Recycled Plastics
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(10 months 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 assessment they have made of reports that a global oversupply of petrochemicals has led to recycled plastics failing to compete with new, and whether they plan to take any action in response.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of the oversupply of petrochemicals in the global market, but this is a matter for industry to lead on. It is estimated that businesses which are members of the UK Plastics Pact have, on average, increased the recycling content of their packaging from 8.5% in 2018 to 24.1% in 2023. The Government will continue to readdress the balance through measures such as the coalition and packaging reforms and the plastic packaging tax.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, there was, for example, three times as much ethylene produced last year as there was demand for it. As with fossil fuels used for energy, is it not time to look seriously on a global scale at restrictions on production, not just working on the demand side, particularly given that we are all bearing the externalised costs imposed environmentally and financially in terms of waste disposal and the companies are taking away profits for unnecessary products?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very good point. Domestically, we are seeking to increase the supply of recycled plastics and reduce the demand, through regulation and tax, for virgin plastics, but we recognise that whatever we do domestically will not help to solve this global problem. That is why we are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution. At the United Nations Environment Assembly in March, we drove through, with Rwanda and Peru, a commitment to see an end to plastic pollution by 2042.
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our restrictions on straws, stirrers and cotton buds have had a big impact. These items used to appear on the top-10 littered items lists but no longer do so. According to estimates in our impact assessment, England used 1.1 billion single-use plates and 4.25 billion items of single-use cutlery per year, most of which were plastic but only 10% were recycled, so banning these items will have a significant impact on reducing plastic waste.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to strong public support for recycled plastics rather than virgin plastics, yet it is clear that the market mechanisms are simply not delivering the products that people can buy. Individual action will not work here. Do we not need to go much further and faster to ensure that we get to the circular economy that the Government stand for, and, indeed, the position where the polluter pays, which is the Government’s position?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Absolutely. The Government’s 25-year environment plan sets out our ambition to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042. The resources and waste strategy, which was published in 2018, sets out how we are going to achieve that ambition, mainly by creating precisely what the noble Baroness said—a circular economy. We are not the single repository of good ideas here so, if the noble Baroness has a suggestion that works with business and the end-user, particularly households, we would be glad to hear it.
Children in Gaza
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what his Department is doing to ensure the lives and security of the children of Gaza.
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton) (Con)
My Lords, the best way to address the humanitarian situation is by ending the fighting as soon as possible. That is why I have repeatedly said that an immediate pause in fighting is necessary. UK aid is saving children’s lives. We are doing everything we can to get more aid into Gaza and have trebled our aid commitment to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This includes targeted support for children through our £5.75 million contribution to UNICEF. Children are also benefiting from life-saving food, shelter and health support that we are providing through partnerships with other UN agencies, NGOs and the Red Crescent societies.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord, but surely a pause in fighting is not enough. We need a permanent ceasefire now. Specifically, I am sure he is aware of the awful fate of six year-old Hind Rajab, calling for help in the midst of the bodies of her dead relatives, who appears to have died with two would-be rescuers from the Red Crescent. Have the Government demanded answers from the Israeli Government—or will they—about what happened to Hind, her family and the rescuers? Are the Government challenging the Israeli Government on the risks to hundreds of thousands of children in Rafah who are now in the path of the Israeli offensive? Surely it is time to stop all arms shipments to Israel, as a Dutch court has demanded that the Netherlands does, and implement targeted sanctions against members of the Israeli leadership, particularly those calling for new settlements in Gaza and on the West Bank.
Environmental Policies: Timeliness and Effectiveness
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not understand the noble Lord’s position. Working off a baseline, we have to make sure that we are sharing data. We are publishing 800 pages of data so that the noble Lord, NGOs, parliamentarians and others can hold us to account on this. We use an accepted baseline in order to show an improvement. No net loss by 2030 and 10% improvement on that by 2042—those are pushing targets.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the tone adopted by the Minister is in stark contrast—180 degrees opposite—to that of the OEP report. That talks of Britain being locked in an irreversible spiral of decline of nature. We have what the Minister calls landmark pieces of legislation. Can he put his hand on his heart and say that Defra has adequate capacity to deliver the absolute flood of material that needs to be done to get anywhere near delivering what he is suggesting is needed?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I think we can. We have put more resources into our agencies, particularly Natural England. We have a sense of complete determination to hit this, which comes from Ministers and goes down to the Natural England or Environment Agency individual who is dealing with a particular group of farmers. But for all the resources that we could put into government, we would fail if we doubled them. What is important is that we weaponise land managers and people who really know about this on the ground. That is why clusters of farmers working together—for example, in environmental farming groups—are the way forward to deliver an increase in abundance of species and protection of nature, which is not just an environmental or societal matter. It is an economic one as well, as the Dasgupta report proved.
Rohingya Refugees
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
The issue of the responsibility to protect is one we have taken forward and discuss with allies and partners. It is developing a doctrine, as it were. When it comes to this issue, we have a role; we are making a contribution and we are, I think, doing more than many countries of our size and scale. I think that there is a lot we should do to sort support ASEAN. It has set out its five principles for dealing with Myanmar, which we support, and has a co-ordinator from Laos who we want to work with. Ultimately, we should respect the fact that, in its region, ASEAN should take the lead on this issue and we can support where we can.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on or about 28 December, it was widely reported that Indonesia had pushed back a boat containing a significant number of Rohingya refugees out of its territorial waters. I have not been able to find any report of what has happened since to the people on that boat. Would the Minister agree that that is absolutely unacceptable behaviour, out of line with international law? Have the Government made, or will they make, any representations on this to Indonesia? Do we not have to make sure that refugees are safe?
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
I am not aware of that report; I will certainly go away and look into it. What we would say is that Bangladesh should be praised for the role that it is playing in taking quite so many refugees. Obviously, there are huge pressures—there are worries about conditions in the camps and whether there is enough food—but, ultimately, Bangladesh is looking after a million people, and that is why we are supporting it to the extent that we are. Every country should take its responsibilities towards refugees very seriously.
Climate Change: Impact on Developing Nations
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who made a very powerful point about externalised costs. Currently, the few in many sectors—the few giant multi-national companies—are making a financial killing, while the rest of the human and non-human world pay.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this debate and introducing it so clearly. Like many, I am tempted to talk about the inadequate, non-manifesto compliant level of UK official development assistance. The fact is that we would all be more secure in a more stable world if we were spending more on ODA. The Green Party says double the Government’s current level, and that should be applied to real development assistance, not housing refugees in the UK—as much as we should be doing that as well.
After the year we have just had, the warmest in probably 100,000 years, I was tempted, like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to focus on the extreme urgency of climate mitigation. That is roughly half the time our species has been on this planet, and this is the warmest year. It is certainly, by a substantial margin, the hottest since records began. I was also tempted, as Debt Justice has been doing, to focus on the way the global debt crisis is preventing climate action, particularly in the 54 hardest-hit global south nations. Global south countries are currently spending 12.5 times more on debt repayment than they are on climate adaptation.
The Minister might be surprised to hear that in the short time available to me, I am going to focus instead on some money that the Government could stop spending on official development assistance, money that might instead be redirected towards supporting women and girls’ grassroots organisations as a foundation of a feminist foreign policy, for example. This area is of particular interest to the Minister: agriculture. I am relying in part on a briefing from Compassion in World Farming and on some excellent research for which I credit the House of Lords Library, which conducted it for me at speed. Compassion in World Farming, as the name suggests, is focused on the well-being and welfare of non-human animals. It points to an independent review for the FCDO that suggests that the department should
“work through its programmes, with the Governments in programmes’ countries of operation, to establish agreed levels of animal welfare”.
My direct question to the Minister is: will the Government be doing that?
However, we are focused today on the climate emergency, and with that in mind I want to look in particular at the activities of the International Finance Corporation, which is a member of the World Bank Group. Andrew Mitchell MP, in his role as Minister of State for Development, is a member of the IFC board of governors. The IFC has in recent years funded private sector projects including: a multi-storey pig farm in China; industrial pig production in Vietnam; industrial broiler chicken production in Uganda; and industrial pig and chicken production in Ecuador. Will the UK use its influence to stop that damaging funding of factory farming? As I often reflect in your Lordships’ House, it is a huge threat in terms of antimicrobial resistance and is wasting food that could be fed to people, instead feeding it to animals which convert cereals and plant proteins very inefficiently into meat and milk. Globally, 40% of crop calories are used to feed animals when they could be feeding people.
Of course, these factory-farming installations also contribute to massive deforestation and other environmental damage, creating manure as a major pollutant, even though, if we had small-scale agricultural agro-ecological regenerative approaches, it could be a fertiliser on arable crops. Many studies have shown that will not be possible to meet the Paris targets without a reduction in global livestock production. Therefore, will the Government do something—take action to seek to persuade the IFC to stop this damaging funding—and, furthermore, commit to ensuring that no direct UK aid goes to factory farming?
On agriculture more broadly, I am sure the noble Lord is aware of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact paper, UK Aid to Agriculture in a Time of Climate Change, from June 2023. The Government then, in responding to that, committed to
“ensure all new UK bilateral aid spending does no harm to nature”
by ensuring that it is all “nature positive”. That was a commitment in the international development strategy of May 2022. Can the Minister tell me whether that is true of everything that was funded in 2023?
Finally, we have to tie all this together: the welfare of our natural world, of our climate and of people. Food security is one of the crushingly important issues of the coming age. The Government themselves, at least sometimes, acknowledge that small-scale agro-ecological production is crucial both to improving nutritional standards and to ensuring that we live within the Paris Agreement. Are the Government ensuring that they stop funding both industrial agriculture of all forms, and that they are funding the agro-ecological small-scale production the world needs?
Biodiversity Gain Site Register (Financial Penalties and Fees) Regulations 2024
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register. The draft instruments—the Biodiversity Gain Site Register (Financial Penalties and Fees) Regulations 2024 and the Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024—were both laid before the House on 30 November. The instruments have been grouped as they are part of a package of regulations which work together to introduce the new framework for mandatory biodiversity net gain. Although biodiversity net gain is a key policy delivered by the Environment Act, some of the policy involves amendments to the planning system. I will speak to both instruments together, given their interlinks, but I will not profess to be an expert om the intricacies of the planning system and commit to writing to noble Lords on points of particular detail.
The instruments laid before the House today form part of a package of SIs that will commence the new, world-leading biodiversity net gain requirement. This is a new approach to development and land management that was legislated for in the Environment Act 2021 and had strong support across both Houses. It aims to leave the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was beforehand through requiring a 10% net gain for biodiversity on each eligible grant of planning permission. These gains must be delivered, first, through on-site habitat enhancement or creation where possible, then through off-site enhancements or through purchasing units from the market and, finally, as a last resort, through purchasing statutory credits sold by the Government.
A public consultation on the policy and implementation of biodiversity net gain was held in 2022. The government response, published at the beginning of 2023, confirmed the policy intention for mandatory biodiversity net gain and has informed the drafting of these regulations.
I turn first to the Biodiversity Gain Site Register (Financial Penalties and Fees) Regulations 2024. The Environment Act 2021 gives the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the power to make provision for a register of biodiversity gain sites. The core purpose of this publicly available register is to record allocations of off-site biodiversity gains to developments. The register will be established by the Biodiversity Gain Site Register Regulations 2024.
This instrument makes provision for the imposition of a financial penalty and the payment of fees relating to applications to that register. This instrument provides for imposing financial penalties to help ensure that the biodiversity gain site register contains accurate information. The provision for financial penalties will encourage compliance, deter individuals from submitting incorrect information and remove illicit financial benefit—for example, through cost avoidance.
This instrument also provides for fees to be charged for different applications to the register. These applications include gain site registration, amendment applications and applications for the allocation of habitat enhancements to development. The fees have been set to achieve cost recovery for the set-up and ongoing maintenance of the register. Developers are not obliged to use the biodiversity net gain register and should first aim to achieve biodiversity gains on site before turning to off-site gains. Landowners who choose to supply off-site gains to developers must apply to register their land. We expect that they will do so only if the benefits from selling units outweigh the costs. Without these regulations setting the requirement for fees to be paid and the amount to be paid, the register would not achieve cost recovery and there would be a significant cost to the Government.
I now turn to the Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2024, which have been ably drafted by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The Environment Act 2021 amended the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to make provision for biodiversity net gain in the planning system. The Act specifically adds a new Schedule 7A, which sets out the statutory basis for the 10% biodiversity gain objective, the metric and the general biodiversity gain condition which will apply to those planning permissions. It also made consequential changes to other parts of the Town and Country Planning Act.
These regulations will make further consequential changes. First, they provide rules within Schedule 7A for determining the local planning authority which is responsible for the approval of a biodiversity gain plan required under the general biodiversity gain condition. Secondly, they further amend Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which enables the variation of conditions of previous planning permission to cover the circumstances when an earlier biodiversity gain plan is to be regarded as approved where the development’s on-site habitat is irreplaceable habitat. Finally, they make amendments to Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act for the purpose of appeals about determinations by planning authorities in respect of the biodiversity gain plan. These are technical amendments to ensure the provisions for biodiversity net gain in the Town and Country Planning Act work.
In conclusion, let me emphasise that the regulations are essential to the successful delivery of the new mandatory net gain requirement, which will help to deliver much-needed gains for nature. Once the regulations are approved by both Houses, we will lay the rest of the biodiversity net gain regulations, which we have published in draft. I commend these draft instruments to the House.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I was expecting more people than this. I thank the Minister for his introduction, and I think it is very clear that what we are looking at here are two instruments from a very major set that will finally implement the idea of biodiversity net gain, which your Lordships’ House and the other place have been debating for what now feels like many years.
Before looking at the detail of these two statutory instruments, I think that it is worth thinking about what we are talking about here. We are trying to deliver a system, however much some of us—I include the Green Party in this—have doubts about it, that means that we do not keep going backwards. As we stand in the House tonight, we are about to see the destruction of a veteran oak tree in Melton Fields in East Riding for the construction of an Amazon warehouse. I have been on the site and seen this happening. The biodiversity net gain that is being offered is “We will have some wetlands over there”—I am not quite sure where the sign that says “Birds, go that way” will be—but there is huge concern and there is still so much that we are losing. I think it is crucial that we see that.
I have a couple of questions about the instruments that I would like to put to the Minister. He talked about ensuring full cost recovery in the fees being charged. What will be the situation for projects for the public good, such as a new hospital for the NHS, a community centre or group? What provision is there to make sure that the people who can afford to pay are paying and that those community projects are not stopped but able to go ahead?
The other point which I think reporting in recent days has raised—this fits in with the levelling-up Bill that your Lordships’ House spent an inordinate of time on last year—is that we are seeing controls being put on for more than 10% biodiversity net gain, and that is overwhelmingly concentrated in the south of England, where there are local area partnerships. In terms of these instruments, but also more broadly, will there be allowance for the regional differences, the regional cost differences and, perhaps even more importantly, the regional ability to pay, in the provision in these statutory instruments?
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, this is a thoroughly good change and we should be entirely pleased that we are taking this step because it is a step that we have not taken before. I sometimes argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but saying thank you is important if we are to get Governments to do more, so I start by saying thank you.
I recently attended a very interesting conference in Essex in which an expert explained exactly how this system worked. I am now much better informed, but it took some time to explain it in a way that, to put it simply, ordinary people understand. I hope the Minister agrees that we need to explain this much more effectively than we have until now if we are to get people to join in the “thank you” I started with.
I know that the Minister has rightly suggested that he is not an expert on planning, but he will understand when I say that I am disappointed that this Government have still not introduced the necessary overarching element in the planning laws that says that no planning permission should be given unless it fully takes into account the national statutory requirement for net zero in 2050 and the two important promises that we made at COP 26 on the targets for 2030 and 2035. Until the planning system as a whole insists that decisions are made within that context, the planning system will not be working properly for us to be able to deliver what we now, by law, have to deliver.
He may want to write to me on this subject, and it may be a long letter, but if it does not say, “Yes, we are going to do it”, it will not be acceptable because we have to do that as a central issue. It is barmy to have a planning system in which we fiddle about with little bits of what my noble friend said were technicalities when we cannot make the fundamental decision that the planning system itself should be beholden to the Government’s and the nation’s commitment to net zero.
Lastly, I hope that the Minister will be very careful about how this thing works. There are real issues about how it will work on the ground. Can he help us by telling us what measures the department has for monitoring how it works and for reporting back, so that we know how that monitoring has worked out? This is a new thing and something we should very much cheer on, but like most new things I would like to know how it is working and how we can improve it in future.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions to this debate. The regulations debated here today will support the new mandatory net gain requirement, which will help secure positive outcomes for biodiversity, create better places for local communities and support a more consistent, streamlined and transparent planning process. This is very much only part of how we seek to deliver our 2030 targets, which my noble friend Lord Deben mentioned, of no net loss of species, and an increase by 2045. It is really important to make that clear.
We estimate that we are talking about around 6,900 hectares a year, but hundreds of thousands of hectares of other nature improvements are being incentivised by wider biodiversity credit schemes, carbon credit schemes and nature conservation measures that are being led through our environmental land management and other agri-environment schemes. Communities across England will benefit from new developments that work for both wildlife and people and create nature-rich places to live, while ensuring that they have the new homes that they need.
To take the point made clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, there will continue to be a need for development under any party of government, which means that there will continue to be a risk of the loss of biodiversity. We need a system that works and is clear.
I take my noble friend’s point: I suspect that they were talking about the Natural England metric when he was at that conference. I would be the first to admit that that is a very complicated piece of work: it runs to a great many pages, and I have tried to run a competition in my head, if not in the department, about how many people understand it. The point is that, as we develop this and as those metrics are understood by more people—the people advising the businesses that seek to purchase the credits and the land managers who seek to make the land available—we will see a robust scheme that is accountable.
I will try to address the key points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite rightly raised the issue of whether 10% goes far enough—why 10%? We consulted on the percentage gain to be required in the 2018 public consultation. Respondents set out varying views on the appropriate percentage gain, and there were calls for both higher and lower percentages—obviously, there will be people out there who did not want any and people who wanted a great deal more. We maintain the view that 10% strikes the right balance between the Government’s ambition for development and the certainty of achieving environmental outcomes to support the pressing need to reverse environmental decline while being affordable and deliverable for developers.
Developers and local authorities may wish to voluntarily pursue gains higher than 10%—a very good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Where higher net gain percentages may be set in local planning policy, careful consideration in those events should be given to the feasibility of requirements above 10%, for example for smaller, self-build and community developments —I think that is really important. To be clear, biodiversity net gain means a strengthening, not a weakening, of the protections for the environment. The existing strong statutory and policy protections for our statutory protected sites, protected species and irreplaceable habitats will remain in place.
My noble friend talked about on-site enhancements and how they will be enforced. Local authorities will have a range of existing planning enforcement tools at their disposal, and the Environment Act includes mechanisms to ensure that commitments through conservation covenants are adhered to. The enforcing body which has entered an agreement to secure the site will play a key role in ensuring enforcement. This may be a local authority or could be a responsible body for a conservation covenant. Significant on-site biodiversity gains must be secured by a planning condition, planning obligation or conservation covenant, all of which bind the land, meaning that they apply to successor landowners as well. Off-site biodiversity gains must be secured, including management, by either a planning obligation or conservation covenant. Failure to deliver, or attempt to deliver, biodiversity net gain outcomes which are secured with conditions or obligations, subject to which planning permission is granted, can result in enforcement action by the planning authority.
The fines, along with the registration fees, will have to be reviewed as time goes by. Of course, we will see how it works. So much of this can and will need to be amended as we work it through. On the point about fines, if the kinds of greenwashers that the noble Baroness was referring to have not built the wetland or planted the trees or the wildflower meadow or whatever it is, the 30-year clock will not start until they have—so it is not only a fine but a delayed benefit to them.
The noble Baroness talked about projects for public good, which was a very good point. On the question of a hospital, the fees will be paid by the landowner, so it will not come out of the cost to the public purse, if you like. There will, of course, be a degree of management of those fees: some of them may find their way into front-ending the costs. There is a key point about nationally significant infrastructure projects: we are delaying the implementation of biodiversity net gain until next year for NSIPs because it is a more complicated matter. These are obviously much larger schemes and we want to make sure that there is biodiversity net gain—but we want to do it in the right way, so we will consult on that.
My noble friend talked about net zero. Our commitment on net zero, as he knows better than anyone, and for no net loss by 2030, are just some of those that are locked in law—we have to do it—so the Government have taken a range of measures, not least this extraordinarily exciting piece of legislation, the Environment Act, to deliver that. It is important that we see it working and we will continue to make sure that we look at all suggestions that can improve the planning system to deliver this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, talked about monitoring. Integrating the biodiversity net gain requirement into existing planning processes is obviously what we are talking about. The Government are allowing the outcomes to benefit from existing enforcement and monitoring powers in the planning system. Planning application data is routinely published online and will describe how a development is achieving biodiversity net gain. Off-site habitat enhancement will be registered and will need to be secured, including any appropriate monitoring arrangements, through a conservation covenant or planning obligation. Planning authorities are required under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to report on the actions they have carried out to meet their biodiversity net gain obligations and the details of biodiversity gains delivered or expected to be delivered.
There are some real-life examples, and here I will big-up Buckinghamshire Council, which this week has put information on its website setting out how landowners and developers should engage with it to seek to enter into Section 106 agreements to secure their land, including the estimates of associated costs. These will be negotiated through the Section 106 agreement process, but should cover the costs of the ongoing monitoring that the local planning authority—in this case Buckinghamshire —will carry out. One such estate, the Iford Estate, has already entered into Section 106 agreements to secure portions of land. In the example of Iford, it has entered into a Section 106 agreement with the local authority—the South Downs National Park Authority. Private sector marketplaces are emerging which list BNG units for sale, operating to join up landowners with developers looking to find off-site units. Examples include Addland, the Environmental Trading Platform and Savills Environmental Exchange. I think the Environment Bank is one of the leaders in this field.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
It is interesting that the Minister chose the example of Buckinghamshire. I was referring to the apparent difference that is developing between north and south—that, broadly speaking, higher standards appear to be being set in the south. Are the Government planning to monitor the regional impacts of this, and is the north going to get the biodiversity net gain that it urgently needs? Will the Government act if it is not?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The legal requirement is across the country; there is no geographical lessening of the need for it. We will certainly be monitoring which local authorities we think do this properly and which do not, and that will be a matter of public record.
I should just comment on the key question of irreplaceable habitats. These are obviously England’s most valuable habitats. They have a high range of biodiversity value and are so difficult to recreate—ancient semi-natural woodland, peat bogs and that sort of thing. On 29 November, we published the draft irreplaceable habitat regulations, which set out the list of habitats to be considered irreplaceable habitat for biodiversity net gain purposes. The local planning authority must be satisfied that the adverse effect of the development on the biodiversity of the on-site habitat is minimised and that there is an appropriate compensation plan in place. The regulations also set out that losses of irreplaceable habitats cannot be compensated for using statutory biodiversity credits. It is important to note that irreplaceable habitats already have significant protection in the National Planning Policy Framework. Impacts on these habitats from development require the strongest of justifications.
I will address another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Off-site gains, which could be biodiversity gains, on other landholdings, or purchasing biodiversity units from the market, are part of the new hierarchy that sets out the draft regulations on biodiversity procedures. This ensures that, where impacts on habitats cannot be avoided or mitigated, compensation should be delivered either through off-site gains, as I say, or through enhancing and creating habitats on site, and, as a last resort, through purchasing statutory credits from the Government.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich speaks with great knowledge—I heard his outstanding maiden speech in this House. He is an ecologist, and I would say that his erstwhile career is now a growth industry, which answers some of the points he made. I do not know the exact number of local authorities that employ their own ecologists; I am very happy to seek that out and to write to noble Lords. It is a growth industry, because developers and local authorities are going to need them. There are a great many local authorities that use a contractual arrangement, and so do not employ them directly, but many still do.
Trial of Jimmy Lai
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate. The Sino-British joint declaration is an internationally registered, legally binding treaty between the UK and China, under which China committed to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and to protect the rights and freedoms of its people. This explicitly includes freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief; that is why we need to make sure that this declaration is upheld.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. Jonathan Price, one of the members of the international legal team—which, as the Minister said, was denied the right to represent Mr Lai—said that
“the rule of law is eroded”
in Hong Kong. That is very evident to us all. Are the Government taking sufficient steps to warn British businesses engaged, or considering engaging, in Hong Kong that the rule of law does not exist there? Are they taking sufficient account of the fact that a number of British businesses—notably, banks—are cosying up to the Chinese regime in Hong Kong? Are the Government concerned about that and prepared to take action?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Foreign Office makes very clear the rules that should apply to all companies when they do business in different parts of the world, and to access and travel. We believe that the right kind of trade with China and Hong Kong is right; it is a good way of engaging with a country and of using those occasions to make sure that we are making the points about human rights. We have very strict rules in this country that require businesses to declare their supply chains in a whole variety of ways. There are rules covering some of the things the noble Baroness talked about. What is really important is that we focus on the case of Jimmy Lai and recognise that it concerns not only him but others. This is a human rights issue that the Government take very seriously and we want to see it resolved very soon.
North Korea
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for securing a very important debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his very long and incredibly hard-working contribution to ensuring that these issues do not disappear entirely off the British government agenda and are brought to the public’s attention.
The condition and behaviour of North Korea is one of the crucial issues on the global geopolitical stage today. That is one reason why I am standing to speak in this Thursday afternoon debate. The other is a personal, historic connection. In 1998, 25 years ago, I was on the streets of Pyongyang. I was there as a tourist, having written on my visa application in my own handwriting, “I am not a writer or journalist of any kind”. It so happened that the first article I wrote for the Guardian Weekly, of which I subsequently became editor, was about Pyongyang. I was a lot younger then and did things that perhaps I would not do now.
It was a chance for me, as an Australian who came to Europe after the Berlin Wall had come down, to get some insight, no matter how constrained or limited, into that kind of society. It was the last society of that kind left in 1998. I really understood all in new ways after being in that society in Pyongyang. The last morning, I slipped—or at least I think I slipped—my oversight guards and was able to walk out on the streets of Pyongyang on my own. I understood what it was to be a non-person because everyone, for reasons I entirely understand, looked through me as though they could not see me. They did not want to acknowledge me. A street sweeper swept around my feet without ever acknowledging my existence. The only people who did were a line of 10 year-olds who were about to enter a building and did not have a teacher with them. They were smiling and saying, “There’s a foreigner over there” to each other. I waved at them and they waved back.
Those 10 year-olds would now be about 35 years old. They will never have known what it would be like to live in a society with any kind of freedom or opportunity, but it is really important that we look at the broader history of Korea here. If we look back over its history, from about 1876 onwards Japan exerted a continuing, crushing influence on the Korean people. The great Empress, Myeongseong, was assassinated by the Japanese in 1895 and Japan formally established colonialism in 1910. For the people of North Korea there is, going back many generations, no kind of sense of a state or society that gives them any kind of real hope or normality or any sense that there was an attempt to work for the common good.
We all know what difficulties there were in the reunification of Germany. When we think about the situation that the North Korean people are in, we need to think about how difficult that was. To pick up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, it was reported in the Economist that on 9 October, when North Korea finally lifted the Covid blockade, up to 600 people were bundled out of Chinese prisons and deported to North Korea. The nature of all such reports means it is so often difficult to disentangle fact and detail, but I think there is no doubt that a significant number of people were in that situation. Everything we know tells us that those people, if they are not dead now, are in an horrendous situation. As the noble Lord said, it is terribly important that we assert the right to asylum and refugee status for the people of North Korea—for everybody, but acknowledging that North Koreans are acutely in need of that. The term “refoulement” has been much in discussion lately; clearly, this is a case where there must not be refoulement.
I also want to pick up some points made by the noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Alton, about hunger and food insecurity in North Korea. Going back to my visit in 1998—the noble Lord, Lord Swire, talked about how bad things were there in the 1990s—that was when I really grasped a word that had been merely hypothetical for me before “gleaning”, gleaning the leavings of the harvest from the fields. What I saw in the fields of North Korea, just outside Pyongyang, was a long line of maybe 20 or 30 middle-aged women who were going through a rice field. Each of them had at her waist a small purse. They were not young women, but they were picking up individual grains of rice and were going to get, at most, a small purseful from several hours’ work. That is a real measure of hunger.
We know that in March this year, the G7 Foreign Ministers noted the dire humanitarian situation. We have heard a lot about the regime’s exotic, luxurious lifestyle, but we are also talking about weapons of mass destruction and ballistic weapons programmes, into which vast amounts of resources are going. I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Alton, about the need to think about sanctions, but sanctions that do not force those middle-aged women out to hunt individual rice grains in the fields or leave the children of those whom I saw all those years ago going hungry and malnourished. We have to be smarter and cleverer than that. We have to think about a future world in which we can, ultimately, see some different regime and some kind of future for North Korea. Starving people is no way to do that.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about Magnitsky-style sanctions, and the noble Lord, Lord Swire, talked about the enablers in our society. I have no doubt that there is North Korean money here in London, going through banks, law firms and real estate agents. We have to do a lot more about the huge corruption problem that we have in the UK. That is something that we can do directly, and we also need to make sure that we apply sanctions in smart ways that address that angle.
Finally, I spoke a little about weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. North Korea withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2003 and tested its first nuclear weapon on 9 October 2006. The International Atomic Energy Agency has not had access to North Korea’s nuclear facility since 2009, and in 2017 Pyongyang conducted its first test of a thermonuclear device. I am not going to go through this in great detail—it is perhaps a debate for another day—but I note that the majority of the world’s countries back the global treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons: 93 countries are now signatories to that treaty, 69 countries are parties and 123 countries have expressed their support. We must aspire to a world without regimes like that of the DPRK, but if things go that badly wrong, a world without nuclear weapons will be a much safer world for all of us. The existence of nuclear weapons is a threat to all of us and that will be the situation as long as they exist.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Substitution of Cut-off Date Relating to Rights of Way) (England) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and particularly to listen to the powerful and incisive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I seek to add to the content of the debate rather than to repeat what has been said, but I could not resist rising to support entirely the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It is not often that your Lordships’ House sees the two of us aligned, but it reflects the fact that, all around this House, every speech has expressed great regret, not just in technical but in real terms, about the direction that the Government are taking on these public rights of way.
I will very briefly set this in historical context. Since the election of Margaret Thatcher, 10% of what was public land in the UK has been sold into private hands. If we look back to centuries before that, it is one long tale of enclosure, of the public being excluded from more and more land. The real tragedy of the commons is that they were stolen from the people. Today, we are not talking about ownership but about rights of way: the right to walk on our own land. Maybe that path up the hill towards the church was once how people visited a family grave. Maybe the path between one village and the next was how courting couples got together and how, historically, families were created. We might make different uses of those rights of way today, but they should still exist. This country is sometimes referred to as a property-owning democracy, yet 40,000 land millionaires, 0.06% of the population, own nearly half our land.
We are in a situation where people have rights which are threatened with being cut off. I pick up one point that was highlighted in the excellent Ramblers briefing. As the Government are presenting this to us, it was never intended that paths in current use would not be cut off, yet our current arrangements are that this could be happening. These days with social media and mobile phones—I am probably not the only one with a walking app that often records the route that I took in various places—there may well be a great deal of data indicating that footpaths are in use. However, I invite your Lordships to consider for a second, as many others have referred to, how difficult it would be for volunteers and small local organisations to collect and collate all that data to provide the proof that is needed. That is not something that will happen quickly. We have lost so many rights. Let us not lose any more.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I support these Motions from a particular perspective. Back in 1993, I was first elected to Suffolk County Council. Somewhat to my surprise, I found myself chairing the rights of way committee, a position that I held for some years. With all the experience that I gleaned, I can do nothing but agree with all the comments that have been made tonight.
When I was first learning about rights of way, I came across a summing-up by Lord Denning in which he said that nothing excites an Englishman so much as a footpath—I always thought that said rather a lot about Englishmen. Nevertheless, what I learned pretty quickly from that is that you have the coming together of two polar opposites. On the one hand there is the right of access, often historic, that people want to exercise, and on the other, “This is my land, it is private and I do not want anyone on it”. These are often irreconcilable. However, I also learned very quickly that, as public bodies and as legislators, it is not our job to pick a side but somehow to find a way of bringing them together. This is what saddens me about current proposals: they do not do that; they are partial and have come down on the side of the landowners.
The stakeholder working group, which other noble Lords have mentioned and which brought together local authorities, landowners and user groups, was able to come up with a consensus report. It is worth reflecting on how nigh-on impossible that must have been, and yet the stakeholder working group did that. That ought to be a gift to the Government, to say, “Here is a package on which all the stakeholders agreed”. Yet the Government have taken one piece of that and ignored all the rest, despite the conclusions of the group that
“implementation of the proposals in full is crucial to preserving the balanced nature of the package”.
It is a real pity that, all this time later, we have not moved; in fact, this is a massively retrograde step.
As we have heard, we do not have information about the exemptions from the cut-off date. There are some really important categories of rights of way here. Many paths in urban areas have never been on a definitive map and yet are used all the time. There are paths which are already in use. Where I take issue with the speech, with which I otherwise agreed, from the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, is that they are often not long forgotten and ill-used; many of them have been used for hundreds of years and still are but just happen not to have been recorded. It would be tragic if they were to be lost. Then there is the backlog of which we have heard: what is the status of those for which applications have already been made?
I want to finish by agreeing with noble Lords who share my disbelief at the Explanatory Memorandum, which says there will be no significant impact on the voluntary or public sectors, because that is palpable nonsense. Local authorities, as we have heard, already have a massive backlog and are hugely strapped for cash. If you are running a local authority and you have limited legal support, are you going to put it into childcare or public rights of way? That is the reality that many of them are facing. All that will happen is that the backlog will get larger. Who is putting in these claims? They are being put in by volunteers from various user groups. In all the years I chaired the rights of way committee, I never saw a specious claim. Every one of them had been immaculately researched, often over many years, and although occasionally we would disagree on the point of law or its interpretation, they were made in good faith and deserved proper consideration. How volunteers are to carry on working against this sort of deadline, and produce that quality of work, defies belief.
I urge government to prioritise the regulations governing these historical paths and the exemptions from the cut-off date, and to set out how government funding can be used to support the work of both local authorities and the voluntary sector, if we are not to lose them for ever.
Food and Biological Security: Agricultural Fungicide
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how the United Kingdom’s current agricultural fungicide use will affect long-term food and biological security.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have joined this debate, to the Library for its excellent briefing and to the University of Manchester and the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy among others who have prepared additional material on a subject that may at first appear niche and specialist. I hope that by the end of this debate it will be much more familiar to this Committee and far beyond, with its status lifted up in Defra’s and the Department of Health’s agenda. I must also thank my BSAC intern, Lorna Flintham, who has played a major part in my preparations for today.
The severity and widespread impact of fungal disease and fungicide use are often greatly overlooked. Annually more than 150 million severe cases of human fungal infections occur worldwide, resulting in about 1.7 million deaths a year. Many of those deaths are because the drugs that once worked to cure now work no longer because the fungi are resistant. That is not solely or even primarily because of medical use of drugs.
First, I shall make a quick distinction. Antifungals are human medicines used to treat fungal infections; fungicides are pesticides used to treat and prevent fungal plant infections, particularly in food crops. Some 4,000 tonnes of fungicide are sprayed on arable crops annually, accounting for 38% of pesticide use. They are not used without reason. The Irish potato famine, African wheat blight and the way our world coffee industry now sits in South America, and not where it originated in south Asia, are all the result of fungi defeating human efforts. The problem is what these fungicides are doing to our environment, food security and biosecurity.
First, there is their direct killing action. To date no policy document has shown an appreciation of the state of the UK’s soil microbiosphere and how it is being affected by biocides such as fungicides. We benefit hugely from mycorrhizal fungi and, indeed, many other fungi that break down materials that would otherwise literally cover our planet, but they are being eradicated by indiscriminate fungicide use in industrial agriculture in what is being termed a large microbial extinction event. Not only is this destroying environmental biodiversity but soils depleted of these microbes have lower crop yields. Some 80% of our food is dependent on plants. Lower crop yields will push food security and supermarket prices only one way.
Then there is cross-resistance. Most fungi exposed to fungicides in a crop field will die, but some will survive and become inherently resistant to the fungicide due to natural selection. The fungicide will also stop working in the field. The key issue is that the fungicides that fungi are resistant to are extremely similar chemically to the antifungals we rely on to treat patients in healthcare. By developing resistance to fungicides, these fungi also develop cross-resistance to clinical antifungals. More and more patients are coming forward with resistant fungal infections that healthcare providers simply cannot treat.
Fungal diseases affect more than 1 billion people every year. For those billion people, antifungals are indispensable tools in fighting infection. Development of treatments for fungal diseases in humans is intrinsically more challenging than agricultural fungicides due to the shared characteristics of human and fungal cells—that is, it is very challenging to eradicate a fungal cell without also damaging the host, and therefore the utmost care must be taken to produce and protect effective antifungal drugs.
A new emerging antifungal drug, Olorofim, has been effectively trialled in the treatment of aspergillosis, a highly debilitating fungal lung infection with a 30% to 50% death rate even when the strain is not resistant to medication, which 20% of cases are. Olorofim could make a real difference to the patient population, but there is a big problem: its efficacy is threatened by ipflufenoquin, a newly developed agricultural fungicide. These two drugs use the same mechanism of action to kill fungi, a big problem considering cross-resistance and the spread of resistance from our fields to our hospitals. As a government priority, the approval of ipflufenoquin for use in agriculture and other commercial sectors should be paused pending further investigation into the cross-resistance risk. I hope the Minister, to whom I have given prior notice of all the questions in this speech, will be able to directly respond on that issue.
We should not allow the approval of a pesticide that could undermine decades of antifungal drug development and risk the well-being—the life—of thousands of patients who could benefit from it. There is an opportunity here to truly benefit physically vulnerable people, which most of the affected patients are, who are absolutely reliant on this new breakthrough medication, which is a spin-out from University of Manchester research.
Further, the Government need to assess the feasibility of ring-fencing certain mechanisms of action for human antifungals. Ring-fencing could prevent the fungi in our environment being exposed to similar chemicals that we use to treat fungal disease in healthcare, ultimately safeguarding effective antifungals for the future. In addition, to promote the safe deployment of novel fungicides, regulators should introduce new criteria when approving antifungal compounds for commercial use. Are the Government looking at that?
Our infrastructure could greatly benefit from developing a risk management framework to evaluate the likelihood of cross-resistance emerging between new agricultural antifungals and existing clinical agents before they are approved for use. This is a genie that, once out of the bottle, cannot be put back in. In doing so, we could stop the inevitable inefficacy of antifungals in future and allow our UK antifungal innovation to remain competitive.
Unsurprisingly, it has to be noted that the climate emergency will only increase the pressure to act. The UK Food Security Report 2021 mentions fungal pathogens only three times in 322 pages, although it notes that:
“Warmer temperatures can also encourage fungal diseases such as potato blight”,
backing up what the science has told us in multiple directions—that the effect of the climate emergency on plant diseases, of which 80% are fungi-based, will lower crop yields. In humans, fungi such as the valley fever pathogen are known to thrive in warmer soils. More frequent severe storms, floods and hurricanes are also increasingly dispersing harmful fungi across hundreds of miles to human hosts, potentially causing infection outbreaks through what were previously rare diseases. Here in Parliament, we need to seriously consider how fungicide use will fit into the growing pressure from fungal diseases in a warming world.
I turn to broader issues. Increasing our fungicide use in agriculture is not the answer; in fact, we clearly have to massively decrease it. Innovation should not automatically mean new synthetic chemicals. Yes, we need to make further research funds available to replenish our antifungals and fungicides but, much more, we need to explore innovative agricultural practices that reduce our reliance on fungicides. The Minister has frequently expressed agreement with me about the need for agro-ecological practices. To put it another way, as does the Exeter researcher Jamie Lorimer, we need to use life to manage life—using mechanisms that have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Our approach to agriculture is outdated and comes from a time when we were not aware of the environmental and human risks of pesticide use. In that vein, I strongly urge His Majesty’s Government to share their plans and ask the Minister when we will see the updated UK national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides.
I acknowledge to the Government that striking the balance between prioritising our food security and safeguarding our clinical treatments is an impossible challenge, but it is an essential one that we have to meet as best we possibly can. Managing fungal crop disease has always been essential to our ability to feed the population, but we cannot afford a haphazard, piecemeal approach that will hurt our public health and our NHS. We need integrated, “one health” considerations of the impact of the climate emergency and responsible fungicide legislation.
Mitigating these risks will require the Government to work collaboratively with cross-sector stakeholders: clinicians, industry representatives from agritech and pharma and third-sector organisations in both those spaces, and farmers. Globally, as we are reminded by reports of a new disease outbreak in China, no one is safe until everyone is safe.
Are the Government working with the Quadripartite, the organisation that brings together the WHO, the FAO, the UNEP and the WOAH, to look at the specific antifungal and fungicide issues I have outlined? Are they seeking mechanisms to reserve particular actions of chemicals for human drug use? Urgently, we need to delay the approval of ipflufenoquin in the UK pending further investigation and to leverage international mechanisms to address the approval of this chemical worldwide. Ultimately, no one is safe until everyone is safe. I look forward to the debate and hope for urgent consideration of the issues raised.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on securing this debate and welcome the opportunity to respond on the assessment of how the UK’s current agricultural fungicide use will affect long-term food and biological security. I thank her not only for the way in which she opened the debate but for giving notice of the very serious questions that she put; I will endeavour to answer them and other questions that have been put in this debate.
The noble Baroness is entirely right: fungal diseases can cause serious damage to crops and other plants. Potato blight, which was mentioned, and Dutch elm disease are well-known examples but fungal infections can affect all crops. Fungi can also leave poisonous chemicals, such as mycotoxins, in infected plants, with consequent risks to people.
Most of the food we eat here in the UK is produced here in the UK. While the diversity of our food supply chain, where domestic production is combined with imports through stable trade routes, ensures its resilience, we cannot underestimate the importance of British farming in delivering food security in the UK. A key component of this is the management of pests, weeds and diseases. Careful selection of crop varieties and attention to good husbandry will help to limit fungal infection of crops. However, fungicides will be essential in some situations to prevent or control infection.
I come to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness. She asked what was being done to address the damage done to the microbiosphere and soil fungi—a point also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We know that agricultural fungicides can affect the structure of soil microbial communities, including beneficial soil fungi, of which there are many. We promote the use of integrated pest management approaches, including the use of cover crops, which are known to increase soil microbial diversity. Through our environmental land management schemes, we are encouraging, incentivising and supporting farmers to develop integrated pest management into how they farm, and the use of green cover crops, which is absolutely vital. I will perhaps come on to say a little more about that.
I come to the noble Baroness’s specific point about ipflufenoquin and whether its use in agricultural or other commercial sectors is right, pending further investigation into the risk of cross-resistance emerging. I am of the belief—and I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Baroness—that this is not an active substance that is currently approved in the UK, or one that the HSE, which regulates this area, has received an application to approve. As and when it does, there is a very proper debate that the noble Baroness would be right in raising.
The noble Baroness also asked what work the Government were doing to reserve certain modes of action of antifungals for human medicine only, and about a risk management framework against cross-resistance development. The scope of the current regulatory regime extends only to considering resistance in the target pest, weed or disease, and therefore does not consider human pathogens. This is consistent with internationally accepted standards and guidance. However, we recognise the importance of understanding the broader impacts of resistance beyond single species. The new antimicrobial resistance national action plan, due to be published in 2024, will include a focus on plant health and will have commitments focused on better stewardship of antimicrobials in plants, as well as a call for a search on drivers of AMR in plants and the transmission routes of AMR through plants—directly responding to the very good point that the noble Baroness made—and on our greater understanding of the impacts of these fungicides in the wider contexts of the food we eat and the environment we seek to protect.
As with all pesticides authorised for use in Great Britain, fungicides can be placed on the market only after a thorough scientific risk assessment. That assessment and subsequent reviews consider risks to the environment and human health, as well as the efficacy of the fungicide. The assessment of efficacy is important in this context. To avoid excessive use, the regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, assesses the minimum dose of the active substance—that is the chemical that delivers the required effect—needed in the product. This will ensure that the product is sufficiently effective without applying more of it than is required, minimising the potential for resistance to develop. However, any pesticide must be used with care. We know that overuse of pesticides can have an impact on the natural environment but it can also lead to resistance, which costs farmers more and may cause further downstream impacts, including to human health, as the noble Baroness said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about compliance. There is a very strict enforcement process, governed mainly by the Environment Agency, on the release of chemicals into the environment, particularly into watercourses. I do not have a figure for the number of cases that we have dealt with in recent years, but it is certainly available and I am very happy to provide it to the House.
Managing antimicrobial resistance, or AMR, effectively is essential for biological security in the UK and globally. Our understanding of fungicide resistance as an emerging AMR threat is still growing. We are currently reviewing evidence of the link between fungicide resistance in crops and transition to animals, including humans. This work will fit into the broader context of the action this Government are taking on AMR, which encompasses resistance to infections caused by fungi, bacteria and other micro-organisms. In 2019 we published our 20-year vision to contain and control AMR by 2040. This strategic vision is supported by our current five-year AMR national action plan, running from 2019 to 2024, and a new action plan due to be published next year.
We have already made significant progress in combating AMR in agriculture. Our work on antibiotic resistance in animal agriculture has led to a 59% reduction in the use of antibiotic medicines in farmed animals between 2014 and 2022. It is a remarkable story, and there have been some staggering increases of way more than that. Alarmingly, last year there was a big spike of antibiotic use in salmon farming. We hope to see that continue to improve, but there are serious issues to answer there. Within this new plan, we seek to promote research into better understanding the transmission of antifungal resistance through the environment to humans and to encourage responsible antimicrobial use in crops by providing evidence-based guidance.
The noble Baroness asked what the Government are doing with the Quadripartite on these issues. Antifungal resistance is a subset of AMR and is taken into consideration in the UK and in global AMR strategies. I work with Ministers in other departments to make sure that the UK is absolutely at the forefront of these issues through our “one health” agenda. The UK is a leading member of the Quadripartite multi-stakeholder partnership platform on AMR, which is driving action on AMR across the sectors, including Governments, researchers, civil society organisations and funders.
A question was put about the national action plan on pesticides. We appreciate that noble Lords are concerned that the publication of the NAP has been delayed, and we will publish it shortly. We have not waited for its publication to move forward with work supporting sustainable pest management. Farmers can now sign up to new paid integrated pest management actions within the sustainable farming incentive scheme. We are really pleased with the level of interest in the new scheme, which includes integrated pest management, and we have had more people showing interest in the first month after the new actions were announced than we had in five months under the previous one. We are starting to see real buy-in to this. Feeding into that is a near doubling of the number of farmers in Countryside Stewardship, and our landscape recovery schemes are also taking place. This is moving into a good place, but there is much more work to be done.
We are also supporting research into pest management and IPM through the £270 million farming innovation programme, through which farmers and growers in England, with industry partners, can apply for funding to develop innovative methods and technologies to boost sustainable productivity in agriculture and horticulture. This work will help farmers access the most effective pest management tools available and ensure that we understand the changing trends in pest threats across the UK. It is really important that we see this grow and that research can be scaled here in the UK. Too often in the past we have seen really good ideas brought forward by unbelievably talented universities that have to go abroad to be scaled up. We want to see this investment here and this great new green tech boom exporting good practice and innovations across the world. We have not waited for the new AMR plan to be published to take action on pesticide resistance, as I said. This Government are already supporting this in a variety of different ways.
This holistic approach carefully considers all available plant protection methods to ensure that pesticides are used only where they are needed. Alternative methods of prevention and control are encouraged, and decision-making tools and monitoring systems are used to track pests and understand when intervention is required. IPM therefore helps to minimise chemical intervention and diversify the techniques used for pest and disease management, which reduces input costs for farmers and growers. We are all pulling in the same direction here: it absolutely makes sense for a farmer to use fewer pesticides, fungicides, sprays and other interventions if they possible can. The added advantage is that, over time, that will increase their resilience and reduce the likelihood of resistance. This year we announced new IPM actions as part of the SFI. That is working holistically, seeing better results for food security, the environment and, we hope, our health.
Around 10 years ago, when people started talking about precision farming, it seemed to be the future. Now, precision farming seems a little analogue in a digital age, when we are starting to see technologies coming through that can treat individual plants using data that is in the tractor cab and available through satellite imaging and other tools. We are starting to see benefits to both agriculture and horticulture, which could mean a dramatic diminution in the amount of spray we use.
Finally, in 2021 this Government established a £19.2 million research programme called Pathogen Surveillance in Agriculture, Food and the Environment, PATH-SAFE. This programme, led by the Food Standards Agency, will bolster our understanding of AMR in the environment, including the importance of different sources and potential transmission routes. We expect the final details of this project to be published next year.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister concludes, I want to raise a couple of points that he has not covered. One thing that he alluded to is how this crosses over with the Department of Health. I have an easy question for him: will he please refer this debate to that department and make sure that it is aware of it? On the new AMR action plan, can the Minister ask the department whether we can have a meeting to talk about the specific issue of antifungals and make sure that it gets the attention it deserves?
I have two other questions that have not been covered. The Minister said that he does not know of any attempt to get ipflufenoquin registered here. Of course, if it is being used in the US, it is creating resistance that will be imported here, which is where the issue of trade deals will come in. Can the Minister make sure that this is drawn to the attention of our trade negotiators?
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the numbers in terms of the SFI and integrated pest management. I understand that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but can he update us in a letter on the numbers of people applying to that?