Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Earl points to a very important matter. Clinical skills are at the heart of effective care. Certainly, the desensitisation treatment is very time-consuming. My understanding, which I will confirm with the noble Earl, is that the NHS North West strategic model will roll out over the next few years. It will assess exactly those sorts of

30 Mar 2009 : Column 852

issues, so that the rest of the NHS can learn from that and take the necessary action to recognise that this is, for a small number of people, a very time-consuming therapy.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that one of the most devastating forms of allergy is the kind of acute anaphylactic shock that may occur in individuals who are sensitive to nuts and that, recently, there has been some progress in desensitisation against, for example, peanuts? Nevertheless, it is crucial that this desensitisation process should be carried out only in a specialised unit where the risks of such a process are fully appreciated and can be handled.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. Two recent studies from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge and Duke University in the United States suggest the possibility of removing peanut allergy in children by very slow and careful exposure. However, we have asked the Food Standards Agency and the Committee on Toxicity to advise the department about how to proceed with this. We will continue to monitor it, but the noble Lord is right that this has to be done with extreme care.

Viscount Simon: My Lords, I live with an allergy problem every day of the year and I was a member of the Select Committee. Are more allergy specialist consultants being trained, rather than just the very few who have been trained so far?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, we are increasing the number of allergy specialists. Five new such specialists have come through in the past year, and more are in the pipeline.

EU: UK Membership


3 pm

Asked By Lord Pearson of Rannoch

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Malloch-Brown): My Lords, the benefits of our EU membership far outweigh the costs. The figure of £2,000 cited by the TaxPayers’ Alliance seems to be largely based on estimates of the costs to the UK economy of regulation at the EU level, but that is not even half the story. Single market regulation has opened markets across Europe, and 3.5 million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU—and the benefits go still wider. The security of UK citizens is enhanced by co-operation with EU partners on terrorism, illegal migration and organised crime.

30 Mar 2009 : Column 853

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is a shining example of the triumph of political hope over the ruinous experience of real people. Are the Government aware that the TaxPayers’ Alliance analysis was taken from official figures and that £2,000 per person per annum comes to some £300 million per day for the country as a whole, or £120,000 million per annum—some 8 per cent of GDP? Cannot the Government see that leaving the European Union and continuing in free trade with our friends in Europe would liberate us from the clutches of Brussels and create millions of jobs, not lose them, as the Government go on pretending?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, there is some slight relationship to official figures, but they are multiplied and exaggerated for effect. To take the largest portion of the TaxPayers’ Alliance calculation, it has at least doubled—if not more—what the EU estimates as the cost of regulation. I am afraid that the TaxPayers’ Alliance has not only conveniently forgotten the benefits overall to the UK of the jobs and growth created by Europe but also conveniently invented the costs to us.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even a cursory reading of the figures—

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I am sure that there is time for the noble Lord, but my noble friend was asking his question first.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that even a cursory reading of what pretends to be a serious study of the cost of European membership shows that not even the authors believe the figures to be accurate? At figure 3 it says that the real cost of the EU “may be about” 10 times higher, and the figure is justified only by including such vague things as its estimate of the cost of red tape and its estimate of the cost of VAT and other fraud, but they bear no relationship to reality. However, will my noble friend join me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on his party getting a substantial donor, even if it is at the cost of the Conservative Party?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, let me say in response to the first part of my noble friend’s question that the figures do indeed seem to be hugely exaggerated. One can only wish that the contribution had been similarly exaggerated.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister has made a robust case for our membership of the European Union, and I agree with much of what he says. However, he would not wish to sound soft about the question of excessive regulation, whether from the EU or anywhere else, would he? Is he aware that since the initiation of the UK regulatory reform agenda announced by the Government in 2005, the latest very detailed estimates suggest that the cost of regulation has risen from £16.7 billion a year to £28.5 billion—that is a 74 per cent increase, of which some 71.6 per cent is EU originated? Whatever one’s view about the virtues of the EU—one can see many of them—surely Ministers

30 Mar 2009 : Column 854

should be far more robust about resisting unnecessary and excessive regulation than they have been if this trend is to be stopped.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, let me say immediately to the noble Lord that we share absolutely his horror of red tape. I remind him that this Government have championed an initiative and now an agreement between other member states to cut red tape in Brussels by 25 per cent by 2012. We are also leaders in trying to bring about reform of the common agricultural policy. I completely agree with the noble Lord that our respect for Europe should not disguise to us the fact that significant improvements in efficiency are still to be made.

Lord Dykes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that he does not need to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson? He should be sympathetic because, having wrecked the Conservative Party, Stuart Wheeler is now moving his money to the UKIP. But it does not need it anyway because all the UKIP MEPs charge maximum expenses on a regular basis in Strasbourg and Brussels, which adds up to about £400,000 per Member.

I turn to the TaxPayers’ Alliance. Does not its innocent-sounding title hide a rather sinister truth? Five years old now, it was formed by three or four dotty, extreme right-wing Conservatives who make the neo-cons in America look very moderate—Minford, Minogue and all the rest of them—and is now advocating deep hatred on a day-by-day basis; as Polly Toynbee said in the Guardian on 9 February, “insidious poison”. Will the Minister treat this report with the contempt it deserves?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, it probably belongs in the fiction section of a bookshop.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, as these are not budget figures but estimates of the costs of regulations that we have either initiated or agreed to in an EU context, it is particularly important to take account of the benefits as well as the costs? Is it not particularly appropriate at a time when we are in a recession that is noted for insufficient regulation of the banks—a recession not made in Brussels—to look at the benefits and not only at the costs?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Regulation has its role and we have to make sure that Brussels regulation is as effective and as efficient as possible. So yes to regulation, but regulation that works and does the job well.

Bribery Bill: Joint Committee

Motion to Agree

3.06 pm

Moved By Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Motion agreed, and a message was sent to the Commons.

30 Mar 2009 : Column 855

Local Government (Structural Changes) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Other Provision) Order 2009

7th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments

Cornwall (Electoral Arrangements and Consequential Amendments) Order 2009

7th Report Joint Committee Statutory Instruments
11th Report Merits Committee

Motions to Approve

Moved By Baroness Andrews

Motions agreed.

Health Bill [HL]

Order of Consideration Motion

Moved By Baroness Thornton

Motion agreed.

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

Bill information page
Copy of the Bill as debated
Today's Amendments
Explanatory Notes
Delegated Powers 1st Report
Constitution Cttee 1st Report

Committee (10th Day)

3.07 pm

Amendment A247A not moved.

Clauses 200 to 205 agreed.

Clause 206: Roe etc

Amendment A248

Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

A248: Clause 206, page 117, line 33, leave out “that subsection” and insert “subsection (3)”

Amendment A248 agreed.

Clause 206, as amended, agreed.

Clause 207: Licences to fish

Amendment A249 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 207 agreed.

Clause 208 agreed.

30 Mar 2009 : Column 856

Clause 209: Authorisation to fish

Amendment A250 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment A250A

Moved by The Duke of Montrose

A250A: Clause 209, page 120, leave out lines 34 and 35

The Duke of Montrose: I move this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. I shall be brief, as this is a probing amendment. There is a licensing regime contained in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That Act is being updated; Clause 207 of the Bill, which we passed a second ago, amends Section 25 of the Act and will apply that regime to all these fisheries. When we get to Clause 208, amending Section 26, there is a reference to,

I notice that rod and line and historic installations are to be excepted from the powers in the order. What will the effect of that be?

The Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act currently has in place a charging regime. How many licences need to be issued at present under that regime, and do the Government envisage that the amendments in the Bill will create a vast change in those numbers? If the present scheme is adequate to regulate the fisheries at present, why is it thought necessary to have an additional authorisation scheme with its own charging regime? Does that imply an extra financial burden for the administration—presumably, the Environment Agency? Has this been assessed? Will the Government expect to recover the full burden of these costs from the applicants? I beg to move.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change & Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): I am grateful to the noble Duke, who has moved a probing amendment. We are introducing an authorisation scheme because the current position does not work sufficiently well. At the moment, the Environment Agency must issue licences to all who apply, subject to any net limitation orders or court-issued disqualification orders. It is only in those cases that the Environment Agency is permitted not to issue a licence. Other than that, it is an automatic issuance. The problem with that is that some fisheries can have a serious impact on stock or the aquatic environment, and we think they should be subject to tighter controls.

The Bill will enable the agency to assess those fisheries that pose a higher risk to either fish stocks or the aquatic environment, which might involve new fishing methods that may develop and which have potential to harm the aquatic environment. In order to safeguard the situation, we want the agency to be able to refuse to grant an authorisation should the method present significant exploitation or harm. For that purpose we are amending the licensing provisions in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, through Clauses 207 and 209. Angling and fisheries undertaken under statutory entitlement will remain

30 Mar 2009 : Column 857

under licensing schemes, but Clause 207 gives Ministers the power to decide which nets and traps not used under statutory entitlement should be licensed and which should apply for authorisation.

As to numbers, under the current rod regime the Environment Agency issues approximately 1.3 million rod and line licences and over 1,200 net and trap licences. I am told that the number of licences issued is not the same as the number of fishers; in particular, eel fishers hold a number of licences in order to set a number of eel traps and nets. At this stage we intend that only those who are targeting eels using fixed traps or racks or those targeting lamprey or smelt will be required to seek authorisation. Early indications are that this change will affect between 20 to 30 people out of over 1,000 who currently purchase net or trap licences, so the vast majority of those currently purchasing a licence to fish using nets and traps will continue under the same regime as before.

The Environment Agency is currently considering the appropriate fee for authorisations. My understanding is that its thinking is that fees will be in line with those for a licence currently issued for that fishery. Early assessments are that the fee involved will be sufficient to cover the cost to the Environment Agency of assessing the effect of a particular method on a site or stock. Those costs not met through the fees will be absorbed by the Environment Agency through efficiency savings. I assure the noble Duke that the Environment Agency will consult widely on its proposed changes for authorisations later this year, and fishers will then have an opportunity to contribute their views.

3.15 pm

The Duke of Montrose: I thank the Minister for giving us so much information. In the confusion at the beginning, I forgot to declare my interest as somebody who runs a salmon fishery in Scotland which is not subject to the regulations.

I am most grateful to learn of the workings of the new regime being put in place and that it will not mean a substantial change for those affected. We all applaud the powers with which it will provide the Government to conserve fish and eels. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment A250A withdrawn.

Clause 209 agreed.

Clause 210: Enforcement

Amendments A250B and A250C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 210 agreed.

Clauses 211 to 217 agreed.

Clause 218: Theft of fish from private fisheries etc

Amendment A251

Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath

A251: Clause 218, page 128, line 10, leave out “the statutory maximum” and insert “level 5 on the standard scale”

Amendment A251 agreed.

30 Mar 2009 : Column 858

Clause 218, as amended, agreed.

Clause 219 agreed.

Clause 220: Duties of the Environment Agency

Amendments A252 and A253 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 220 agreed.

Clauses 221 to 223 agreed.

Schedule 16 agreed.

Clause 224 agreed.

Clause 225: Marine enforcement officers

Amendment A254

Moved by Lord Greenway

A254: Clause 225, page 132, line 12, after “officer” insert “solely employed”

Lord Greenway: I shall speak also to Amendments A259 and A262. Part 8 of the Bill deals with enforcement, and Clause 225 specifically with marine enforcement officers. Marine enforcement officers are,

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page