State of Climate and Nature
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Statement refers to the legal duty on the Government to halt species decline by 2030—except that is not happening. To take the example of birds, including the starlings, turtle doves and grey partridges the Statement refers to, overall, bird species have declined in the UK by 2% and in England by 7% in the five years since 2018. One of the significant contributory factors is factory farming. Globally, farmed chickens account for 57% of bird species by mass, wild birds only 29%. The arable land growing their feed is generally terrible for wild species, plus their waste causes widespread air and water pollution.
We have just seen that the absolutely awful Cranswick plc proposal in East Anglia for an existing site to rear 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs at one time was refused and 42,000 people signed a petition against it. What are the Government going to do to protect nature and human health and well-being against further expansion of the disastrous practice of factory farming, rather than forcing local councils to bear the weight of dealing with these applications and the legal risk of turning them down? I should perhaps declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, we do a lot of work on farming in Defra through the pathway to better welfare conditions for farmed animals. Clearly, the important thing is animal welfare, the conditions and a farm doing the best job it can in the best conditions. I do think the emissions implications for huge farms are something that we need to address and we are looking at that extremely closely. I hope she will be interested in the animal welfare strategy when we publish it later this autumn, because that will have a section on how we are going to improve farmed animal welfare, which will have a knock-on effect on exactly the kinds of situations that she is talking about.
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I warmly welcome and support. In the case of her road haulier friend, I hope that he had good insurance and was able to recover the costs and get back on the road again. I have a couple of questions in order to understand more of the detail of how the regulations will work.
The Minister mentioned Amazon and eBay, but one that keeps bobbing up, although I have never actually used it, is Temu, which seems to be everywhere for everybody. I welcome what the Minister is proposing in respect of online marketplace operators, but my question is how it will work in connection with the electrical goods to which the regulations refer. When one makes a purchase—obviously, I have used one of the companies to which the Minister referred, which I do not want to advertise, as there are others available—at what stage will the regulations kick into effect? How will her department police the operations as smoothly as the regulations envisage?
Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states:
“There are difficulties with enforcement of the 2013 Regulations against non-UK based suppliers”.
Obviously, one of the reasons that electrical goods are cheaper online is because the suppliers have not been paying for the costs of disposal. One question, therefore, is: will they now be more expensive as a result of the regulations, although people will be competing more fairly? It is no secret that the rise in online shopping has been one of the greatest challenges to traditional retailers up and down the country, including out-of-town shopping centres and market towns. I personally want to see market towns recover, although I know that there are a number of other issues, including parking. Paragraph 5.5 goes on to say:
“The intention of this SI is to ensure that OMP operators who facilitate these sales into the UK are responsible for those costs, ensuring the costs are distributed more fairly”.
Presumably, the reporting that the statutory instrument is making a requirement will ensure that such operators are in the system, so to speak.
The Minister has identified how flammable and how dangerous some of these items can be. My other question is: what is the normal disposal mechanism for, in particular, e-cigarettes, vapes, heated tobacco products and other similar items? In previous debates on statutory instruments in this very Room, we have discussed how important vaping is in getting people to switch from smoking and in the prevention of smoking in future, although there are obvious dangers where young people are vaping for the first time, which I know the Government are seeking to address.
It seems odd that, originally and currently, e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products fall within category 7 under the WEEE directive, which category also covers toys and leisure equipment. Will they be recategorised, so that vapes are taken out of that category? The Minister will not remember, but there was a toy safety directive when I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I was even a Member of the European Parliament when the WEEE directive appeared in its first incarnation. The toy safety directive covered such things as teddy bears’ eyes—if a child could eat them, they had to be carefully disposed of—and it impacted charity shops on the high street, which had to deal with them separately.
I should like to understand how these e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products will be disposed of and what the financial costs of the collection, treatment and recovery are estimated to be. Will the onus be on the user of these products to dispose of them safely and in a responsible manner?
With those few remarks, I wish the Minister well with the regulations, and I hope that they go on to make a positive impact.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for her introduction. I have a few specific questions, particularly relating to online marketplaces.
We can probably all come up with a list of half a dozen large websites that we would expect to be selling these products, but I have a little awareness—possibly more than most Members of your Lordships House, but still not that great—of things such as Discord servers, which are not very visible or open to the public but require membership. A lot of selling, particularly to young people, may take place through these layers of the internet, which be at the top layer of the TikToks and eBays and so on. How will the Government ensure that we are not going to see the cheapest products ending up further and further down the chain of legibility to government and regulators. I would be interested in understanding a bit more about how the Government will enforce these regulations. How they will find the sellers and work out who owns them and who owns the websites? What level of enforcement is going to happen?
I take this opportunity to pay testimony to the work of Action on Smoking and Health. At an ASH event that I attended downstairs a week or so back, they had a disposable vape and a reusable vape, and the trick question was: which was which? They were indistinguishable. I also note recent reports that many shops that used to sell disposable vapes are now selling reusable ones, but the same shops do not sell refills. Such shops are just taking things called reusable vapes and still treating them as disposable vapes. If the Minister is unable to answer that now, I will understand if she wants to write to me. When we are talking about managing the waste problem, although there is a sense that we have dealt with the problem of single-use vapes because we have passed a law, I would question that. From what I have seen and has been said to me, how much have we changed the reality on the ground?
My other question comes from practical experience. Last week, I happened to be in the middle of Dudley town centre where I saw what is perhaps a measure of the socioeconomic usage of vaping. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to the fact that vaping was supposed to be for people giving up cigarettes; the last statistic that I saw suggests that there are 1 million people in the UK who vape who have never smoked tobacco. In the middle of Dudley town centre, the borough council had provided a specific bin for the disposal of vapes.
My question to the Minister, therefore, follows on from the probably fairly modest extra revenue that these regulations will raise. How will we ensure that the funds raised actually go to the people incurring the costs? I am thinking of the financial impact on councils in particular—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—but also any other bodies that may be forced to deal with the disposal of what may or may not be single-use or reusable vapes.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I shall continue to try to cover noble Lords’ questions and comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about compliance and guidance. New guidance will be published to help online marketplaces understand the new obligations; it will, I hope, help with compliance if there is clear guidance on what the expectations are. This will include guidance on the transitional arrangements so that online marketplaces understand their obligations in respect of the data that they submit after the regulations come into force in 2026. We are looking at doing this to make sure that people are clear on what their responsibilities are and to increase compliance with the regulations.
Costs were asked about. The impact of the policy means that online marketplaces—the producers—will be liable for end-of-life costs, as I explained in my introduction. Currently, that obligation is supposed to be met by overseas sellers, but there is a high level of non-compliance. This again comes back to compliance. The new obligations on online market producers therefore represent either a cost transfer from their overseas sellers or a fairer reallocation of costs that currently fall disproportionately on UK businesses. We think that these costs are likely to be passported back to overseas sellers via their contractual arrangements with their online marketplaces. The new costs are, therefore, related primarily to familiarisation costs; we estimate that they will be between £1,014 and £3,926, which is quite precise, depending on the size of the business.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the circular economy strategy and how this measure will fit into that. The strategy and the road maps are designed to create a future where we keep our resources in use for longer; where waste is reduced; where we accelerate the path to net zero; and where we see more investment in critical infrastructure. Within the scope of the circular economy strategy that we are developing, we will also develop a long-term road map for reforming all the different key sectors. Electricals is one of the sectors for which we are going to develop a road map; that will set out a number of short-term, medium-term and long-term interventions to make the sector more circular. We are planning to publish that circular economy strategy in the autumn, after which it will go out for consultation. The noble Earl may be interested in looking at that when it is out.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned enforcement in the first place. The WEEE regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency and by its equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because, obviously, this matter is devolved. They will need to ensure both that online marketplaces are registering with the producer compliance scheme, as I explained, and that they are submitting the data. Again, that data will enable us to ensure that compliance is being met and, where it is not, to enforce. Similarly, the producers of vapes and other similar products will also need to submit data to the Environment Agency on the amount of products that they are placing on the market in the new category, which has been discussed.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about timing and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about timescales. Following the consultation by the previous Government, which took place in the first half of last year, both measures were supported: 87% supported our measures on online marketplaces and 91% were in favour of the proposal on the new category for vapes, which is pretty conclusive. Because of that, we are bringing the legislation forward now so that the changes can be made ahead of the compliance year next year; we thought that, because there was so much support and it is such a problem, it was important to move forward quickly.
Resources were also mentioned—and here is my brief, as if by magic. We are working very closely with our regulators to ensure they have all the necessary resources they need. I believe strongly that there is no point in bringing in legislation if you cannot enforce it, and you cannot enforce it if you do not have the resources. An example of this is that we have already provided £10 million to trading standards for vape and tobacco enforcement. We are taking that very seriously.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the obligations are going to come into force. They would come into force 21 days after they are made, which, if approved by both Houses, we would expect to be later on this summer, or potentially in the autumn, but we are hoping to do this quite quickly. That would mean that they would pick up the financial obligation in the 2026 compliance period. They would be required to pay the registration fee to the producer compliance scheme when they join on 15 November, as I mentioned earlier. We think that most of the schemes would look to spread the costs throughout the year, and many would also likely invoice their producer members on a quarterly basis.
The new obligations for producers were mentioned, particularly the new category 7. As we have heard, for vapes and similar products, we are creating this new electronic and electrical equipment category in Schedule 3 to the regulations. We took that decision because it is not right for vapes to be currently categorised as toys, leisure and sports equipment. We thank noble Lords for their support for that decision. The creation of the new category is to ensure that producers of vapes and other similar products pay fairly for the treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of the goods they place on the market. Again, the reporting of the data under the new category will kick in as soon as the regulations have come into force. This new category, of course, is particularly aimed at:
“Any device … intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products, nicotine or any substance containing nicotine, non-nicotine liquids, herbal smoking products, vaping substances, nicotine-containing vapour or any other such products”
or electricals. It covers the whole broad spectrum. The examples of the devices will be in Schedule 4 to the regulations, which I stress is non-exhaustive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the single-use vapes ban and its effectiveness. It came into force, as noble Lords know, on 1 June. Obligations for review are set out in the legislation and include a review of enforcement and civil sanctions as soon as practicable after three years and a post-implementation review at least every five years. We are currently collecting the baseline data on the wholesalers and retailers of single-use vapes in England to support future assessments. Also, the Department of Health and Social Care monitors the current rates of smoking and vaping through various surveys, including the periodic survey on smoking, drinking and drug use among young people and the Action on Smoking and Health annual surveys. We will continue to monitor the effects of this legislation within that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Three years is a long time if the effective ban on single-use vapes is not stopping them and the electronic waste and plastic waste associated with them. Is there some mechanism—after six months, say—for the Government to see if this really is not working and, if so, are the Government prepared to take some rapid action? Three years seems an age in this context.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, most legislation is reviewed after five years, so three years is a fair time. It would become fairly obvious if the legislation were completely failing and not working. Presumably, any legislation that is not working needs to be reviewed and looked at in that context. I think three years is probably a fair point to start from and to have within the legislation.
On the question of whether the manufacturers could circumvent the ban, the way in which the ban and the legislation was drafted was to address many of those concerns. For example, there were suggestions that manufacturers could simply add a USB port to the end of a single-use device then call it reusable. To be legal for sale, a vape must be refillable, rechargeable and have a replaceable coil. It has to meet all three criteria. When that ban came in, those considerations were looked at—and, of course, local authorities act as the regulator for the ban and are responsible for enforcing the regulations.
Forest Risk Commodities
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can confirm that we are ambitious and committed to delivering on a shared commitment that was reflected by the parties to the global stocktake at COP 28, so we have ambition in that area. Regarding the EU regulation, the UK and the EU share a common commitment to tackling deforestation in supply chains. As I am sure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are aware, we are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU, and that will lead to closer engagement on issues exactly like this on deforestation. We also recognise the need to take action to ensure that the UK’s consumption of forestry commodities is not driving deforestation. Clearly, business also needs certainty, so it is absolutely something that we are looking at along with the EU.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, since the Environment Act was passed in 2021, the deforestation footprint from direct imports grew by more than 39,300 hectares, which is larger than the area of our New Forest. Does the Minister agree that action is a matter of extreme urgency?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I absolutely agree that we need to take action on this. The Government are looking at the best way to do so in order to be most effective. The EU reset is also part of that because the EU’s deforestation programme that it is working on is ambitious and we need to look at how we align with that. Also, the DBT is undertaking the responsible business conduct review, looking at the effectiveness of the UK’s regime in preventing human rights, labour rights and environmental harms, and deforestation is part of that, so other action is taking place as we move forward in this area.
Plastic Pollution
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, I am very pleased that we have announced that we are doing a deposit return scheme. It is something that was discussed for many years by the previous Government, so I am pleased that we have acted quickly to announce that we are bringing that in. However, it needs to be brought in effectively and to work properly; we are doing it in a way that we think will have the greatest results. It is also part of our bigger picture around the circular economy. It is part of our commitment to reducing plastic, which comes right back to the initial question from the noble Baroness about our support for the treaty, because, although we want our own ambitious plans for reducing plastic waste in this country, this is a global problem, and we have to work globally.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, to return to the plastics treaty, at the last round of talks, fossil fuel interests sent 220 lobbyists. They are known to be the people who are fighting very hard against any targets for putting less plastic into the soils, into the water and into our bodies. What are the Government going to do to block the influence of those fossil fuel interests? Could we not do as the WHO has done with tobacco and ban people with fossil fuel interests, who should have no place in these talks?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are trying to move forward on a global scale while bringing people with us. This treaty will have more impact if every country is signed up to it. Because of that, we were very disappointed that we were not able to conclude negotiations last time around. However, behind the scenes, a lot of work has been going on to try to move forward. My understanding is that the countries that the noble Baroness refers to are more concerned about including methods of production in the treaty, and that is something we are looking very hard at resolving. We want to see the ambitious treaty that we and other high ambition countries want to achieve. We are working very closely with middle to low-income countries to get there.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to provide consumers, farmers and landowners with sufficient information on genetically modified precision bred organisms, and fail to allow devolved authorities to implement their policy choices in areas where responsibility has been devolved to them.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, for clarity, I express that this is a regret amendment, not a fatal one. That is due in part to an error of mine, but I am choosing to regard this as an opportunity. I know that many Members would not vote for a fatal amendment, but here is an opportunity for noble Lords to show their concerns about this deeply flawed instrument before us. I will listen to the debate before deciding whether to divide the House.
Your Lordships do not have to take my word for the statement that this is a flawed instrument. I am sure that many Members of the House have already seen the 15-page—yes, 15-page—report from our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which the Minister referred. It contains a great many concerns about the basic workability of what is here before us today; these are issues that I will get back to.
In bold on the front page of the committee’s report is a suggestion that
“The House may wish to question the Minister further”
on the concerns raised about
“about the lack of labelling requirements despite apparent strong consumer preferences for mandatory labelling”.
The committee also says that Members may want to ask about the impact on trade and on organic producers. I would also add—and we may hear more—about the impacts on Scotland and Wales.
I am confident these issues will be at the centre of our debate and that the Minister will be pressed on them. Trust in our food system, and trust that the label will tell you what you want to know about what is in the packet, is clearly crucial. We have seen in the US —and, yes, I will use the phrase—“Make America Healthy Again” deployed very often. This is what happens when trust breaks down.
There are already signs of growing concern here in the UK. I point noble Lords to an article in the Independent published yesterday, headlined:
“A mobile app told me my kids’ food isn’t healthy—now I am emptying out my kitchen cabinets”.
The writer comments:
“Like many other mums, I’ve become hooked on it”—
the app—
“mainly to check if the food I feed my kids is any good for them”.
Before I get back to that, and in deference to the fact that many new Members have joined your Lordships’ House since we debated the legislation behind this statutory instrument, I will explain the background. Many will remember, I am sure, the public reaction, the concern, which started in the 1990s, about the possibility of genetically modified organisms getting into the food system in the UK. Public concern here and around the world has not faded. Courts in the Philippines and Kenya, to take just two examples, have recently ruled against GM foods. In January, responding to a Trumpian push to force GMO crops on his country, the Mexican President said:
“We do not want GM … We are a sovereign free country”.
We were told that what is being proposed under the legislation was different and rather than introducing genes from other species, the gene-edited organisms that this covers would allow only genes from other organisms that would have interbred naturally or genes that had been deleted from the original organisms. But that is not really what is happening.
Handily, Rothamsted Research released news in the past month to help me illustrate the point. It had proclaimed success in gene-editing a wheat variety low in the amino acid asparagine, which on cooking can be converted to acrylamide, about which there are concerns. This wheat might be handy for the manufacturers of processed snacks since it is classed as a processing contaminant that legally needs to be monitored.
As with so much of this regulation, we are talking about benefiting biotech companies and food manufacturers, not consumers. But Rothamsted acknowledged to Euronews that it had encountered a snag. Foreign DNA it had introduced into the wheat, not wheat DNA at all, had proved impossible to breed out so this wheat cannot meet the definition of gene-edited and very clearly remains a GMO.
That lines up with an informative—rather technical, I confess—slide that I would be happy to share with any interested noble Lords that Dr Vladimir Nekrasov from Rothamsted presented at a Westminster Forum event on gene-editing that I chaired last week. It identified challenges to gene-editing, including limits to the understanding of the genetic networks controlling key traits in crops, the recalcitrance of some crops to gene-editing, the difficulty of changing multiple genes at the same time, and the difficulty in ensuring that the result is free of transgenes; that is, foreign genes.
In summary, this is not a simple or predictable process. It is not a precision process. As I said in Grand Committee last week, putting the terms engineering and biology together reflects a profound misunderstanding of how life works. Engineering is fine for machines but not for biology. In that debate I pointed to the astonishing new discovery that mitochondria can migrate between cells. In another new discovery this week, phys.org reports:
“Scientists make discovery that upends our beliefs about how cells divide”.
We are messing with systems we do not understand, like a child dismantling a clock and throwing the pieces into a microwave to see what happens.
I hope that explains the legislation—which, unfortunately, already exists—so I turn now to the practical problems of this instrument, many of which were outlined so clearly by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In the interests of time, I will be brief; I believe other noble Lords will be picking up some of the points I am making. I have already referred to the failure to require labelling of gene-edited crops. The Minister spoke about a register that you might be able to look up online—I think the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee sets out how utterly inadequate that is for the consumer, that mum such as the Independent writer, who is there in the supermarket, wondering what to buy for her children that night.
Method-of-production labelling is common in our food system. It is what allows us to choose free-range eggs, organic milk or fairtrade coffee or tea, or which items are halal or kosher. Indeed, we still do not know how these certifications will regard this gene-editing. Labelling allows consumers to meet their own personal food needs and to shop their values, which is surely the cornerstone of a democratic food system. The other issues—some of which the committee has already covered—for organic farmers and food producers include that gene-edited organisms remain GMOs and must be excluded from their supply chain. This regulation does not allow them to do that.
The Minister spoke about implementing the legislation, but the Government still have not solved the issue that none of these organisms can be sold commercially unless it is first on the national seed list. Will they be a separate listing on the list? This is very much unclear.
I will briefly mention the devolved nations because I have confidence that this issue will be covered very strongly by other noble Lords. I will set out where we are at. An English producer can sell a bag of gene-edited grain or a tomato into Scotland and Wales and the internal market Act means that that cannot be stopped. But once those commodities undergo further processing and become flour or tomato sauce, under Welsh and Scottish law they have to be labelled as GMOs. I really do not see how that is going to be solved.
Going beyond the other nations, in terms of trade issues, a new legal opinion published in the European Union says that not labelling what we are calling PBOs directly contravenes the obligations under the Cartagena protocol—which aims to prevent potential harm to biological diversity caused by the movement of GMOs across international borders—to which the UK is a party.
We could see the EU lay down a phytosanitary marker that says that unlabelled English PBOs will be rejected at the border. It is considering the possibility of bringing in something like these rules—its labels are NGT 1 and NGT 2. I will not go into the details of all of that here, but it has an entirely different classification system from what this regulation introduces. The complications—and I am happy to talk to any noble Lord who would like to discuss this later—are very high.
Finally, I note that while everyone in this legislation and regulation is talking about food crops, we are in fact talking about regulations affecting any plant, including ornamental and wild plants, and how we could be messing with our already much-depleted natural systems. But we are going to hear, and have already heard, from the Minister about feeding the world. I am going to go to Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, who spoke to Euronews about the Rothamsted difficulties. She said:
“We don’t need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It’s an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it”.
I am pro food security, pro agroecology and pro working for farmers and consumers and not for multinational food companies and giant agrochemical companies. I am pro a healthy food system, and so I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it will be no surprise to anyone in the House that I strongly support this statutory instrument. Precision breeding as a method of plant breeding is safer and more precise than the random selection methods of existing traditional breeding. Above all, it is the speeding up of the process of developing new and urgently needed varieties that makes it so important in today’s world.
If you have 15 to 20 years to spare and are dogged enough to pursue your single-issue target with the millions of options available to you from the 200 or 300 hybrids you are breeding every year—95%-plus of which you destroy—you might eventually be able to produce a variety with the vital characteristics you want. But we do not have the time for the 20 or so harvests needed for the random-chance mutations that such traditional breeding provides. We urgently and desperately need to make multifaceted improvements to a whole range of crops.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I apologise to those who said it would not take more than an hour—I am sorry about that.
First of all, I thank the Minister for saying that the issues around the organic sector need a lot of work. I am pleased that she has acknowledged that there is a real issue there and that work needs to be done.
I am also pleased that the Minister, reflecting on the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds, acknowledged that there are big issues that need to be worked through with the devolved Administrations.
I make no apologies for returning to the issue of labelling, and I point out that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also returned to the issue of labelling. We heard, in a very powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, that this is not just about issues of safety or the technology; it is about public confidence. That was one of the reasons why I led with that in my introduction to the regret amendment.
I note particularly the comment made by the Minister in response to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that the Government do not have any plans to take this forward with animals. I point out that the Minister herself tabled an amendment when we debated this under the previous Government to take animals out of the Act altogether. I very much hope that she and the new Government will stick to that position.
I highlight in particular the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I am honoured that this was his first post-maiden speech. It will be considerably more significant than most such speeches because any government department will have to look very carefully at its future use of polling and the kind of transparency it uses in polling. In saying that, when I reflect on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I think he was using polling that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, had pointed out issues with.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and others—I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman —spoke of their concern about the situation of Africa, with its young and fast-growing population et cetera. But I point out that only 11 of 54 African nations have approved GM crops. For example, 2023 was the UN’s International Year of Millets. Many traditional existing crops in Africa that were swept aside in the colonial era have huge potential for public health, drought resistance and all the other characteristics that already exist.
The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Blencathra, and others, said we are not talking about genetically modified organisms. The Act specifically defines precision breeding as genetic modification and then creates specific regulatory exemptions around it. There is no question, legally or scientifically, that PBOs are genetically modified.
With regard to identifying so-called PBOs, the FSA ordered a literature review by an adviser to the Government Chemist that made it very clear that it is possible—and it should be done—to create methods to detect organisms that have been genetically modified in this way. Since it has come up quite a lot, radiation breeding is not used anymore.
However, I can count and, on that basis, with reluctance, I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, suggested that there was broad support for his Motion, and I rise to broaden that support and offer the Green Party’s support for both these Motions. I have no personal interest to declare, but the Green Party declares its great concern about food security in the UK and the state of the countryside in what is one of the most nature- depleted corners of this battered planet.
The background to this issue is the CAP scheme area payments. The Green Party has always argued against them, saying that they were deeply flawed and that those with the broadest shoulders got the biggest shovels of cash, while smaller farmers and growers got little or, in too many cases, failed to qualify at all. Our countryside was trapped in a world in which the message delivered by a series of Governments was, “Get big or get out of farming and growing”. We had the Agriculture Bill, your Lordships’ debate on which I took a substantial part in. It aimed to focus on environmental improvements and, indeed, after the intervention of your Lordships’ House, acknowledged the importance of food production. The SFI was supposed to be the scheme delivering on the environmental side of that. As we have already heard at length—I shall not track back over that ground—it was literally slammed shut. Many different metaphors could apply, but that seems a good one to me.
Many farmers are now clearly in a profoundly unsustainable position financially. They are being pounded continually by the dominance of the supermarkets and multinational food companies and are being forced to produce commodities rather than getting a fair price for their products. My particular area of concern is horticulture, vegetables and fruit, which is crucial for food security and public health.
I am not sure whether anyone has referred to the National Audit Office, which said that delay in the rollout of new schemes had made it difficult for farmers to plan their businesses and created “widespread uncertainty and risk”. That is true of many areas of our society, but particularly our farmers: if there is no possibility of planning for the future, it is essentially impossible to farm.
I have one constructive point to make, and I hope that the Minister will be able to agree with me on this, or at least accept my suggestion. She may know that there is a fast-growing campaign for a basic income for farmers as a way of supporting small farmers and growers in particular to be agricultural producers. This aims to guarantee financial security; boost mental well-being and reduce stress; promote inclusivity, innovation and ecological stewardship of the land; and strengthen local food systems and public procurement. Will the Minister agree to have a look at the basic income for farmers campaign, and perhaps arrange to meet me and the campaigners?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to make a brief intervention. I have absolutely no interests to declare and I have no criticism of my noble friend the Minister or the Minister in the other place, the Member for Cambridge. In fact, in 14 years in opposition, he was the only shadow Minister who ever contacted me to ask me to talk about my experience of Defra and MAFF during the new Labour years of government. He listened, and that was fine—it was good to do, and I have no complaints about that at all.
However, I am reminded of a time when, at that Dispatch Box in about early 2002, when I was on my third ministry and the first in this House, I said that, in my experience to that date, the Treasury had
“wrecked every good idea I have come across”—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 837.]
in government. Obviously, the Chancellor was not very happy about that. The fact is that, three ministries later, before I left government, I was thoroughly justified. We have a classic example of this tonight. I am in favour of the CAP going; I have no problem with that—I am a remainer, but that is not the issue. I am in favour of reform of the CAP but, to wreck a good idea, it takes the Treasury. I do not hold Ministers responsible for this at all.
The fact of the matter is that you go back through the memories on this issue. The Minister talked about diversification. I can remember a very senior official saying to me when I was at Defra—I left Defra in 2008, so we are going back a little bit—that they did not really pay much attention to a particular farmer in the Lake District because he was not a full-time farmer, because he diversified into writing. That was what was said to me—it was because he was not a full-time farmer. Noble Lords are obviously aware of who I am referring to.
It is only my respect for this House and our procedures that prevents me walking out, because I have not the slightest intention of voting to support these regulations. I understand the rules about fatal amendments, but the Government would have to pick it up and do it again—that is the reality. We have the power, but we do not use it; as a senior Cross-Bencher said recently, powers you do not use, you lose, so there will come a time when we do not have that. I do not intend to vote to support this, so I will do exactly what my friend from the gym, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said and I will abstain on both amendments. I will not hang around during the votes; I shall go.
Beaver: Reintroduction in England
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reintroduce the beaver in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that beavers can benefit biodiversity, improve water quality and reduce flooding, among other things. However, beavers can also potentially cause damage to property and infrastructure through flooding and foraging. This means that reintroductions must balance the benefits and the risks, and be carefully considered and planned. Defra continues to work with Natural England to develop our approach to beaver reintroductions and management.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for her Answer, although it is disappointing, given that the benefits of beavers in the UK are already very evident. I wonder if she is aware of the case in the Brdy protected landscape area in the Czech Republic, where beavers demonstrably saved the local government €1 million by putting a dam exactly where it needed to be to prevent flooding. Could not so many communities in England now be benefiting from that kind of protection at no cost?
Avian Influenza
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right and, again, this is why I regularly meet with both the Permanent Secretary and the Minister at DAERA to discuss exactly these sorts of issues. We do not want any part of the UK to be at an unnecessary disadvantage. It is really important that we support egg producers and poultry producers in whichever part of the UK they are. I am certainly happy to discuss his suggestion with officials.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the disturbing outbreak of H5N9 in the US where, for the first time, this variant of avian influenza has proved to be highly pathogenic. As a result, some 119,000 ducks have been killed on one farm. Given that H5N1 is also circulating extremely widely in the US—clearly out of control in animals, and with some human cases—are the Government working with and speaking to the US Government? No one is safe until everyone is safe, and the current situation with highly pathogenic avian flu in the US is deeply concerning.
Foot and Mouth Disease
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is probably helpful to explain the disease outbreak in Germany, in order to put it in context. The German authorities have put in place strict controls to prevent onward spread, and they are currently investigating the circumstances of the outbreak. They have put in very strict controls already: the herd at the infected premises and all susceptible farmed livestock within a kilometre of the premises have been culled; there is a three-kilometre protection zone and a 10-kilometre surveillance zone surrounding the infected premises, out of which no susceptible animals can move; and clinical examination, sampling and testing of susceptible animals in the zone is under way.
It is also important to point out that at the moment, it is just one incident and there have been no further incidents. Our Chief Veterinary Officer is in close contact with the German chief veterinary officer so that, if we get any further information, we can act accordingly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in offering sympathy today to all the farmers who are fearing a repeat of the previous disastrous events. As the German Animal Welfare Foundation said, we are seeing a continual stream of animal diseases breaking out around the world, due to
“industrial farming and a globalised trade in live animals”.
Is this not a sad further reminder of the fragility of our global food system, which has huge implications for food and economic security, welfare and human health?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important to point out that our animal welfare and husbandry standards are very high compared to many other countries. One role we can play is to encourage other nations to follow the example of our animal husbandry standards. Also, we have very clear controls at our borders to ensure that the meat that comes into our country is of a standard we would expect.
Flooding
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, the Environment Agency does important work here. Of course, monitoring needs to be effective: otherwise, what is the point in doing the work? The Environment Agency provides regular reports for many applications. Regarding his suggestions, a review of the Environment Agency, alongside all other organisations within the Defra family, is currently being carried out by Dan Corry. As part of the Corry review, we should be looking at exactly what the different organisations should be responsible for and whether that is adequate or whether it should be looked at and changed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I preface my question by noting with approval that the Minister finished her answers to the Front-Bench questions by saying that building higher only pushes water out. I am pleased that she acknowledged that.
We should look at the tone of this Statement and indeed of much of the discussion we have had thus far. The Statement says that improving flood defences and drainage systems is a priority. It sounds like how we were talking about this issue in the 20th century. Where has “slow the flow” gone? Where is the understanding that pushing water from one place very often pushes it on to another community, and pushing it from one space simply causes damage in a different one? Where is the discussion about nature-based solutions to hold water and release it slowly and gradually?
A number of people have raised the issue of flood plains. Do the Government recognise that the flood plain is not beside the river? The flood plain is part of the river.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks what we are looking at beyond flood defences—the actual physical barriers. There was quite a discussion during the Water (Special Measures) Bill about natural flood management and the work we are doing and promoting in that area. She may recall that we amended the Bill to ensure that we looked at more natural flood management schemes—nature-based solutions, as she suggested. We are doing that not just through the Water (Special Measures) Bill; we have made a number of announcements on this issue because we see it as an important part of the long-term solution. We need to look at long-term solutions, particularly, as the noble Lord said, because of the climate change pressures. In a way, building a flood barrier is a short-term solution because we do not know how long it is going to last for, so we need to combine that with longer-term solutions. Recently, for example, some balancing ponds have been developed with a grant near where I live. That is the way forward: barriers and longer-term nature-based solutions hand in hand.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The quality of soils is incredibly important, for all sorts of reasons, but the noble Baroness is correct that when you have better soil it holds more water. Grants are available through different routes such as the environmental land management scheme; for example, for soil improvement. I have also been to see a Rivers Trust project where it has improved soil qualities around a particular river and was able to demonstrate that the water was held better by the improved soil when there were flooding incidents from that river. We have the evidence that it makes a difference, and we are looking at it extremely seriously.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Since there is time, let me say that I visited Lancaster after it was hit by serious and major flooding. There was a lot of assessment afterwards of how the community had been able to cope. It was found that there were not the community structures—the organisations within local community groups, with people helping out their neighbours, et cetera. We have just seen one business owner in Leicestershire rescue someone from a flooded car when their life was in extreme danger. Often, communities are going to have to help themselves in this new climate emergency situation. Are the Government looking at how they can strengthen the many communities around this country that are at risk of being affected by flooding, so that they can cope with those crisis situations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that one thing we have been looking at as a Government is more devolution to local areas. As part of that, it is important that we look at how best we can support our local communities, because it is always those communities that pick things up when you have problems like this. Supporting local communities, whether that is our local authorities, our parish councils or our town councils, is a really important part of the work that we need to do.