Direct Payment to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Grand Committee

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register, although they are not particularly relevant to the point I want to make.

I do not think the Minister was in this House when we considered the Agriculture Bill in 2019—I cannot quite remember but I hope I am right about that. During the passage of that Bill, there was quite a lot of comment from many parts of the House about the position of smaller farmers, particularly hill and livestock farmers, most of whom are marginally profitable, if at all, and nearly all of whom depend wholly or almost wholly on the public subsidy that they receive. I made a plea at that point for the Government to consider not reducing the lowest band of the direct payments because those are directed only at the relatively small farmer.

I see in the regulations in front of us that, in fact, the smaller farmers—that is, those receiving £30,000 or less—are to receive a cut of 20%. That seems rather harsh. Although I am perfectly aware that there is no possibility of this regulation being amended, I wonder whether the two Ministers here would discuss with their ministerial colleagues the state of the small farms in this country. I do not believe that this Conservative Government really want to see small farms eased out of business. I am really worried about them.

The larger farms will get by. They have efficiencies, they are usually better capitalised; they will probably be all right under changed circumstances. But the small family farms, in many cases tenanted farms and/or livestock farms, are struggling and will struggle even more with these proposed cuts. I just do not feel that Ministers are sufficiently sympathetic to the position of small farmers at the moment. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these three statutory instruments dealing with proposals for the transition to the new financial support payments for farmers in England post Brexit.

The first SI, which deals with direct payments and reductions, has been well publicised since Brexit and during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. Farmers’ payments under CAP have already started to decrease and this year will see a further reduction in their payments, from 20% for those on £30,000 up to 40% for those in receipt of more than £150,000. This sliding scale has been well trailed and there should be no surprise among farmers about its further reduction. What is more problematic for them is the lack of the implementation of ELMS to replace this lost income. Small farmers will be hit particularly hard.

Consultation on the transfer took place back in February to May 2018 and the new arrangement is now beginning to bite. Are the Government considering a further consultation on the actual effects of the sliding scale of reduction in direct payments, especially as the implementation of ELMS is only slowly coming into effect during the transition period? Meanwhile, food security is moving rapidly up the agenda.

While it is to be welcomed that the Government are focused on biodiversity and carbon sequestration targets, the knotty issue of food production is somewhat ignored. The British farmer is very disillusioned at the trade deals with countries on the other side of the globe which have a very different landscape in which to produce their livestock and huge economies of scale that are not open to British farmers. They also have less stringent animal welfare rules than those which operate here. It is, therefore, much easier for Australian and New Zealand farmers to undercut our own hard-working farmers. Does the Minister agree that farmers are angry about the way they are being treated by the Government and undercut by cheaper imports?

I turn to the financial assistance amending SI. This seems to be all about monitoring of farmers’ financial assistance and enforcement. Over the five pages of the Explanatory Memorandum to this short SI, there are no fewer than nine references to monitoring and enforcement. The whole instrument gives the impression that the farming community is systematically and deliberately attempting to defraud the Government out of money.

There is reference to the tree health pilot scheme and annual health and welfare reviews being exempt from the publication requirements which apply to all other payment schemes. Can the Minister say why this is?

Under paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, bullet point 5 refers to the Secretary of State being able to investigate suspected offences. Given the general tenor of this SI, what is the current level of offences? Paragraph 7.1 again refers to checking, monitoring and publication of information. In paragraph 7.3, the fourth bullet point refers to

“investigation of breaches and suspected offences in connection with applications for, or the receipt, of financial assistance”.

Can the Minister say whether wholescale fraud existed in the farming community over payments?

Paragraphs 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.9 refer to suspicion of fraud, breach of conditions, investigative powers and, again, suspected offences. It would appear that farmers are being accused of wholesale fraudulent activity over their payment claims. The whole statutory instrument wields an awful lot of stick and hardly any carrot in its treatment of farmers. Can the Minister please give the Grand Committee some clarity on just what the basis is for the tone of this statutory instrument, which I find offensive?

Paragraph 7.10 states:

“The instrument does not impose duties that are significantly more onerous than before”.


Can the Minister say, however, whether he thinks a family farmer would be likely to agree with this statement?

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, on his very detailed introduction to the Bill, which I understand has government support. I shall not repeat the rationale that the noble Lord so eloquently stated.

It is important that everything is done to protect animals, both farming and domestic. Most animals are well cared for but occasionally there are lapses either of care or of recording on farms. A system of penalty notices is an excellent bridging gap between providing advice and guidance or the prospect of a criminal prosecution.

In many debates over the last two years, the UK’s reputation as a world leader in animal welfare has been mentioned on many occasions. This is a reputation we should be justly proud of and protect into the future. The way in which both livestock and domestic pets are treated says what kind of a society we are and how we wish to be treated.

Occasionally there will be lapses due to the inaccurate completing of forms. In 2019, there were 45,000 farmers keeping cattle and 61,000 sheep farmers. Every movement must be recorded to protect public health. This is vital. I lived in rural Somerset for over 40 years but recently moved to Hampshire. Last week we received through the post a notice telling us that we were in an area where avian bird flu had been detected and advising us to keep any poultry we had inside—we do not currently have any. This was a first experience of such a notice for us. Only by keeping accurate records will such information be available to the general public. It is, therefore, quite right that action should be taken against those who either accidently or deliberately record details inaccurately.

A penalty notice is an excellent stepping stone to make farmers aware of their lapses and bring the constant offenders into line. The threat of a criminal prosecution should be a sufficient deterrent, but used for minor offences it is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Far better to head this off for minor offences but to keep it for serious breaches of animal welfare where animals are suffering as a result of neglect or cruelty.

It is important that there are measures to ensure that those selling kittens and puppies must include their licence numbers on any online adverts and that microchipping of animals takes place before rehoming. Sadly, there are still those who seek to import puppies raised in puppy farms and not given the attention and care that we would expect when buying a puppy. A penalty proportionate to the harm caused is important to act both as a deterrent and as a measure to help safeguard vulnerable young animals.

On the detail of the Bill, which I suspect will not be debated in Committee, Clause 3 lists the various offences covered in the Bill. However, I note that it does not cover the Dangerous Dogs Act, which will continue to be within the remit of the police. However, some concern has been expressed by the public and the animal charities that the breeds of dogs covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act need reviewing and that some dogs are covered which are not believed to be dangerous. Are the Government considering reviewing the Dangerous Dogs Act?

Clause (1)5 refers to

“persons who may be specified by regulations”

and paragraph (c) indicates that

“any other person that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

may enforce these regulations. This is very wide. Can the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, give an indication of just what kind of appropriate person this might be?

According to Clause 3(3)(a) the fixed penalty notice may not exceed £5,000, and paragraph (b) states that

“the maximum fine for which a person convicted of the offence is liable on summary conviction.”

Can the Minister say why this is not £5,000 and/or paragraph (b) instead of both? Can he also say whether the fixed penalty fine is a flat £5,000 or whether there is a sliding scale of fines up to a total of £5,000?

Clause 8 gives a list of the enforcement authorities and the explanation of what a “local authority” means—the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to this. Local authorities are currently under severe financial constraint. I am somewhat concerned that the fines imposed are to be paid into a consolidated fund, less expenses. What is the consolidated fund to be used for? This could appear a somewhat obscure tax and is likely, therefore, to be resisted. Is the consolidated fund to be used to reimburse local authorities for the work and expense that they will incur in carrying out the function of issuing fixed penalty notices? The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has given some information on this.

This is an excellent piece of legislation that should make it easier for culprits to be brought to proportionate justice and to understand the implications of their actions in terms of animal cruelty. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and fully support the Bill.

Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument, which seems fairly straightforward. However, I have a number of questions to ask him, if he is able to answer.

The Flood Re scheme was set up as part of the Water Bill in 2014 after the horrific flooding we witnessed during that winter. It was to ensure that, for those properties whose owners would find it almost impossible to gain flood insurance cover on the open market, the owners would not be left with no redress. The fund was to be paid for by a levy on all insurance companies, so spreading the load. The figure at that time was £180 million, as the Minister said; as a result of this statutory instrument, the figure is being reduced to £135 million.

The Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, anticipates that flooding is likely to increase rather than decrease. In that case, how can the Government be sure that reducing the Flood Re fund by £45 million will not have a negative impact on those who cannot get insurance on the open market? Surely the fund should be monitored at the very least, or increase in anticipation of future demands on it.

The Explanatory Memorandum is clear that these regulations designate a new FR scheme. Given that the existing flood reinsurance scheme is working well, why is it necessary to have a new one? Apart from the difference in the sum involved, in what way will the new scheme be different from the existing FR scheme?

Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the liability limit will be reviewed

“every three years instead of every five.”

That is fine. The liability limit was £2.1 billion in 2016, with increases in line with the consumer prices index. Can the Minister say what the liability limit is currently, in 2022? It is important to review the limit but it has to be done in conjunction with the risk profile, as identified by climate change professionals, not just what Defra officials think might happen.

Paragraph 7.5 of the EM states that the surplus funds on the wind-up of the existing scheme will return to the Government. Can the Minister say why this surplus is not being transferred into the new scheme? This seems to me to be a mistake. If the insurance companies are paying a levy towards Flood Re, surely they should be the ones to reap the benefit of any surplus in the existing fund. Paragraph 12.3 refers to the lack of an impact assessment, as there is a negligible impact on businesses. If the surplus in the existing fund were transferred back to the insurers, it would have no impact at all on business. The Government are attempting to have their cake and eat it.

The new scheme will allow insurers on a voluntary basis to make payments of up to £10,000 for resilience repair—build back better—over and above the cost of like-for-like reinstatement of actual flood damage. My recollection is that this resilience repair element was part of the original commitment of Flood Re. Can the Minister say whether this was ever implemented from the start? If not, why not? Resilience is a vital element of this scheme.

I cannot see any reason why a new fund has to be set up if the existing one is operating well and has surplus funds in it. I am sorry to say that I feel something of a sleight of hand is going on here; at best, there is a distinct lack of transparency. Given the view of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee that the incidence of flooding is likely to increase in future, I feel the reduction in the levy pot by £45 million is premature. Can the Minister reassure us that, for those who have access to the Flood Re fund, it will be there when they need it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to this SI and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing it to our attention. I had a strong sense of déjà vu when reading it, as I was present when the first SI was debated back in 2015, which clearly illustrates that I have been in the job too long. I remember our original debates and will come back to some of the issues raised then.

Since then, the UK has suffered more regular and devastating extreme weather events, as the noble Baroness has said, with the result that thousands of properties are being flooded, many on a repeat basis. This has underlined the need for more robust and accessible home insurance. It is good to hear that Flood Re has been judged a success and that it has helped thousands of homeowners in flood risk areas who would otherwise have struggled to insure their homes, as the Minister was saying. It was also reassuring to hear that the scheme has met its initial liquidity and capital requirements and has a high solvency ratio, making it financially secure. On this basis, we accept that it makes sense to reduce the levy on insurance companies from £180 million to £135 million a year.

However, a number of questions arise from the proposals, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address. First, the Explanatory Memorandum referred to the statutory quinquennial review of the FR scheme and the recommendations that arose from it. Have all the recommendations of that review been agreed by government and put forward in this amended proposal today, or are there other recommendations still out there or under consideration or which have been rejected by the Government?

Secondly, as we have heard, one of the recommendations before us today is the build back better proposal to allow claims up to the value of £10,000 to enable homeowners to fund flood-resilient improvements over and above any like-for-like repairs. This is a welcome initiative, but paragraph 12.3 makes it clear that the participation of insurers in the build back better supplement will be voluntary. Why was it not made compulsory for all insurers to offer this payment, given the urgent need to make our properties more resilient to flood risk in future? Do we have any information about the appetite of insurers to pay this extra supplement? The Minister quoted some statistics, but I would be grateful if he could confirm what proportion of insurers are providing the build back better facility.

Thirdly, I return to some of the concerns raised when the original scheme was introduced which still seem relevant today. Are the poorest and most vulnerable—those in tenanted and rented properties—still excluded from the scheme? It really does not seem right that people living in the same or adjoining properties could have access to different standards of flood insurance purely on the basis of the status of those living in the property. Do you still have to be the homeowner to qualify? Since the scheme now appears to be financially secure, what consideration was given to extending access to it to wider categories of claimants, such as tenants?

Can the Minister clarify the current status of farmhouses? I know that this has been a concern for the farming community. Most people would say that they are primarily residential properties, even if they also act as a business address. Can farmhouses join the Flood Re scheme?

Finally, could the Minister clarify whether we are still focusing on properties deemed in high-risk flood areas? Given the recognised threat of extreme weather events arising from climate change—the noble Baroness talked about the issues raised by the Adaptation Sub-Committee on this—how can we be sure that the right areas are now being designated as high-risk flood areas? Has not our experience of flood risk in recent years been that it is increasingly hard to define? Does the Environment Agency have the resources to reassess and redesignate flood risk areas from low to high risk with sufficient speed to ensure that insurers can respond accordingly? What further powers are the Government proposing to give to the Environment Agency to ensure that no further properties are built in high-risk flood areas against its advice, as can happen at the moment?

These are all issues that need to be addressed if Flood Re is to achieve its true potential. I hope the Minister can address them. I look forward to his response.

Single-Use Plastics

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I warmly welcome the work that the pact has done and very much support its ambition. Just a few days ago, the member states of the United Nations Environment Assembly agreed to a historic deal whereby we will now be creating a global treaty to tackle plastic pollution. The UK has championed this for a long time. We co-sponsored the resolution, and the aspiration is for this new treaty to become for plastic what the Montreal protocol was in relation to the ozone layer.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, while it is important to reduce the production of single-use items, there are some which, for health and safety reasons, should be excluded. These include hypodermic needles, medical and cleaning gloves, and medical dust respirators. However, there are others which could be targeted, such as disposable nappies. What are the Government doing to promote the use of washable, reusable nappies?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, there is a whole range of plastics, not least disposable nappies, where work must be done. We are currently taking advice in relation to wet wipes, single-use coffee cups, and cigarette filters, almost all of which are made of plastics, although as a smoker, I use biodegradable paper filters; they are just as good and you can drop them on the ground without feeling too bad—or, indeed, you could stop smoking. All these items, and there are others, are within the range of what the Government are looking at in relation to the action that we will be taking in the coming months.

Waste and Agriculture (Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full introduction to this relatively straightforward instrument dealing mainly with waste. The Explanatory Memorandum claims that without this SI it would be “cumbersome” and difficult to make any necessary changes to take account of new methods of sampling and waste treatment in future.

Paragraph 7.2 of the EM sets out the functions already in place and working well but does not mention those that are perhaps not working well. Is the Minister able to say whether any of the functions under the EU directives concerning waste that have transferred are not working as expected?

I am afraid I have some somewhat detailed questions. The various categories of waste covered by this SI are wide. In Chapter 5, Regulations 12 and 13 deal with the retention of functions from the batteries directive. This includes powers to specify criteria relating to the export of waste batteries. Regulation 12(1) states that an

“appropriate authority may, by regulations, make provision specifying criteria for the assessment of equivalent conditions where treatment and recycling of waste batteries takes place outside the United Kingdom.”

The Minister will know that all households are now aware that they cannot just throw their expired batteries into the waste bin but have to dispose of them safely. Having disposed of my batteries in the relevant safe way, I am sure I am not alone in not expecting them to be exported for their final resting place. Can the Minister say just what percentage of the

“batteries, accumulators and battery packs”

referred to in Regulation 13 is disposed of within the United Kingdom and what percentage is exported for disposal, and which countries take our batteries for disposal?

While I have not read all the directives covered by this SI, I have done some investigation on the mining waste directive, 2006/21/EC. This covers extractive waste from land-based extractive industries and the relevant regulatory procedures required for England and Wales under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. This relates to unpolluted soil, non-hazardous waste from prospecting of mineral resources, except oil and evaporates, and waste from peat extraction. The definition of extractive waste is unpolluted soil and waste arising from prospecting for mineral resources and from peat workings. I am sure the Minister can see which way I am going.

Article 3(15) further states that for a site to be considered as a mining waste facility, the extractive waste would have to be kept in it for differing periods of time depending on the category of waste. For

“unpolluted soil, non-hazardous prospecting waste, waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat and inert waste”,

this is specified as

“a period of more than three years”.

Can the Minister say what the average time period of storage is for extractive peat waste and what the quantities are currently likely to be?

The section in the instrument relating to agriculture is at the end under Part 4 and relates solely to the financing, management and monitoring of the common agriculture policy, in so far as it relates to CMO markets and rural development measures, and corrects errors in previous SIs on the subject. Given the number of SIs in the past on this subject, although they were before the Minister was in post, can he give reassurances that this SI is a catch-all and corrects all previous errors, or are there likely to be more? As I said, this is something of a tidying-up SI, and I am happy to support it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing this SI to our attention. As the Minister said, the SI proposes to transfer several technical powers relating to waste from the European Commission to the Secretary of State, as well as correcting an error. In this regard, I have a number of questions.

First, can the Minister say when the error was first identified and why it has taken so long to bring the correction before us? This partly echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the SI was first drafted. We have dealt with a number of corrections over the years, so why has this one taken so long? Perhaps he could address that point.

Could the Minister also say whether there have been any adverse consequences resulting from this drafting error? If there was no definition of the appropriate authority, I would have thought it undermined the whole legislation and that the legislation had no standing if it did not say who had the authority to carry it out. I would like to have a better understanding of what has been happening in the intervening period since the original wording was agreed by us. Perhaps he could also explain how that error came to light and why that took so long.

Secondly, referring to the various waste management standards, which the Minister said are all currently operational, can I double check whether all those standards were approved by Parliament in the first place? In other words, have they been signed off in the normal way?

Thirdly, paragraph 6.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that

“if this SI were to fail and the powers were not transferred to the Secretary of State”,

it would not be possible to make regulations to take account of improved scientific techniques in the future. In other words, this is the only way to do that. I take slight issue with that, because surely there remains the option of bringing forward new regulations to take account of improved scientific knowledge, an option that would exist at any time, without necessarily giving all those powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to give up our involvement in those decisions. That matters because, as we all know, having debated so many SIs in the past, the definition of improved scientific knowledge is a bit of a movable feast, and we might have a different view in Parliament from the Secretary of State.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that this is to allow more flexibility for the Secretary of State in responding

“to scientific and technical changes”.

But given the Government’s current excitement about the forthcoming Brexit freedoms Bill, how can we be sure that the freedoms for the Secretary of State set out in this SI will not be used to reduce standards in the name of technical advance? For example, there are several references in the SI to the Secretary of State being able to exercise this power only if it is considered

“appropriate to do so as a result of scientific and technical progress”.

This phrase is used in Schedule 6(3) relating to end-of-life vehicles, in Schedule 11(2)(a) relating to mining waste, and in Schedule 20(2) relating to the WEEE directive.

Rivers and Coastal Waters: Sewage

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to the private model, supported by strong independent economic regulation—that bit is the key. We have no plans to bring water into public ownership but, equally, holding a near-monopoly licence to provide these services is clearly a privilege and the Government and regulators have high expectations of the behaviour of owners and investors. That is now reflected in the toughest laws that this country has ever had in relation to our water quality.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, Southern Water is named as by far the largest culprit among the water companies in the report after the company issued 1,949 sewage discharge notifications, from a total of 5,517 around Britain. This accounted for 35% of all incidents from nine water companies. The company has already been fined but appears unrepentant. How are the Government going to bring Southern Water into line, given that fines do not appear to be a deterrent?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, we have made it clear to the water industry, including Southern Water, that it needs to reduce the adverse impacts of all sewage discharge discharges, whether treated or untreated, as a matter of urgency. In addition, the sector will need to demonstrate year-on-year progress in meeting those targets. Where the targets are not met, the Government will have no hesitation whatever in stepping in and using all the tools at our disposal.

Environment Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 43B in lieu—

43B: After Clause 72, insert the following new Clause—
“Bee and Pollinator Safety
Protection of pollinators from pesticides
(1) Prior to any authorisation for use of a pesticide product, an active ingredient, a safener or a synergist, a pollinator risk assessment report, containing scientific data and risk assessment conclusions relating to the effects of the relevant substance, must be published by an expert body consisting of individuals free from vested interests in pesticide use, who must have been independently appointed.
(2) The pollinator risk assessment report must include—
(a) data examining acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hoverflies,
(b) all available scientific evidence relating to effects on any pollinators,
(c) an assessment of synergistic effects, and
(d) the identification of any risks to pollinators where the available evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion.
(3) The expert body must consult the public on the draft content of the pollinator risk assessment.
(4) A competent authority must not authorise for use any pesticide product, active ingredient, safener or synergist until and unless the public—
(a) has been informed early, in an adequate, timely and effective manner, that a decision will be made,
(b) has been consulted on the decision that the competent authority intends to make, including on any mitigation or restriction measures that are proposed, and
(c) has had access, for the full consultation period, to all statutory risk assessments required for the authorisation decision.
(5) In addition to considerations set out elsewhere, when making any authorisation decision the competent authority must—
(a) aim to achieve a high level of protection for the environment,
(b) be satisfied that there will be no significant short-term negative effect, and no long-term negative effect, on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations,
(c) publish, with the consultation referred to in subsection (4)(b), a statement explaining why the competent authority is satisfied that requirements (a) and (b) of this subsection have been met.
(6) This section comes into force on 1 March 2023.
(7) In this section—
“authorise for use” includes authorisation by derogation; “competent authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;
(d) the Secretary of State when acting with the consent of either or both the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales and the Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland.””

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his time and for that of his officials during the passage of this Bill on the subject of pesticides and pollinators, and for his comments this afternoon. I was disappointed, as were others, that the other place chose to ignore the vote of this Chamber and rejected our amendment on the basis that the law makes provision to protect pollinators from the effects of pesticides. I fear that this is not the case. It is clear from its response that the other place has not fully grasped the extent to which the existing provisions fail to protect any non-honey bee pollinators, and to which the proposed provisions fall outside the pre-existing provisions.

Insect pollinators are vital for the maintenance of ecosystem health and for global food security. Seventy-five per cent of crops species, 35% of global crop production and up to 88% of flowering plant species are dependent to some extent on insect pollinators. There is substantial concern as to their current and future conservation status. Key threats to pollinators include agriculture intensification, particularly habitat loss and pesticide use, climate change and the spread of alien species.

We have had detailed debates on this subject previously, and now is not the time to revisit that detail. I thank the Minister for his commitment and for his comments. I welcome the commitment to assess the use of pesticides in the round, and I look forward to hearing the detail. The Minister speaks very fast, so I will study Hansard to assess his detailed comments. I beg to move.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer as set out in the register. I also share with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, a considerable love of bees. I am not sure whether she intends to press the House on this, but I must set the record straight regarding the use of plant protection products as this is absolutely fundamental to agriculture in this country.

First, PPPs are targeted, not used in isolation. They form a critical component of an integrated pest management approach which carefully considers all available protection methods to discourage development of populations of harmful organisms; their use, and the use of other forms of intervention, are kept to levels that are economically and ecologically justified; and they reduce and minimise the risk to human health and the environment.

Secondly, there is a big misconception that farmers use PPPs even though they do not need to. Farmers only use PPPs when they absolutely must to protect our food supply against pests, weeds and diseases that would otherwise cause us to lose between 30% and 40% of our food production. When farmers use PPPs, they ensure they are only using as much as is necessary and take measures to ensure that they impact only on intended crops.

Thirdly, as stated on numerous occasions, the current regulatory system for PPPs is among the most stringent in the world. All products on the market have been subject to a thorough assessment to ensure a high level of protection of human and animal health and the environment. This includes bees and other pollinators. Insecticides are by their nature toxic to bees and other pollinators; however, the way they are used ensures that the risk of exposure is minimised to levels that do not harm bees or other pollinators. As part of the regulation, an appropriate risk assessment is carried out on all active substances and products before they reach the market. They can be approved for use only if it will result in negligible exposure to honey bees or it has no perceptible, acute or chronic effect on colony survival or development. That is the actual situation. I welcome the Minister’s response to this amendment and I look forward to the result of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords again for their contributions to this debate. I will briefly address Amendment 43B. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for, as I understand it, agreeing not to press her amendment—I hope I have not pre-empted a decision—but more importantly, for her work on this vital issue. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that she has been very effective at raising this issue on the agenda. I am grateful to her for that, and I hope we will be able to continue to work together on this issue as we develop a robust pesticide action plan. I thank her very much indeed.

Much has already been said regarding storm overflows, so I will keep it brief. I thank Members across the House and in the other place for their informed, valuable and passionate contributions. I am pleased that we were able to announce progress today. In response to the noble Baroness on the Front Bench I say that, while the Government must vote against this amendment today, for procedural reasons and to ensure that the House of Commons has an opportunity to deliver the proposed amendment in lieu, that is not a reflection of an ideological difference; it is simply a procedural issue.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked a number of questions, in particular about a timeline for the implementation of Schedule 3. It has already commenced and will be completed in 2022; I cannot give a month, I am afraid.

I very much appreciate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. On the costs that she talked about, there is a difference between the cost of eliminating harm from overflows and the cost of eliminating overflows. It is the cost of eliminating overflows to which those figures apply. I will not pretend that I have been through the figures myself but, based on everything that I know, the range is anywhere between £150 billion and £500 billion. In real terms, it is not a relevant figure, in that no one is proposing that this amount of money should be spent on infrastructure. The key is the elimination of harm, which would allow the overflow to happen in some cases and for investment in sustainable systems such as reed beds and the like. That would not be the elimination of overflows but it would be effective management of them. It is, however, the correct figure for eliminating overflows.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked a question on the chemical issue. Again, it is not the case that there is a shortage of chemicals preventing the water companies doing their job. There is currently no disruption to the supply of water, water treatment or the treatment of wastewater. The shortage of HGV drivers had meant that there was a risk that deliveries of ferric sulphate, a water treatment chemical, would be delayed, but the Environment Agency successfully and very quickly mitigated that risk.

On Amendment 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, I assure noble Lords that the Government will publish a nature recovery Green Paper in the coming months, setting out our approach to supporting nature recovery in England. It will show our commitment to and focus on this matter, which I know is enormously important to almost everyone in this House.

On Amendments 94 and 95, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I reiterate that we will not have in one year meaningful data with which to assess the effectiveness of this legislation. However, the disagreement that we have is entirely practical; it is not based on our hopes for the effectiveness of this legislation. As I said before, if it is clear before two years that something bad has happened and the Government have chosen to exploit or create a loophole, we will act long before the review deadline of two years. It will be very obvious to us should that be necessary.

Moving on to Motion K, although I ask the House to disagree to Amendment 66, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I very much appreciate her remarks and her commitment to the issue; she has pushed it right up the political agenda in a very effective way. I hope that your Lordships’ House will welcome the Government’s progress and the commitment to enhancing the protection of ancient woodlands, on which the noble Baroness and I have agreed, I am delighted to say.

On Motion M, I hope that noble Lords can support the Commons in its Amendments 67A to 67E, which will provide further reassurance to landowners on the issue of conservation governance.

I hope noble Lords agree that, in addition to the progress made in Committee and on Report, we have moved further today to protect our waters, our trees and our landscapes for future generations.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and I beg leave to withdraw Motion H1.

Motion H1 withdrawn.

Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for talking us through the regulations today. I remember that, when the original legislation went through—rather than the regulations themselves—concern was expressed about what would happen if a retail company were to fail. I do not know whether that has been resolved in the existing regulations; as my noble friend has explained, it seems that these regulations apply to that very narrow area of a retailer providing services to housebuilders.

I want to take this opportunity to ask a question in that regard. My noble friend is aware of my passion for SUDS—sustainable drains. Where housing developers build major new developments, is it envisaged within the original regulations that SUDS could be applied as a condition of planning permission for the work being agreed?

The Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument—I believe it is the second regulation—will

“reinstate the … duty on undertakers to provide connection services, on request, in retail exit areas”.

Is that deemed to be an automatic right to connect? Is there any leeway to ensure that we can actually insert a condition that SUDS must at that stage be envisaged? That could save any contribution to flooding down the line.

The Explanatory Memorandum says at paragraph 7.3:

“The main retail services provided to non-household customers through the retail market”,


as my noble friend said,

“are billing and administration services. However, with the opening of the market, it was designed so that retailers could also provide new water and sewerage connections services to business customers.”

My noble friend said that this was limited. Has it been so limited as to have never actually happened, or has it happened in literally only one or two cases? Paragraph 7.3 goes on to say:

“These services primarily concern connections to water and sewerage services for new developments, involving predominantly housing developers.”


My noble friend is aware of my interest. I latched on to something he said during the passage of the Environment Bill before it went to the other place: the automatic right to connect no longer being automatic. Will that apply in these as well as other cases?

Paragraph 7.6 goes on to say: “We”—and I presume the “we” is the Government—

“consider that ‘non-household premises’ includes new housing developments which are under construction before anyone is using the premises as their home.”

Does that mean that existing housing developments do not fall into this category? Is there any chance that the regulations before us this afternoon will apply to those existing housing developments? It goes on to say that

“Until people move in, we consider that a development does not fit that definition”,


as given in that paragraph. On what basis has the department reached that conclusion? What background brought it to that position?

Paragraph 7.7 says that

“There are several unintended consequences”,


as my noble friend set out,

“of the 2016 Regulations’ amendments. These concern new connection services, the laying, inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing”.

I still maintain, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, that, when making these new automatic connections automatic, we are dealing with Victorian, antiquated piping. Whether it is the retailer or the water company providing these services, the pipes are deemed to have to connect. At the moment, the water company is not a statutory consultee, whereas the Environment Agency, for example, is; I do not believe that the advice the water company is giving planning authorities has the same legal force as that from the Environment Agency.

I ask my noble friend whether the problems with the regulations set out in Paragraph 7.7 could be avoided by ending the automatic right to connect. It is unacceptable; we have an opportunity, at this stage in the regulations, for the water company or retailer to say that they cannot make physical connections when housing developments are being made and that there will be overflow into the storm drains and the possibility that sewage will come back into either the new developments or, worse, existing developments that have not been affected in the past.

I welcome this opportunity to ask questions on those points, with a special emphasis on whether sustainable drains can be part and parcel of this, and that the water company or retailer should say whether the existing infrastructure simply cannot take the amount of wastewater envisaged to come out of any new houses.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and for his comments. On the face of it, it seems like a straightforward change in the legislation to bring the retail sector into line with domestic housing arrangements following the changes made in the Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016. I note that this instrument relates only to England, but the extent of it is England and Wales where there are cross-border issues.

The water and sewerage industries were privatised in England and Wales in 1989. In 2014, reform of the Water Act enabled competition in the market. In 2016, the transfer of non-household retail business prevented the provision of retail service to new non-household customers that arose in its area. Given what we now know about the effects of supply and demand on water and sewerage systems, this would seem a sensible step.

Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum enables

“developers to make new connection requests to their retailer.”

There is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum, nor in the instrument itself, of whether there would be capacity for new development to be safely connected under the automatic right to connect, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already mentioned.

The Minister will know that during the passage of the Environment Bill there were many debates about the effect of effluent being discharged into rivers, lakes and other watercourses and the extremely detrimental effect this has on both water quality and the wildlife that previously inhabited those areas. I ask the Minister whether the local relevant sewerage and water capacity will be part of the consideration when developers apply for connection for retail. The automatic right of developers to connect for housing developments has caused considerable problems, not only in effluent discharge, but has contributed to localised flooding during prolonged periods of rainfall.

This is a minimal change to the legislation, but the legislation relating to domestic properties is far from perfect. Once the drainage and sewerage management plans are in place, that should ensure better collaboration between developers and those dealing with the supply of water and disposal of sewage. But these are not yet in place. Duties in Section 41 and 45 no longer apply to premises in a retail exit area. To indicate that new households under construction are not classified as household premises until people move in is somewhat late in the day to deal with capacity issues and whether sewerage systems are able to cope with the additional demand.

A Section 98 duty to comply with sewer requisition is the duty to provide a public sewer or a lateral drain. This appears not to apply in relation to premises in the retail exit area that were not household premises. Just what is the legal obligation to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage system for new connections from retailers? This might be a small retail outlet, or it might be retail premises relating to an already overlarge housing development, which would be a much larger connection.

I am sure the Minister can understand my concerns and I would be grateful for his reassurance that capacity will form part of the connection requirements. I note that a consultation period took place between 29 April and 25 May 2021. This period included a bank holiday. Seventeen responses were received but the EM does not say whether Water UK or the Consumer Council for Water were among those. However, I understand from officials that, since there were responses from some water providers if not from Water UK itself, there seems to have been a general positive agreement in the industry in response to this SI.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the consultation exercise. I understand why Defra has introduced this new measure but remain extremely concerned about the effect on flooding of connecting retailers to the sewerage system without first checking that the system has the necessary capacity.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I am sure he will be relieved to hear that we accept that it is broadly technical in nature and, as such, will not be opposing it. It deals with relatively small consequences of the reform of the water industry and the right of water companies to exit the non-household retail market in their sector. As the Minister has said, several unintended consequences have arisen from the new provisions and this SI deals with one such anomaly relating to new housing developments.

I have to say I was amused to read the Commons Minister Rebecca Pow stating when introducing this measure that it was underpinned by the Government’s commitment to

“strong, independent regulation that protects customers and the environment”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 22/9/21; col. 4.]

because, arguably, that is exactly what we do not have. This is why water companies such as Southern Water get away with regularly pouring sewage into our rivers and sea with no comeback from their customers or for their customers. But I accept that that is a slightly wider issue than the SI before us today.

Environment Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have campaigned against plastic and support most of the Government’s plans because of the permanent damage that plastic can cause, especially to our seas and rivers. I support the wide powers that the Government are taking in this area. However, focusing on single use is not sensible. I remember that, when I was in retail, a single bag for life needed to be used 80 times to match the efficiency of the light single-use plastic bag. We also need to think about the consumer. I feel there will be similar nonsenses if we try to ban the single use of other items. What is wrong with a coloured paper straw or a paper spoon to eat an ice cream? It will rot afterwards. I am also happy to see cans of Coke, especially if they can be recycled, as they would be if we made it a great deal easier for people to recycle. So I may be in a minority of one, but I think this amendment goes too far.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on single-use plastic and other single-use material. As I indicated last week, we have become a throwaway culture and seem unable to motivate ourselves out of this. We as a country, therefore, need additional help for this to happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has introduced this amendment with her usual depth of knowledge and experience. On Monday, we had an extremely informative debate, with contributions on a number of aspects of the harm caused by different types of plastic to the environment. There are amendments for later days, when we will return to some of these aspects. Then, as now, we will refer to other single-use items that cause harm to us and our environment. Great care is needed in finding alternatives to single-use plastics so that we do not create a greater problem of carbon creation. The problem is with the throwaway culture, not with plastic alone.

According to a 2018 study by the Danish Ministry for Environment, environmental and social impacts associated with the paper supply chain are considerable, and include ozone depletion, human and ecosystem toxicity, and air and water pollution. The study found that a paper bag would have to be used 43 times to have an overall impact lower than that of the average plastic bag. Although its degeneration rate is far higher than that of plastic, it is the creation of the paper that has the carbon impact. It is important to be clear that we cannot move away from plastics to other non-sustainable, one-off alternatives, such as paper, without fully assessing the consequences.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, speaking on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and in her own right, made some very powerful points. The Government are currently consulting on banning further single-use plastic items, such as plates and cutlery. What are the Government intending to use in place of plastic? Will it be bamboo? What effect will using bamboo in this way have on the supply and growing of bamboo? This is just one example.

I support completely the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. We as a nation should have regard to the overall impact of single-use items, such as disposable nappies, which we will debate later. If we are to be a world leader on environmental issues, as the Government want us to be, reducing the use and impact of single-use items is key. We on these Benches fully support this vital amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which will ensure that the overall impact of the Environment Bill has a chance at being successful.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, consider other likely consequences of these two amendments. With advances in agritech, such as pest monitoring, plant breeding and precision application, it is likely that the use of PPPs and all other pest control interventions can become more efficient, achieving more with less. However, to achieve this, the Government must encourage investment in research and development and provide a regulatory environment which enables innovation in order to deliver the next generation of agricultural technologies and, in the meantime, ensure that farmers and growers retain the tools they need to produce world-class food sustainably and affordably. These amendments would undermine that investment in the future.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 53 in my name and shall speak to Amendments 52 and 123. All the amendments deal with different poisons that should be banned, or at least controlled. I thank the Bill team for its time and useful briefing on Friday. We have debated at length the impact of pesticides on both the population and pollinating insects during the Agriculture Bill and in Committee on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke passionately, as always—as did others—about the impact of pesticides on humans unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of spraying. That is a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will have concessions to offer the noble Lord and other signatories to that amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave the excellent example of the promotion of DDT. There should not be another example similar to that witnessed with the use of organophosphate sheep dips, when it took a huge campaign on the part of those affected before the substance was banned. Pesticides have detrimental effects on humans, and the Government should acknowledge that.

I now turn to Amendment 53, relating to the effect of pesticide use on pollinators, particularly bees. I am grateful to Buglife for its briefings. I am sure the Minister will refer the House to the integrated pest management strategy, which covers some of the ground. However, this does not provide the safeguards needed. The widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides resulted in a reduction in the overwintering success of honey bee hives, significant declines of 40% in wild bee species studied and was implicated in butterfly population decline. This resulted in reduced pollination services and crop yields. However, despite the acknowledgement by the then Minister in 2010 that the pre-approval tests for pesticides were inadequate to protect pollinators, and the production in 2013 of a testing guide document by the European Food Safety Authority, the UK has yet to introduce any new tests to help ensure that future pesticides are pollinator-safe. In order to comply, an independent, competent authority is needed, as detailed in proposed new subsections (1) to (4) of Amendment 53.

I acknowledge the national action plan on pesticides and its aim to reduce the need for chemical pesticides, but it does not mean that they will be phased out. The Future Farming scheme will help with transition to a non-pesticide control, but this is yet to have effect.

The public are passionate about bees. One needs only to see the many products on sale with the symbol of bees and their honeycombs to acknowledge just how popular they are. Those can range from miracle face creams through to cushions and scarves, from socks through to high-fashion items, kitchen utensils and even furniture. There is also the huge popularity of honey—a truly natural product. The bee is popular, and the public wish it to be protected and wish to be consulted on anything which might have an impact on pollinators. This amendment ensures that that could happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has referred to a 30% to 40% reduction in crop yield if PPPs are not used, but if crops are not pollinated because of the decline in pollinators, there is likely to be a similar loss in yield.

With reference to proposed new subsection (9), the devolved Administrations have a significant role here, and the Minister should consult them. Authorisation of use includes derogation. As a nation, we must strive to avoid a similar circumstance to where a Minister, overriding the advice of his officials, authorises the use of glyphosate-based herbicides, which can cause high levels of mortality in bumblebees. This came to public attention only due to an FoI. The public need to have confidence that the Government will do the right thing.

Different groups of pollinators are affected by pesticides in different ways, so it is important that a range of pollinators is included in the pre-approval testing process. This amendment would ensure that tests are undertaken on acute and chronic effects on honey bees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hover-flies, but also that independent science relevant to any pollinator is considered.

I regret to say that, despite the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that everything is tested, on Friday, officials said that it was impossible to test everything. The various mixtures of chemicals—the so-called cocktails—are unlikely all to be tested. There may be a shift to less toxic mixtures, but insufficient research on their effect has so far been done, and it is important to protect honey bees and wild pollinators.

Turning briefly to Amendment 123, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who spoke passionately about it, phasing out the use of lead ammunition has been slow. In Committee, we heard powerful evidence of the effect of lead poisoning on the health of both children and adults. No matter how careful you are in the preparation of game for the table, lead shot often escapes notice and is unwittingly eaten. I was very interested in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, of lead shot in millet. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, spoke from vast experience of shooting. Alternatives to lead shot are available. I fully support the transition away from lead to safer alternatives. This amendment, if added to the Bill, would ensure that that would happen sooner rather than later. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those three very important amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement at Rothamsted Research. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in a clearly very important debate. Amendments 52 and 53 tackle the pernicious effects that pesticides are having on our environment and on human and insect health. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty once again raises the important human health implications of spraying noxious chemicals in fields next to residential and workplace areas. He asks that regulations should set out minimum distances from homes, schools and public places. We do not think this is an unreasonable request. As he said, at least farm workers have protective clothing and some sort of choice about their work environment, whereas local people have no choice and no information about what is being sprayed on particular days. As we have discovered in the past, the health implications of exposure to such chemicals can sometimes take years to be revealed, as the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, of DDT, clearly demonstrated.

Of course we welcome the Government’s overarching commitment to reducing pesticide use. We see that there are considerable advantages to precision applications and integrated pest management for the future, but the very fact that the Government are taking those steps is an acknowledgement of the dangers of widespread pesticide use. In the meantime, until those techniques become commonplace, we should at least be taking steps to protect public health, and my noble friend’s amendment is one step towards doing this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

53: After Clause 73, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection of pollinators from pesticides
(1) A competent authority must not authorise for use any pesticide product, active ingredient, safener or synergist unless it is satisfied that there will be no significant short-term negative effect, and no long-term negative effect, on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations.(2) A pollinator risk assessment report relating to the relevant substance must be published by an expert body.(3) The expert body must consist of individuals free from vested interests in pesticide use, who shall have been independently appointed.(4) The pollinator risk assessment report must include—(a) data examining acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hoverflies,(b) all relevant available scientific evidence relating to any pollinators,(c) conclusions relating to the likely acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies, hoverflies and other pollinators,(d) an assessment of the likelihood of synergistic effects, and(e) the identification of any risks to pollinators where the available evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion.(5) The expert body must consult the public on the draft content of the pollinator risk assessment report.(6) When making any authorisation decision the competent authority must—(a) aim to achieve a high level of protection for pollinators,(b) be satisfied that the requirements of subsections (2) to (5) have been met,(c) consult all relevant authorities with environmental responsibilities, (d) consult such other persons as the competent authority considers appropriate,(e) lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the competent authority is satisfied that the requirements of subsection (1) have been met,(f) ensure the public has been informed by public notice early in the decision-making procedure, and in an adequate, timely and effective manner, that a decision will be made, and(g) ensure the public has been consulted on the decision that the competent authority intends to make, including on any mitigation or restriction measures that are proposed.(7) The consultation period for the purposes of subsection (6)(g) must be of at least three months, except for emergency derogations where the period will be at least four weeks.(8) This section comes into force on 1 February 2023.(9) In this section—“authorisation of use” includes authorisation by derogation;“competent authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;(d) the Secretary of State when acting with the consent of either or both the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales and the Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
The aim of this new Clause is to fix a gap in the pesticide authorisation process which currently omits any assessment on the long-term effects of pesticides on honey bees and omits any assessment of the effects on wild pollinators.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this response and acknowledge the work that Defra is undertaking to restore pollinator habitats. However, the national action plan and the revised integrated pest management strategy are not sufficient protection for pollinators that have delicate systems. Food production is important and pollinators are key to this.

Given the time constraints, I will not continue. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Environment Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who has contributed so much on these issues to the House over many years. I want chiefly to reiterate a point that I made on Monday, when your Lordships’ House backed Amendment 2. There is no conflict between that amendment and this one, so ably introduced by the noble Earl and supported by all other speakers in this debate today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, pointed out that the 25-year environment plan mentions soil quality 19 times. In that debate on Monday, the Minister talked about how the sustainable farming initiative scheme includes practices such as the introduction of herbal leys, the use of grass-legume mixtures, cover crops and so on—as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, just referred to. The Minister talked also about how complicated it was to measure soil health but said that the Government were doing that work. So we have these suggestions here, there and everywhere, but what this amendment would do—I hope that we might hear some good news from the Minister when he stands up shortly—is join this all up. Joined-up government is one of those favourite phrases we hear very often. It is clear that your Lordships’ House believes, and it is clear from the science, that soils absolutely are the foundation. As the noble Earl said, we have a water strategy and an air strategy; we have to have a soil strategy, just as we have to make soils a priority. This is joined-up government; this is sensible, practical work to make sure that the Government are working towards one goal, which has to be healthy, high-quality soils.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, on Monday, we debated adding soil health and quality to Clause 1. Many noble Lords from all sides of the House spoke knowledgeably and passionately about the need to monitor and improve the quality of our soil. The noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, gave an excellent summary of the attacks from all sides on our soil. In response, the Minister said that it was difficult to measure soil quality and indicated that the Government were working towards targets that could be measured with reliable metrics. He felt the amendment would pre-empt that work. However, the House did not agree with him.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is also passionate about the quality of soil and has spoken extremely eloquently to his Amendment 18. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, have also spoken in favour and added their names to the amendment. If we are fully to appreciate the role of soil, its condition and how we as a nation might best help to improve its quality, we will need a soil management strategy for England. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, although not in his place today, on Monday recommended this amendment to the House.

As noble Lords have previously said, there are many different types of soil. They contain billions of essential bacteria, but over the years, by the continued spraying of chemicals to control insect pests, prevent weed growth and promote the growth of crops, we have denuded the soil of its quality. Whether the soil is of grade A agricultural value, peat bogs, clay, sandy or containing lime, it is all suffering. The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has given an excellent example of the strategy adopted in Ireland. It is time that we followed that example.

I fully support the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in his desire to introduce a soil strategy into the Bill. The timeline set out in his amendment, of a 10-year strategy to be reviewed and renewed for another 10 years after that, is right. It would give adequate time for a proper action plan to be implemented for the different types of soil and the uses to which they are put. It would give time for the soil to recover and to be adequately measured, and for the Government, landowners and farmers to see whether their actions had been successful.

Given that everyone across the House fully supports the amendment, I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept it, despite what his briefing notes might say.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Grantchester for his kind comments and for all his excellent advice and support on this issue.

This has been a very interesting short debate. I want to thank in particular the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for speaking so passionately on soil health and management and for furthering the issue. From reading his contributions on this Bill and previously on the Agriculture Bill, it is evident that he cares deeply about this issue.

According to the Sustainable Soils Alliance, poor soil management releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere which contribute 21% of total UK agricultural emissions. In contrast, healthy soils sequester carbon rather than releasing it, while also increasing resilience to floods and droughts.

We hope that the Minister will have taken note of the earlier amendment on soil health and will use it as an opportunity to bring forward a wider soil management strategy. The Government need to note the strength of feeling in the House and give this important issue its due attention, rather than leave it as an afterthought, which seems to be their current strategy.

What does the Minister plan to do to reverse the currently fragmented approach to soil policy? I know it has been said that the answer lies in the soil, but on this serious issue of a soil strategy, the answer lies with the Minister. I look forward to his response and the joined-up approach, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.