapped portion of the liability, which I assume is a contingent liability, be recorded? Under government accounting rules, does this not score against the deficit? If so, how much will that be in a typical year and will the individual amounts be recorded in the notes?
Secondly, the Explanatory Notes state that a minority of space missions will retain an uncapped liability. What criteria will be used to determine whether to cap or not? When the Minister responds, could he give me some more detail on that? If necessary, he may write to me if he does not have the detail to hand.
Thirdly, I note that the regulation of space activity is currently a reserved item, so it is not a matter for the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, has this issue been offered to the Smith commission as a possible devolution item? I am sure there would be wide support for Scottish space missions being covered by the new financial powers now available to Scotland or those that are likely to be available in the near future. As a rather more technical question, are there any Barnett consequentials? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendment and his questions. The United Kingdom’s space sector contributes more than £11 billion a year to our economy, with an average annual growth rate of more than 7%. The sector directly employs more than 34,000 people. The Government are committed to the goal of raising the UK share of the projected £400 billion global space market to 10% by 2030, from approximately 6% currently. The proposed amendment to the Outer Space Act 1986 contained in the Bill is one of the measures designed to help us achieve this ambitious target.
The Outer Space Act 1986 is the legal basis for the regulation of activities in outer space carried out by organisations or individuals established in the United Kingdom, its Crown dependencies and certain Overseas Territories. The aim of the Outer Space Act and its licensing regime is to ensure compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under international treaties covering the use of outer space. One of these is the liability convention, under which the UK Government are ultimately liable for third-party costs for accidental damage arising from UK space activities. Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires licensees to indemnify the Government against liabilities resulting from their space activities. This is an unlimited liability on licensees.
Since it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, there is a requirement on licensees to obtain third-party liability insurance, usually to a minimum of €60 million for the duration of the licensed activity, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the remainder under Section 10 of the Act.
As the noble Lord said, UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Furthermore, they say that licence conditions relating to insurance place them at a significant disadvantage. Given the global nature of the space industry, this could result in work being lost to countries outside the UK, in particular to countries where operators may not be subject to unlimited liability, such as the USA or France.
The UK Space Agency has reviewed the Act and identified areas where there is room for improvement. In particular, the treatment of contingent liabilities under the Act is now out of date compared with other space-faring nations and other United Kingdom sectors that have comparable contingent liabilities. A public consultation was undertaken and the majority of respondents were positive about the benefits of capping the unlimited liability requirement to €60 million for the majority of missions. The Government therefore decided to undertake a two-part approach to address the industry’s concerns. In the first part, we reduced the insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million. This was well received by the industry. Clause 13, which we are discussing today, is the second part. It amends the Outer Space Act to cap the unlimited liability. This will be managed through the Outer Space Act licensing regime, as the amendments to the Act provide for the Secretary of State to specify the maximum amount of a licensee’s liability under the indemnity in each licence.
Our initial intention is to set the cap at €60 million for the majority of missions. Clause 13 gives the Secretary of State the power to set or vary this liability limit on a licence-by-licence basis. This will provide the flexibility to ensure that UK space operators remain competitive internationally without the need to undertake further legislative reform. For example, companies are now developing ever-smaller satellites, such as CubeSats. These offer lower-cost, and possibly lower-risk, access to space, and potential growth opportunities for the UK. For non-standard, high-risk missions we would retain the flexibility to increase the liability cap.
The UK Space Agency is currently reviewing its approach to this emerging class of satellite and this amendment will allow the Government to react quickly if a lower liability cap is appropriate for a particular mission, thereby ensuring the UK industry remains competitive. An impact assessment has been completed and the benefit to business is estimated to be in the region of £13.5 million over 15 years. Clause 13 is designed to balance the risks to the Government arising from UK space activity against the need to enable UK industry to exploit the opportunities available to them.
The noble Lord asked how these liabilities would be represented in the national accounts. I think I shall have to write to him about that. The noble Lord also asked what criteria would be used to determine which missions will be within the cap. As I suggested in my answer, there will be a risk-based approach; we feel it is appropriate to retain the flexibility to set the amounts under the amendment on a case-by-case basis.
The noble Lord asked about the devolution position. We are not planning any change in that area. He kindly said that it was a probing amendment. I hope that that will satisfy him and I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for a very full response and for answering two of the questions. The third one about devolution might bear further examination at some other stage, but I am sure that it is way above our respective pay grades, if there are any. On the other hand, I will look with interest at the letter that deals with the way in which these contingent liabilities—which I think the Minister confirmed they were—are going to be recorded in the accounts and whether they have any impact on the deficit. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment in place of my noble friend Lady Worthington. It concerns shippers of gas.
The existing regulations for gas importation and storage came into force in 2009 and applied to activities within the offshore area comprising both the UK territorial sea and the area extending beyond the territorial sea designated as a gas importation and storage zone—a GISZ. This clause alters the regulations that currently prohibit the use of an offshore installation for the unloading of gas without a licence.
Under the proposals, a third party wishing to unload their gas at an installation owned by and licensed to another party would not themselves need to be covered by a licence as long as the owners of the facility had the correct licensing documentation. The question that I should like to pose to the Minister concerns the related health and safety legislation and whether that would still apply. Can he tell us what enforcement regime is being considered, if one is necessary? What laws and processes has he put in place to ensure safety in this potentially dangerous area, and how will that enforcement appear on the ground? I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the purpose of this clause is to correct an oversight in the Energy Act 2008. Sections 2 to 16 of that Act provide for a licensing regime governing the offshore unloading of natural gas from liquefied natural gas tankers to installations sited offshore so that it can then be transported to the UK by subsea pipelines. The intention behind the 2008 Act was to create a streamlined consenting regime for the construction and operation of such an installation, and the key purpose of the licence is to apply appropriate regulation to the construction and operation of the installation. The Secretary of State is responsible for granting licences for this purpose.
Clause 15 will amend an oversight which has led to a duplication of licensing requirements. As things stand, it is not only the company which owns and operates an installation that needs to hold a licence but a company that owns liquefied natural gas and is having it imported into the UK via the unloading installation. This is an unnecessary burden on the gas trader. Clause 15 will make an amendment to the Energy Act so that a person—the gas trader—who, by agreement, uses an unloading installation does not also require a licence provided that the installation is already operated by another person who has a licence for that purpose.
In answer to the noble Baroness’s specific question, all existing legislation in relation to the protection of the environment and health and safety considerations remains unchanged by this change to the Energy Act. I hope that that satisfies her and that she will therefore be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for his answer, which has indeed satisfied me. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the relevant clause before us amends Part 3 of the Clean Air Act 1993; these provisions relate to smoke control areas. The Act requires the Secretary of State to publish lists of authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces that can be used in smoke control areas. Currently, this is done through regulations that are updated every six months. Clause 16 removes the need to issue regulations, replacing them with online lists to be published by the Secretary of State, which will be revised,
“as soon as is reasonably practicable after any change is made”.
The Secretary of State must keep an up-to-date and easily accessible authorised list on the gov.uk website.
This is a probing amendment. Will the Minister confirm that the criteria for selecting which fuels are considered safe and clean enough to be used will not change? If the clause is designed purely to speed up this process, it is one that we would thereby support. It should not be meant to change the terms or processes for the selection of fuels. It is important that it is made absolutely clear to people that this provision is about speeding things up, as opposed to making any back-door changes to which fuels could be used. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the Clean Air Act, which was first introduced to combat the smogs of the 1950s, designates smoke control areas within which it is an offence to emit smoke unless using authorised fuels and/or exempted appliances. Clause 16 amends the procedure by which the Secretary of State specifies authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces. They are currently specified by way of six-monthly statutory instruments, as the noble Lord explained. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to specify the products by publication of a list on the Defra smoke control web pages instead. The list will be published on a monthly basis and therefore reduce the delay that businesses and consumers currently face when new products are brought on to the market. The Act provides local authorities with powers to designate smoke control areas, within which it is an offence if smoke is emitted from a building’s chimney unless an authorised fuel or exempt appliance is being used. It is also an offence under the Act to acquire or sell an unauthorised fuel for use in a smoke control area.
The Secretary of State currently has the power under the Clean Air Act 1993 to exempt fireplaces by order and to authorise fuels by regulations, if she is satisfied that such products can be used without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke. Following assessment by technical experts to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria, the authorised fuels and exempt appliances are specified in statutory instruments which are made every six months. Under the current system, manufacturers face a delay of up to eight months between that assessment and bringing new fuels and fireplaces on to the market because they have to wait for that legislation to be made.
In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I confirm that the amendment made by this clause will not change the technical standards that products have to meet to be specified. Applicants will still be required to prove via testing that their products are capable of being used without producing any—or any substantial—quantity of smoke, thus keeping the inherent safeguards for air quality. The technical experts who currently provide advice with regard to the statutory instruments will continue to assess test results and provide recommendations to government with regard to the suitability of products for use in smoke control areas.
The details of specified products in the legislation are highly technical. The authorised fuel schedules are defined in technical terms covering matters such as the composition of the fuels, the manufacturing process, the shape of the fuels and their weight and sulphur content. Similarly, the exempted fireplaces schedules contain highly technical conditions of exemption relating to how individual fireplaces should be used and what fuels should be used in them to qualify for exemption.
It is worth noting that my department is not aware of the smoke control statutory instruments, which have been issued since 1957 and biannually since 1970, having been debated in Parliament on any occasion. The lists published on the internet will be subject to defined and robust audit procedures to ensure the accuracy of the data entered. These will include checks being undertaken and the lists being signed off by senior, responsible Defra staff. The process will enable specified product lists to be updated on a monthly basis.
In addition to including the same level of detail as the statutory instruments, the lists of specified products on the internet will also indicate the dates of new product specifications and of any variations or withdrawals. This is an improvement on the current system, where it would be necessary to compare lengthy SIs for consumers and local authorities to identify any changes. Therefore, there is an element of safeguarding for consumers as it will ensure that there is legal certainty with respect to which products may or may not be used at any given time. Members of the public without access to the internet will be able to request paper copies of the lists from my department.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee initially expressed concern over the move from a legislative to an administrative process. However, I understand that it now finds the explanation provided by the Government with regard to the procedures for specifying products and the levels of control that will be in place sufficiently compelling in favour of the amendment—that is, the amendment made by the clause rather than the noble Lord’s amendment. It has, however, requested assurance that adequate steps will be taken to ensure that persons who have been lawfully using specified products do not end up inadvertently committing offences as a result of specifications being withdrawn. The Government would not want to create a situation in which people could inadvertently end up being in breach of the law.
A decision to withdraw an approval may take place only if evidence demonstrating that a product is not eligible for use in a smoke control area comes to light. Defra has advised that it is not aware of any specified products ever having been removed from the lists previously. Based on this information, while it is possible that a specified product may need to be withdrawn, it would be highly unusual. Given what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, does that, and of course he will, perhaps I may say that for more than 10 years in your Lordships’ House I was a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, although I am not now. With the volume of statutory instruments that goes through that committee, any diminution of those orders is obviously a good thing. Even though, until now, no complaints have been made about individual smokeless fuels or individual smokeless fuel burners, that does not mean that there never will be. In a parliamentary setting—in other words, if the order is to continue—that gives the opportunity for any Member of either House to speak to the order, whether it is an affirmative or a negative. My noble friend did not say which it was and, for the purposes of my argument, it does not particularly matter. When we have this list system, how can anyone, whether a member of the public or a Member of either House, question, for example, a new smokeless fuel?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the answer to that is that the inclusion in the published list will be information that the public need. They certainly can contact my department. Ultimately, it would remain subject to judicial review if it ever needed to come to that. The information will be public. All that will happen is that we will streamline the process so as not to clog up my noble friend’s committee.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me those assurances and for his comprehensive assessment of the clauses in the Bill. I am very pleased that, from his assurances, the technical standards will continue to be monitored. On this occasion, I am happy to comply with the pleadings of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I know that this is the amendment that everyone has been waiting for. This is in the Bill because, previously, there was a provision in European law to sell knitting yarn in specified quantities. That has been revoked, so the clause will remove the UK law that specified quantities in UK law and knitting shops will be able to sell yarn by whichever weight or length they choose. I hope that the Benches opposite will join us in celebrating the fact that this is a deregulation of European law, and that they will agree that this is a very good thing. I hope it is not just as a sop to UKIP that the Government are revoking this regulatory law. There is a celebration to be had here of European deregulation, which I hope everyone will agree is a good thing.
Whom did the Government consult about this? I know that there is no cost involved in the implementation of this deregulation, but will it benefit business and has there been an assessment of how it will benefit those very important people who run knitwear shops?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I entirely share the noble Baroness’s celebration of the deregulatory activity of our friends in Brussels. If she did not point this out, I will: this is by no means an isolated example. We have worked, and will continue to work, with our European colleagues to reform the law to make it more appropriate for business in the modern age.
Clause 17 on the sellers of knitting yarn is a good example of straightforward deregulation. It scraps the Weights and Measures (Knitting Yarns) Order 1988 and its requirement that non-prepackaged knitting yarn be sold only in prescribed quantities. It will give greater freedom to manufacturers and retailers to decide what quantities of yarn to sell, and will give consumers more choice. Consumer protection will be maintained. The Weights and Measures (Packaged Goods) Regulations 2006 will still require both prepackaged knitting yarn and yarn sold with an enclosing band to be labelled with net weight. This will ensure that consumers can continue to compare prices and quantities when choosing which one to buy.
Clause 17 also makes a consequential technical amendment to the Weights and Measures (Specified Quantities) (Pre-packed Products) Regulations 2009. This measure is entirely deregulatory and, as I think the noble Baroness said, the costs arising will be zero. Manufacturers and retailers will not be required to change their existing practices or introduce new sizes as a result of this new clause; it will be their choice whether to introduce any new sizes. She asked about consultation. This is part of the Red Tape Challenge and so was subject to consultation through that process. On that basis, I hope that she will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister. If the Red Tape Challenge ran the consultation on this, and if it was anything like some of the other consultations that it has run, it probably involved three people. The clause is probably emblematic of the Act as a whole, which contains lots of minor changes that one hopes might lead to significant growth. On the basis of the Minister’s answer, of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a very good and interesting debate. It proves that we were wrong to bank on knitting yarn deregulation to be the star of today’s show, although I suspect that we might get a little more of a buzz when we get to byways and highways, and the green and black ones and all the varieties we are going to come to in later amendments. It is probably good that we are dealing with a range of issues today, and of course no debate could possibly be topped if it was addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whose recollections and memories are all so important to us. We should bear them in mind as we think through this issue.
The amendment would change the Sunday Trading Act to allow an exemption for garden centres undefined. We oppose the amendment because we are concerned that there is significant scope for confusion in defining garden centres. A number of businesses could be included because they sell garden products. However, we also oppose it because we think that such a change would amount to an erosion of the law that has stood the test of time since 1994. That could cause confusion and undermine the legislation as a whole. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said, the main thesis underlying the speech of the proposer of the amendment was the need to revisit and, if possible, deregulate the whole Sunday Trading Act. Repealing that without going through the process of discussion and debate which, as we have heard, was so much a part of the process of building the consensus around the 1994 Act is obviously something that we would have to think about very hard. This issue is about rights. It is about the rights of some people to keep Sunday special and of those who want to do more with their Sundays. We have, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to be careful about this and take our time to make sure that we get the balance right.
It is important that we get the definitions right. A garden centre can be anything from a very small operation selling plants raised locally to a large store within a much bigger department store. Most garden centres are now large operations that include, as we have heard, indoor and outdoor trading spaces, a wide variety of products, outdoor and indoor furniture, kitchenware, giftware, toys and games. It is hard to distinguish between these multifunctional garden centres and do-it-yourself stores that have large gardening departments, or even supermarkets that sell a wide range of plants and garden products in spring—or all year—sometimes in the car park surrounding the store. Without a definition, we do not know what we are talking about. An exemption for garden centres would therefore inevitably open up loopholes in the Sunday Trading Act and, as we have heard, large stores might seek to have themselves defined as garden centres, as some have already done.
As we have heard, the Sunday trading legislation is a compromise, but it is valued by retailers, employees and consumers. It gives people the opportunity to trade, work and shop on a Sunday but at the same time preserves a sense of Sunday being different from other days of the week. The Government have consulted on this issue three times in this Parliament and have found, as many other surveys have, that the laws have the support of the majority of the public—the latest report that I saw found that 77% supported the current laws—and the majority of the grocery retail community, which is a powerful alliance.
The amendment is premised on the view that if shops were to open for longer, it would be a good thing in terms of the so-called growth agenda, but longer opening hours do not mean that consumers have either the funds or the inclination to buy more goods. That was rather proved in the Olympic period when the Sunday trading hours extension, which was agreed by Parliament, coincided with a 0.4% decline in retail sales in that period. Sunday trading laws also currently provide an important advantage to small stores in a market that is heavily weighted in favour of big supermarkets. Indeed, the removal of Sunday trading legislation temporarily during the Olympics resulted, as we have heard, in a displacement of sales from small stores to large stores.
If the current laws were ever to change, they would need far more scrutiny and due process than is possible with this amendment. The existing Sunday trading laws were put in place after extensive consultation and several years of negotiation with interested parties to build the sort of consensus that has remained in place to date. Any wider change would need the same due process. It is clear that scrapping Sunday trading legislation is not pro-growth and will not deliver higher consumer spending. I hope that the Government will give this short shrift.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment would relax restrictions on garden centres by adding them to the list of retailers exempted from the Sunday trading regulations. At present, they can already open for six continuous hours between 10 am and 6 pm. When my wife told me that she wanted a wheelbarrow on Sunday, despite the burdens of office, I was able to acquire one at my local garden centre within that six-hour window and attend church on Sunday morning. This measure would mean that garden centres could open at any time on a Sunday and open on Easter Sunday, from which they are currently prohibited.
Having thought about this carefully, the Government believe, in line with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Trumpington, among others—although I could not have put it as eloquently as they did— that the current Sunday trading laws represent a reasonable balance between those who wish to see more opportunity to shop in and sell from large shops on a Sunday, and those who would like to see further restrictions.
Those advancing the case for further liberalisation of the Sunday trading laws claim that there will be worthwhile economic benefits, including an increase in revenue for garden centres. However, as a matter of interest, the evidence to date is not entirely compelling. The ONS’s assessment of the liberalisation during the Olympics found no significant growth associated with the longer opening hours during the event. Instead, sales tended to be spread out further over the additional opening hours. Likewise, with this proposed liberalisation, customers may not end up spending more but merely spreading their spending over a longer period.
As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned, the industry has talked of a potential £75 million increase in revenue but no details on the increased costs of extended opening have so far been forthcoming. As I have just mentioned, we do, however, have the useful example of the measures taken during the London Olympics. The Government suspended the Sunday trading laws during the Olympics in 2012 so that retailers could take advantage of the unique opportunity that the Games presented. The suspension of the law applied only to the specified period, from 22 July to 9 September 2012. There was an increase in footfall in London but this may merely have reflected increased visitor numbers to the country. An evaluation of the suspension of hours during the Olympics found that the overall sales increases seem to have been modest for large retailers, but that there was in fact a loss of business for the smaller retailers.
Lord Skelmersdale
Perhaps I may be allowed to interrupt my noble friend briefly. During the Olympics, there were of course many people up and down the country watching them on television and many people in the Olympic park who were watching the events live. Does my noble friend not think that that could be a reason for there being no real, material difference in sales during the relaxation which he was talking about?
Lord De Mauley
I am sure that my noble friend has a point and that there were complex factors in several directions. I merely state what happened because it is a recent example of a relaxation of the Sunday trading laws and it may be interesting for noble Lords to hear it.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked about the impact on smaller shops at that time. He may be interested to know that the Association of Convenience Stores reported a reduction of as much as 20% in sales over the eight-week Olympic period, and a 30% reduction in footfall. However, I acknowledge what my noble friend has said. During the peak month of August 2012, non-seasonally adjusted national data show that the amount being bought decreased by 2.4%, compared with that July. Over the same period, large stores saw a fall of 3.1% and small stores one of 0.6%. This more than outweighed the benefits to larger London-based competitors, which were the prime beneficiaries. I hope the Committee will understand that such results are at odds with the Government’s Small Business Strategy.
It is sometimes argued that the relaxation of constraints on large shops will provide benefits to their smaller brethren by bringing people into the town or shopping centre but most garden centres—or most that I have been to, anyway—are located away from other retail centres. They are out of the centres of towns, so that argument does not apply to them. It is not clear what makes garden centres a special case in the same way as those currently included on the exemption list. Despite what my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, it is not as though people will have a sudden medical need to visit a garden centre, as they might have with, for example, a pharmacy.
Moreover, garden centres have increasingly diversified their products, as the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, said. Many will now sell furniture, pets, food, books, toys and stationery. As such, garden centres are in direct competition with other large stores, which are still constrained by the Sunday trading rules and it would be difficult to justify giving them preferential treatment, particularly so at a time when we are looking at ways to regenerate local high streets. Additionally, there is no obvious mood for change among the public. In a recent study, 77% were found to be happy with the existing rules while, of those who were in favour of change, 56% wanted further restrictions rather than liberalisation.
This exemption would also enable garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. This would be contentious for those who see Easter Day as a highly important religious day, when families should be free to be together. Garden centres say that this is the middle of their busiest period. However, they are already able to open as they wish on three of the four days over that bank holiday weekend. Some smaller family-run garden centres welcome the opportunity to close and to give staff the day off on Easter Day in the knowledge that none of their competitors will be open. Removing that constraint might distort the playing field in favour of bigger national garden centre networks. Consumer spending is such that longer opening hours are unlikely to achieve additional sales.
I am aware of the various campaigns on Sunday trading and I will continue to monitor the response of the public and the market, but we see no significant change in the situation that might suggest the need to reconsider Sunday trading in relation to garden centres or more broadly. I hope that is clear enough to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. On that basis I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, public right-of-way legislation is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. Looking around the Committee today, I notice that there may well be previous Ministers of Agriculture in the Room who put some of this legislation through. It all builds into an important picture that needs some clarity, and I am very pleased that certain aspects of this are in this Deregulation Bill. They cover important aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Highways Act 1980 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, building on the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
I declare my interest from the register as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of footpaths. These are not controversial; they are intermittently walked and do not cause disruption to farming operations. However, across the country the situation is considerably less clear. Under the 1949 Act, local authorities are required to produce a definitive map and statement of public rights of way. This is taking some time and continues, such that in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 a cut-off date of 2026 was introduced, after which routes pre-existing 1949 cannot be added to the definitive map.
Not only is the process of registration slow and complex, certain elements of the legislation have yet to be implemented and are considered to be flawed. In 2008 a stakeholder working group was set up by Natural England with membership drawn up from public access user groups and land management and business interests, including farming, and the local authorities. In 2010 it produced the Stepping Forward report, which proposed the changes that we are discussing today around the procedures introduced in the various legislation.
The stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested parties to recommend these changes as a package, to streamline the process and to make quicker progress, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026. Some of the recommendations will no doubt help farmers to manage access safely, others will help to bring clarity to user groups and a large number will aid local authorities in bringing forward proposals to reduce confrontation and red tape. The approach from these Benches is to retain this consensus and build on it. The stakeholder working group is still continuing and, with these proposals agreed and implemented through the Bill, it can press forward in addressing further problems and bring these forward as quickly as possible.
Meanwhile, there is the task of following up on these proposals. The amendment before the Committee today is to do just this and annually publish a report on how effective this process has now become, how much quicker applications have become to deal with and any unforeseen issues that have arisen. The whole of Schedule 7 defines the new speedier and more streamlined process, but will it find snags? For example, paragraphs 4 to 6 of the schedule change the procedure for initiating action in the magistrate’s court. That procedure has charges applied to it, and these charges for initiating court action have increased substantially. Will this become a deterrent to the effective working of this provision?
Clause 26 opens the way for full cost recovery from a landowner seeking an order. The effect will need to be carefully monitored. Clause 24 revisits the CROW Act 2000 to correct those perceived flaws. It is important that the impact of this so-called right to apply for orders, both on local authority workloads and on the network itself, is properly monitored. The amendment would enable this and other measures to be monitored and their operations made transparent to ensure that the stakeholder working group is working on the right track.
One effect of the amendment would be to continue to build the esteem of the stakeholder working group and encourage it to continue trying to seek consensus on the most controversial aspects of our rights of way. It should be an important aid to the Minister in communicating the effectiveness of the process to draw up a definitive map and statement of public rights of way, and he should welcome it. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, before I start, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I should declare an interest in that I am the owner of land over which pass public rights of way.
Perhaps I may also say by way of preamble that the rights of way reforms package, of which Clauses 21 to 27 will form the basis, is founded on the recommendations of the independently chaired stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. The group consists of 15 members—five from each of the key sectors: local authorities, landowners and rights of way users. It contains members of the Ramblers, the British Horse Society, the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association. I may say a bit more about that in a debate on a later group of amendments.
Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, seeks to ensure that the Government monitor the success or otherwise of the rights of way reform package after implementation. That is a worthy objective and one with which I have no disagreement. That is why the Government have already given a commitment that they will arrange for the stakeholder working group to carry out a review. We said in the other place during the Committee stage that,
“the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of the review panel, as was set out in another of the group’s proposals. The panel will be able to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date”.—[Official Report, Commons, Deregulation Bill Committee, 6/3/14; col. 238.]
While it is important to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the rights of way clauses, it seems ironic to use a deregulatory Bill to impose on government and, in turn, on local authorities the statutory burden of making a formal report to Parliament. The additional bureaucracy that such a formal reporting mechanism would create runs contrary to the aims of this Bill. Indeed, the proposal runs contrary to the recommendations of the stakeholder working group itself. In its proposal 21, the group said:
“A stakeholder review panel should be constituted after implementation of the Group’s proposals to review progress with recording or protecting useful or potentially useful pre-1949 rights of way before the cut-off”.
Since the stakeholder working group has shown itself to be so effective in working together to develop solutions, I suggest that it would be wrong not to entrust the group with advising on the most appropriate mechanism for carrying out a review of the reforms. It is in the interests of each of the stakeholders on the group that they do so. On that basis, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for certain of those clarifications but I should like to press him on the further work of the stakeholder working group. While the amendment limits the annual assessment to a report on the measures in the Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify any further aspects of this group and how he sees further progress being made. Having confirmed that it will continue, does he believe that its membership is sufficiently widely drawn to tackle more controversial aspects, and will the group be encouraged to come forward with proposals in a timely manner? Even though this is a long way ahead, we are aware of the urgency to make progress, as we will see in debates on further amendments that will be coming up shortly. It would be extremely interesting to hear how the working group may approach the more controversial aspects. The noble Lord should be mindful that we may well return to this at a later date, having considered further debate on the amendments. We reserve judgment about how appropriate it is that the Deregulation Bill should include a proposal to monitor its work going forward.
Lord De Mauley
I think that I have explained that the stakeholder working group is quite broadly constituted in its membership. It has tackled some pretty contentious issues successfully, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that. In terms of how it will work as this goes forward, once all the rights of way reforms have been put in place in both primary and secondary legislation, that group can start preparing a review. Of course, any review by that group will be published by Defra and put on its website. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the Minister for his further clarifications. While it is a complex and controversial area that we may revisit at a later stage, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, this has been a full and interesting debate and I am grateful to my noble friends who have moved amendments and to all noble Lords who have spoken to them. I will begin with Amendments 14 to 16, in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. The rights of way reforms package, of which Clauses 21 to 27 will form the basis, is founded on the recommendations of the independently chaired stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. That group, as I explained earlier, consists of 15 members: five from each of local authorities, landowners and rights of way users. The group was founded in 2008 with a remit to develop a package of reforms to facilitate completion of the definitive map and statement—the local authority’s legal record of public rights of way. This is a daunting task on a topic where views are highly polarised, but it is a task in which they succeeded.
Of key significance is the fact that the group has unanimously agreed the key proposal that the 2026 cut-off date—after which it will no longer be possible to record pre-1949 rights of way—should be implemented. However, this is subject to the caveat of what my noble friend Lady Parminter described as a finely balanced package of reforms being implemented as it stands and not being tampered with or cherry-picked.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to address the issue of intrusive public rights of way. This is an issue to which the Government have been giving careful consideration in discussion with the rights of way stakeholder working group and members of the Intrusive Footpaths campaign. The Government acknowledge my noble friend’s point that for householders and farmers an intrusive footpath can have a substantial impact on their quality of life or on their ability to run a business, and several noble Lords have spoken about that. It can cause severe difficulties and there are a significant number of cases where people have been through years of considerable inconvenience and stress. We recognise that there is a need to find an acceptable solution. That is why the Government have worked with the stakeholder working group to include measures in the rights of way reforms package that will make a significant difference to the way that requests for diversions and extinguishments of rights of way will be dealt with by local authorities. I am confident that they will help to alleviate the difficulties experienced by those affected.
The Bill proposes to implement the right-to-apply provisions introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. These provisions give landowners the right to apply for diversion or extinguishment of a right of way. Through clauses in the Bill we are amending them in such a way as to enable people with rights of way through their gardens to make applications. These provisions will come into force, along with the rest of the reforms package, when all the elements of the package are in place. We are working towards implementation by April 2016. With the right-to-apply provisions in place, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests for rights of way to be moved or extinguished, or to 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. There is also—
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, can he explain why the right to apply automatically implies the right for the local authorities to consider? I just cannot see it.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I was some way from leaving that point. I will get there in a moment. There is also the question of whether any orders made would be confirmed. The right to apply provisions will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the curtilage of family homes where privacy, safety or security are a problem.
Under the right to apply provisions, any appeal made by an applicant, whether it is because the local authority has refused an application or because it has failed to confirm a diversion order it has made, will be submitted to the Secretary of State for a decision. 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 in those decisions. A draft of the guidance has been deposited in the Library of your Lordships’ House. We recognise that it needs further refinement, which is why it remains open for comment.
The rights of way reforms will also give local authorities more scope to deal with objections to orders themselves rather than having to submit every single opposed order to the Secretary of State as at present. The combined effect of these provisions will offer the prospect of real improvement for those people experiencing problems with a public right of way across their property. We want to evaluate how the measures work out in practice before seeking to add to the legislative burden.
The issue of intrusive public rights of way is very emotive. I understand why it arouses strong feelings and why those affected want something done. While putting a presumption on the face of the Act might seem desirable, the new clauses would create regulation where it is likely to prove unnecessary and create more problems than it resolves. The clauses proposed by my noble friend would impose a duty on each local authority to divert or extinguish every right of way that passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling unless they are satisfied that the privacy, safety or security of the premises are not adversely affected by the right of way and extinguishing it would not remove access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise reasonably accessible.
Carrying out a survey to identify rights of way that fulfil these criteria would place a significant new burden on local authorities. The proposed clauses would also have the effect of removing the tests in current legislation that ensure that the public interest in the right of way is safeguarded where that right of way passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling. My concern is that the proposed new clauses do not strike the right balance between public and private interests, which is critical to the agreement reached over the guidance by the stakeholder working group. I invite your Lordships to agree that legislative solutions imposed without a consensus or consultation could result in more disputes and legal challenges.
As the draft guidance on diversions and extinguishments has been developed by the stakeholder working group, it is founded on a strong stakeholder consensus, which means that it is likely to be complied with. We firmly believe that solutions based on agreement and mutual interest result in less conflict, as several noble Lords have said, and less need for enforcement in the long run. The stakeholder working group consensus is the result of many years of hard work and difficult discussions between stakeholders who have commendably agreed to put their differences to one side and work towards solutions that are for the common good. We should not risk putting all that progress in jeopardy by adopting measures that are not founded on that agreement. These proposed new clauses would impose a significant new burden on local authorities and all but remove the current public interest tests.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale questioned the right to apply and whether the guidance would have the intended effect. There is pretty clear agreement among stakeholders 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 and extend the scope of the right-to-apply provisions for such orders will overcome this, because landowners will be able formally to apply and appeal if the authority refuses to make an order or fails to respond.
The other hurdle is getting orders confirmed. However, according to Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the slightly in excess of 1,200 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the last three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the remaining 6%, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State. I am not saying that 100% of proposed diversions should necessarily go through. Clearly, that would depend on the proposal’s merits. However, given those statistics we believe that the combination of the right-to-apply provisions and the guidance will have the desired effect and that we should not rush to legislate before seeing how these measures work out in practice.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale asked why a landowner should have to meet the entire cost of a diversion and I understand his concerns. Where the diversion or removal of an existing right of way is for the benefit of the property owner rather than for the public, I think it is not unreasonable that the property owner should meet the cost. Authorities will not be able to recover more than the actual costs and would have to make clear exactly what was covered by those costs. In addition, as part of the rights of way reforms package, we will be introducing a framework within which local authorities will be required to make it clear to landowners what each stage of the process will cost and what they will be getting for that money.
We expect the costs of making alterations to public rights of way to reduce as a result of the reforms package as a whole, specifically through the following measures: significantly reducing the cost of publicising orders; giving local authorities more discretion to disregard spurious or irrelevant objections; making the exchange of written representations the default for dealing with opposed orders, rather than a public inquiry; and encouraging local authorities to enable landowners to make their own arrangements for undertaking some of the work normally undertaken by the local authority.
My noble friend also asked about the likely average costs to a landowner of diverting or extinguishing a right of way. Those costs will of course vary considerably across the country. They will depend on whether the relevant order is objected to and whether the matter goes to a public inquiry. Information we have gathered through our work gives us an estimated average cost, over a range of circumstances, for making and implementing a legal order to divert or extinguish a public right of way. The least cost is where an order is unopposed or written representations are used to deal with any objections; these average less than £2,500. Costs increase to an average of more than £8,000 where a public inquiry is held and experts and barristers are appointed.
I turn to my noble friend Lady Byford’s Amendment 17. This proposed new clause would give the Secretary of State the powers to issue statutory guidance on the making and confirming of a range of orders to divert or extinguish public rights of way. I recognise that the objective here is to give a statutory basis to the draft guidance on the diversions and extinguishment of rights of way that has been agreed by the stakeholder working group and placed in the House’s Library. We developed this draft guidance in collaboration with the stakeholder working group. The guidance sets out the proposed government policy on the diversion or extinguishment of rights of way that pass through gardens, farmyards and commercial premises. It effectively acts as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through such properties where privacy, safety or security is a problem and exhorts confirming authorities to act on that presumption, wherever possible.
We have great sympathy for those people who experience problems with public rights of way that pass through the garden of their family home. We are on track to implement the right-to-apply provisions introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which give landowners the right to apply for diversion or extinguishment of a right of way. Through clauses in the Bill, we are amending the provisions in such a way as to enable people with rights of way through their gardens to make applications under those provisions. With the right-to-apply provisions in place, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests for rights of way to be moved or extinguished, or dismiss them out of hand. They will be obliged to make an order or justify their reasons for not doing so, on appeal to the Secretary of State.
There is of course also the question of whether any orders made would be confirmed. Under the right-to-apply provisions, the Secretary of State will be the confirming authority for all disputed orders. Government will, as I have said, therefore be in a prime position to promote implementation of the revised policy set out in the guidance, by setting a clear precedent.
As I have said, getting broad agreement on this guidance is a fairly significant development. Because it has been developed by the stakeholder working group, there is a strong consensus on it. I am sure that the Committee will agree that new measures such as this are more likely to prove successful in practice because they have been introduced through agreement among stakeholders, regardless of whether they have statutory backing.
Baroness Byford
Before my noble friend responds to the Minister, I wonder if I might raise two issues with him. I thank him for his full response to my two amendments. Do I understand the Minister to say now that the stakeholder working group has not agreed with the two amendments that I tabled? My understanding was that they had been agreed to, and it is important that we have on the record whether or not they were. I do not wish to embarrass him, but from the inference of that he then went on to say that further discussions would take place because this had not been totally agreed. I am a little lost.
Perhaps while the Minister is thinking about that, because I will not get another chance later in the Bill, I thank everyone who has contributed. In an ideal world we would all want the best, and that should be done by agreement and by making things possible, but clearly at times they are not possible and some of the examples we have been given clearly reflect that. However, I would hate to think that we were not tackling an issue that had actually been agreed. If there has been some misunderstanding, perhaps the Minister would come back at a later stage and clarify that for us. In my opinion, it is slightly concerning that at the end of the day we are not clear exactly what has happened.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am sorry if I was not clear. With great respect to my noble friend, I ask her, once she has read what I said in Hansard, might we have a discussion after today? Perhaps that would be helpful.
Lord Greaves
I wonder if the gist of that discussion could be circulated to the rest of us. I am not wholly opposed to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Byford; there is a lot of common sense in it. However, local agreement ought to be possible, and it would be very helpful for all of us to know what the facts are.
Lord De Mauley
If it is helpful to your Lordships, the point that I was trying to make was that the stakeholder working group agreed in principle but that there are also points of detail which we have not yet resolved.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the proposals in the Bill will make great progress on many aspects and procedures covering rights of way legislation. We welcome this further debate on many aspects that the stakeholder working group raised. While we have addressed and debated some of them, there is as yet no agreement and it may be a long way off. However, we have welcomed the debate and look forward to further progress after these provisions have been enacted.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendments 19 to 22 seek to introduce measures that reflect the valid concerns of landowners and farmers about the impact that claims for rights of way can have on their businesses, and about the costs of dealing with such claims during due legal process.
I am aware that there are concerns about the potential effect on some landowners of applications to record a right of way, particularly about multiple applications in an area or even on a single property. An application fee has been suggested as a solution to this issue. However, the introduction of such a fee or charge would be highly contentious. Ministers specifically asked the rights of way stakeholder working group to look at the impact of applications to record a public right of way, particularly at multiple applications, and what measures, including a fee or charge for an application, might be introduced to mitigate this perceived problem. The group agreed to report back to Ministers in the following terms:
“The problem of multiple applications could be an acute one in some cases but it is not widespread and there is little prospect of coming up with a solution, particularly on application charges, on which the full range of stakeholders could agree”.
However, the group’s view was that measures already agreed as part of the reforms package will in any case alleviate most of the problems. The first measure is to raise the threshold for applications. A local authority would be able to reject applications that did not meet a basic evidential test, effectively eliminating spurious or speculative applications. We are proposing to apply this retrospectively, as agreed by the stakeholder working group, by means of the transitional regulations provided for in Clause 27(7), so it would apply to any existing applications that have not yet resulted in an order.
The second enables newly discovered rights of way to be diverted and/or reduced in width before being recorded. This would be by agreement between the local authority and the landowner, with no scope for the agreement to be thwarted by objections. It is possible that this could also be applied retrospectively through the transitional regulations, thus reducing the overall administrative and cost burden of the procedures for recording rights of way.
Taking each of the proposals in my noble friend’s amendment in turn, the proposition to introduce a time limit on applications for an order to modify the definitive map is not as straightforward as it may appear. While it is possible to envisage such a measure for applications that are based solely on evidence of recent use, most rights of way applications are concerned with recording a right of way for which there will be both user evidence and historical documentary evidence, which may not come to light until many years after a landowner makes a statutory declaration under Section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980.
Lord Deben (Con)
Could my noble friend explain why it is reasonable for documentary evidence, unaccompanied by usage evidence, to come into discussion many years after an application has been made? This is a matter of history and should remain so. It is surely not an acceptable argument against my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I said that there will be both user evidence and historical documentary evidence. Let me continue and try to go some way towards satisfying my noble friend. The time limit on the claiming of town and village greens introduced by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 is often cited as a precedent. However, this fails to recognise that the legislative framework relating to public rights of way is different from that of town and village greens. Most notably, a green is not created until it has been registered as such whereas public rights of way already exist in law, regardless of whether they are recorded on the definitive map. The recording process is simply ascertaining something that already exists. Rights of way can come into being though a variety of mechanisms, not just a qualifying period of use. In addition, rights of way can be diverted or extinguished to accommodate development whereas town and village greens cannot.
The stakeholder working group discussed the question of a time limit on applications but has not yet been able to reach consensus on it, despite a willingness to try. However, the group suggested that developments on Section 31(6) deposits should be monitored, following recent amendment to the provisions by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, to evaluate the scale of the problem over time. We intend to continue to do this in collaboration with the group.
The proposed amendment to Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 appears to be linked to the proposal to introduce a time limit for applications. However, the amendment appears to provide that the presumed or deemed dedication of a public right of way on the basis of 20 years’ use cannot have taken place unless someone has made a valid application to add the right of way to the definitive map.
I am not entirely clear if that consequence is intended but, if it is, it would prevent the local authority from recording the right of way on the basis of evidence that it has discovered itself. It would also no longer be possible to establish the public right of way through a court declaration. If this were to be the case, there is an argument that it would create an incentive for users of rights of way to make more applications to ensure that in these cases the presumed dedication had taken place.
Introducing a fee for an application for an order to modify the definitive map would be at odds with the whole basis of the legislative framework that has been in place since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, under which local authorities are charged with recording all the public rights of way within their areas and asserting and protecting the public’s right to use them. The fundamental problem with this proposal is therefore that, in the main, applications are made not for the benefit of the individual applicant but in the public interest. In addition, it is worth affirming that local authorities are already funded for this statutory duty through the revenue support grant. Even if there were no formal application process, if someone provided a local authority with evidence of the existence of a public right of way, the authority would still be statutorily obliged to consider whether to make an order.
The amendment seems to recognise this fundamental flaw in the proposals and seeks to remedy it by seeking to charge a fee even where evidence is submitted without a formal application. This seems unworkable, though, as I do not see how a fee can be charged when the person submitting the evidence is not making a formal application and receives nothing tangible as a result of their actions.
The final proposal seeks to amend the existing form of application for an order to modify the definitive map, which is set out in regulations, by requiring the submission with the application of a statement of truth. There is a case for strengthening the quality of user evidence to accompany applications for an order to modify the definitive map, but we do not believe that further regulation is needed to achieve this. We intend to bring about improvements in the quality of user evidence but through non-statutory means, as part of the review of existing guidance that will be required to implement the reforms package. In addition, we will be looking at extending the new preliminary assessment of applications to cover the quality of user evidence as well as documentary evidence. Moreover, it is already possible for rights of way inspectors to require evidence to be given under oath at inquiries.
Not only do the amendments proposed here go considerably beyond the finely balanced package of reforms agreed by the group but the proposed amendments on charges for applications to modify the definitive map, and on time limits for such applications, are highly contentious. They risk jeopardising the hard-won stakeholder consensus behind the proposed package of rights of way reforms.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked for specific information about costs. I am afraid that they are not collated centrally. I hope that she will understand that.
My noble friend Lord Deben asked why claims should be made many years later. Highway law is predicated on the fundamental principle, “Once a highway, always a highway”. However, the 2026 cut-off date that we are working towards, and which is a key element of the stakeholder working group package, will eventually close off the possibility of recording a right of way on the basis of historical evidence. On the basis of everything that I have said, I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for raising this issue. He makes a good case for this matter to be given more consideration. We are in debt to previous generations—he ended on this—for the substantial collection of public statues that there is in London. According to Westminster City Council’s guide to its process for obtaining permission for statues, they date from the Charles I statue of 1633. I had a look at that the other day and it is in very good nick. We are still seeing modern examples of material being put up and, as the noble Earl says, there are huge impacts on the way in which we view our city, on tourism and in other aspects, so it is important.
Behind the individual questions that the noble Earl has posed for the Government I think there is a real worry about their attempts to deregulate here. While the Government are clearly achieving something by taking responsibility away from the Secretary of State—although that is a deregulatory measure on a Minister and not on business—I am not sure whether they are taking the right step. As the noble Earl mentioned, there is a gap regarding who has responsibilities in this area. Given her previous experience, our Deputy Chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, might be in a better position to answer some of the questions about whether English Heritage has a role to play in this. I am sure that she will be too discreet to mention anything at this stage, and certainly not from the chair. However, I am sure that she will have some ideas about that. I am also sure that the Arts Council, in its wisdom and knowledge of these matters, will have things that might be brought to bear.
Whatever those ideas are, it is wrong for any individual politician to take responsibility for this area. That point was well made. I am not entirely clear whether substituting the GLA for the City of Westminster would solve that problem, because we are still talking about political control, but it raises the question: “Why just Westminster?”. Why would we not have wider consideration about where statues might be placed in London as a whole? My feeling is that statues are too important to be deregulated simply by the measure proposed by the Bill. I am not sure what the right solution is but I wonder whether the Minister might think about having a little more discussion about this.
The reflection I have, which I think is shared by the noble Earl whose amendment this is, is that there will be a bit of a gap here. It is not just a planning issue. The issues around putting up any memorialising form, whether it is a physical representation of somebody or an object whose presence is intangible, require aesthetic and other considerations rather than simply being about planning. I am not sure whether the planning system is quite the right place for this to be left. If there is therefore a gap, how would we find a way around it? It may be by having a statutory committee of some kind or simply by inviting some other body to take on a responsibility, which might be advisory. Whatever it is, I share the noble Earl’s concern about this issue.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the purpose of Clause 28 is to remove the current requirement on persons seeking to erect statues in public places in Greater London, excluding the City of London and the Inner and Middle Temples, to obtain consent from the Secretary of State before doing do. Controls to prevent the unsightly proliferation of statues in Greater London are already provided for by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This requires that planning permission be obtained from the relevant local planning authority prior to the erection of a statue in a public place in Greater London or the remainder of the country. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, but I am sure we can have a useful discussion about it. Given that the aim of this change in Clause 28 is to streamline the current double-handling of applications to erect statues, I cannot really see a benefit in removing the requirement to seek the consent of the Secretary of State only to replace it with a requirement to seek the consent of the Mayor of London.
The mayor plays a key role in the planning for London’s continued success. His London Plan provides the economic, environmental, transport and social framework for development in the region to 2031. He ensures that local plans fit with the London Plan, works with boroughs to develop planning frameworks for major areas of brownfield land and considers planning proposals of strategic importance. In this way, he already has input to the preparation of policies relating to public statues, such as those produced by the City of Westminster. The noble Earl asked why keep the 1854 Act at all? It is worth saying that it provides a power for the Secretary of State to repair and restore, for example, any public statue. I might be so bold as to suggest we would all find that an important power to retain. He also asked whether there are archives. I do not believe there are such archives—I am happy to have a rootle around but I am pretty sure there are no centrally held archives. I have little more to add. I hope I have said enough to persuade him to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I think it is useful to open discussion on this issue. I am slightly surprised that after 160 years there would not be some kind of substantial file. As I said, Westminster had to submit quite detailed plans and drawings and that has been going on for a long time. Could the Minister promise to look very carefully to see if there is anything there that would be useful? Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, the problems arising from recreational motor vehicles—4x4s and motorbikes—using green lanes, unsealed tracks and other classified county roads have become very serious. For today’s Committee I have received a large postbag of submissions highlighting the disruption to quiet enjoyment of the countryside, and indeed the destruction of the pathway that precludes any other use. The Green Lanes Protection Group, made up of some 20 organisations ranging all the way from the Lake District in Yorkshire through North Wales and the Brecon Beacons to Somerset and the South Downs, has provided evidential photographs of the damage, and this is supported by many green lane alliances and concerned individuals.
This is becoming a serious, pressing matter to sort out. We recognise this and, in expressing sympathy, urge the Government to commit to a way forward. However, I hesitate to prescribe how the Minister should approach this, as the amendment does when it says, for example, that within one year of the Bill’s enactment the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report that the amendment calls for.
Perhaps the Minister could say which body, and which process, might be the best way to respond. Would it be once again a stakeholder working group or a sub-committee of wider interest groups that could make recommendations? Legal changes introduced by the NERC Act 2006 have improved the situation by limiting claims for the recognition of additional BOATs and by giving traffic regulation order powers to national park authorities. In places, though, particularly in some national parks, the problems remain extensive and further legislation is most likely to be necessary, along with better enforcement. Any debates on this issue that arise in the context of the Deregulation Bill will be important in paving the way for future legislation.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious and partly ideological debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, particularly inside national parks, my noble friend’s proposal seeks to place a duty on the Government to assess the burdens and costs caused by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on unsealed rights of way. Presupposing that the review would conclude that motor vehicle use gives rise to a burden and cost, the clause would give powers to alleviate these but would not seek any assessment of any possible benefits, or seek to weight burdens and cost against such potential benefits.
I have to say that I have considerable sympathy with the genuine concerns of my noble friend and others about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others, I think that my noble friend is right to raise it today. Furthermore, I agree that this issue needs to be tackled and some means of resolution to it found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill said as much, but recognised that this Bill was not the right mechanism for doing it.
The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is a complex, emotive and contentious one where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. Research conducted on byways open to all traffic—admittedly, some years ago in 2005, although I am not aware of there being a significant change—found that although there are some acute cases of damage by recreational motor vehicle use in hot-spot areas, some of which my noble friend and I discussed earlier today, there was no evidence of widespread damage to the byway network from motor vehicles. The research found that 85% of byways open to all traffic in England carried either light traffic, at an average of 0.6 motor vehicles per day, or moderate traffic, at an average of 5.0 motor vehicles per day. Not all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is caused by the recreational use of motor vehicles. The research found that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access and just 38% is due to recreation. In addition, it found that 70% of byways were without any drainage. Much of the damage is due to a combination of farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance.
I must also say that there is good evidence that the use of unsealed roads during organised motoring events, such as hill climbs, puts significant amounts of money into rural economies. There are about 150 hill climb events around the country every year, with over 12,000 participants. The motorcycle club trials in the south-west alone are estimated to bring about £120,000 to the local economy. Some groups of motor vehicle users engage in volunteer activities to repair and maintain unsealed tracks, which I think is something that we would all want to encourage.
It is our contention that the most appropriate 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 and, in answer to my noble friend Lady Parminter, such a group will be established as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill. Despite my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s scepticism, I point out that the stakeholder working group approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the consensus in the face of diametrically opposing positions over the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in the Bill form the major part. This has resulted in agreement being arrived at through discussion and negotiation.
Lord De Mauley
I was just coming to the noble Lord’s earlier question on timing in a moment.
My noble friend asked what would happen if there was no consensus between the pro-vehicle and anti-vehicle groups. Clearly, consensus would be the preferred outcome but of course we recognise that ultimately this may not prove possible. Even without consensus, at least all the viable policy options will have been properly explored and evaluated by stakeholders, enabling Ministers to make better informed decisions on which proposals to take forward.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, the original stakeholder working group took 18 months to reach its conclusions and there is no reason why we should not set a similar timeframe for another. I am grateful to have my noble friend Lord Jopling’s support for this route. Within such a group, recognised experts can explore all the viable possibilities and their likely consequences. Solutions arrived at in this way, based on agreement and mutual interest, are likely to result in less conflict and reduce the need for enforcement.
My noble friend’s proposed new clause would create new regulation, which may not prove necessary after the issue has been properly analysed and discussed by the stakeholder working group and other stakeholders. Furthermore, subsection (3) of his proposed new clause contains a power to adopt some sort of measure to remove public rights of way by regulations. We believe that this would be an inappropriate use of delegated legislation and does not recognise that the best solutions to problems are often those that do not resort to legislation.
I am happy to have further discussions with my noble friend between now and Report but, on the basis of what I have said today, I hope that he will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank my noble friend very much. The Minister’s offer of further discussion is very pertinent because many people in your Lordships’ House feel very strongly about this issue. I was not convinced by the statement that there were only a few places; this is happening all over, and is growing. Urgent steps must be taken to deal with it. I may not be the expert on what those steps are but I am happy to engage in further conversations. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Thames Tideway Project: Contingent Guarantees
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they have indicated the availability of contingent guarantees in support of Thames Water; and whether this complies with their policies on offshore financial instruments, governance and taxation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, to be clear, the Government are not providing a contingent guarantee to Thames Water. The Thames tideway tunnel project will be financed and delivered by a competitively tendered infrastructure provider which is an entirely separate entity to Thames Water. Details of a contingent government support package for this entity, which complies with all relevant government policies, were announced in a Written Ministerial Statement on 5 June.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Every week the Government tell us that they intend to outlaw aggressive taxation and leverage policies. The Minister says that Thames Water is not going to be in receipt of these funds but the Thames tideway tunnel project will be. Why are they allowing that to be financed in a tax haven while also promising it a government guarantee? Is there not a conflict of interest here somewhere?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I have comprehensively answered the noble Lord’s point about tax in earlier short debates on this subject. Perhaps we will come back to that later, but I will address his point about the appropriateness of offering a government support package. The contingencies covered by it are set out in the Written Ministerial Statement. It is common for Government to provide support of some kind to major infrastructure projects—for example, the PFI projects under the previous Government. The government support package here will cover low probability but high impact risks that the market could not take on at a reasonable cost to customers. The infrastructure provider will be incentivised not to call on it and it will exist only during the construction phase. The important thing to bear in mind is that the infrastructure provider will pay for the cover. Furthermore, the financing for the project is sought competitively to help minimise the cost—and that means the cost to customers.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given the Government’s work with Infrastructure UK, Thames Water and Ofwat to identify the exceptional risks for which the contingent financial support has been offered, what measures have the Government asked to be put in place to minimise the likelihood of those risks and the resulting cost to the taxpayer?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the latter half of my noble friend’s question is quite difficult to answer at this stage. The Written Ministerial Statement referred to the contingencies covered by the support package. There are, for example, measures to deal with situations where claims exceed insurance cover, where economic or political events affect access to debt finance, where there are exceptional cost overruns and where the IP goes into special administration. It allows for discontinuation in certain circumstances and deals with how value for money for taxpayers is to be achieved. I can assure noble Lords that we have kept this to an absolute minimum to ensure a competitive process.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Thames Water has now put in place all the security measures that were required to ensure that water supplies cannot be easily contaminated or poisoned by terrorists?
Lord De Mauley
I cannot answer that specific question. I can say that it is Ofwat’s job to oversee exactly what each water company does, particularly Thames Water.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
Pursuant to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, is my noble friend aware that on the Thursday of the occupation of the Iranian embassy rather more than 30 years ago, the chairman of Thames Water was rung up by an anonymous caller on that morning and asked whether, if he received instructions to cut off the water to any of his customers, he would accept that order implicitly? The chairman replied, “If it was the Iranian embassy, yes; if it was any other customer of ours, no”. In my view, he demonstrated considerable knowledge of the international scene.
Lord De Mauley
I know that we are always grateful to my noble friend for his grasp of history. He was there. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, it is important enough that I will write to him.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard growing anxieties around certain facets of the water industry. Further to the specification and preparatory works notice regarding the Thames tideway tunnel recently published, will the Government look again at the value-for-money condition to provide better clarity concerning financial commitments for customers before agreeing contingent government support?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I agree 100% with the noble Lord that value for money for customers is absolutely key and is an absolute focus of the Government.
Public Bodies (Marine Management Organisation) (Fees) Order 2014
Lord De Mauley Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the draft order laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 July.