Environment Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I was not aware of the example from Oregon, but there are plenty examples from around the world of people at the very bottom of the economic ladder deriving livelihoods from being involved at one level or another in the recycling sector. That is certainly the case. I thank my noble friend for his comments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of our amendments. As I said in my opening remarks, there is already considerable evidence from Europe that deposit return schemes drive up recycling levels of bottles and cans and thereby cut back on litter and landfill. That point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, among others. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, rightly highlighted the success of Germany and the fact that it has been organised on a unitary basis across the German state—there are lessons to be learned from that.

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, latterly put the question about the affluent and the less affluent. It is true that, once you put a small value on an empty bottle, people will be less inclined casually to throw it away, and even if some individual cannot be bothered to collect the deposit, there will always be others who will pick it up for that reason. However you go about it, it will undoubtedly reduce levels of litter and drive up recycling.

I agree, of course, with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others that what we need is an all-in scheme for it to be really successful.

There is no reason why this scheme cannot be operational by 1 January 2023. Indeed, there could be perverse consequences if Scotland had such a scheme ahead of other nations. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that England has become a world leader in foot-dragging, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that England is becoming a laggard, and I agree with both of those sentiments. I think that we all agree that a united scheme across the four nations is the way to go, but we cannot expect Scotland to hang around while we make our minds up about this, so we have to move at pace and move together.

I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a sensible point about deposit fees having to vary with the size of the container. I understand some of the complexities around that, but we need to make sure that we are not incentivising a switch to plastic that might otherwise occur.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, raised the issue of small producers and small breweries, and I agree that there need to be arrangements for start-ups and new businesses. There are, of course, many small drinks companies bringing new products on to the market—indeed, many of them are promoting healthy drinks. I am not convinced that small breweries need a special exemption, but I understand the point he makes. Of course, the scheme is not intended to place an extra burden on small businesses, and we have all said that it needs to be simple and straightforward to administer. I would have thought that all those companies—the breweries and other small producers—would welcome schemes that prevent their empty containers becoming litter or landfill just as much as anyone else. I remind noble Lords—some of us have been around for rather a long time—that we had bottle deposit schemes in the past, so in a sense this is nothing new.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but nothing he said explains why we cannot have a DRS by 1 January 2023, and I disagree that he is on target to meet the Conservative manifesto commitment on this. Businesses have known that this is coming for some time; we have had time to make the transition, and there is still time within the next 18 months to complete that transition. The Minister also talked about Schedule 8, but the problem, as with all those schedules, is that it is not specific; it is just enabling. It does not guarantee anything. It just says that these things “may”—going back to our famous word—happen.

I will, therefore, reflect on the Minister’s comments, but I hope he has heard the strength of feeling around the Chamber today: people want action on this, and they want it quickly. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 133 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I very much look forward to what my noble friend the Minister will say when he comes to wind up this interesting debate. I hope there will be an opportunity to strengthen regulations—if that is needed, and I believe it is—when we come to Report.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest through my involve at Rothamsted, which carries out research on pesticides and pollinators.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty—and welcome him back—for introducing his amendment on the impact of pesticides on human health with such knowledge and such detail. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for championing the very important case of pollinators, to which I have added my name.

As my noble friend Lord Whitty reminded us, these issues were debated in some detail during the consideration of the Agriculture Bill, and it is right that we return to them today. I very much commend his Amendment 152 because I think that it is a common-sense and reasonable proposal that we have before us today.

During this debate, noble Lords have shown considerable concern, passion and determination about these issues. As noble Lords have said, we are talking about the application of poisons here, so we cannot take these issues lightly. My noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have given powerful examples of the public health concerns which can arise from close contact with pesticides. As they said, asthma, respiratory problems, skin disorders and even cancers are destroying people’s lives. Sadly, all too often, our experience has been that the health problems come to light when the damage has already been done. We discover in retrospect that what was promised to be safe turned out not to be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, we are still learning and we are also storing up problems for the future, for example, given our understanding of the impact that antimicrobial resistance can have on public health.

The point at issue here is the particular concern about the impact on those living and working adjacent to fields that are regularly sprayed. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, at least farm workers have access to protective clothing but no such provision is made for the local population. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that spraying is already covered by the regulations, but the problem is the difference between the regulations and practice. It is obvious that the rules are not being adhered to in their current form, which is why we need to spell out more specific protections. This is what my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment does and why it particularly singles out spraying adjacent to homes, schools and health facilities. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would have understood and agreed with that. We are not trying to ban the wholesale spraying of crops; we are just trying to put some limitations on it.

The UN report The Right to Food, published in 2017, highlighted that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides is associated with a range of diseases, including cancer, sterility and developmental disorders. The local population, rather than professionals, were often subjected.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to reduce levels of pesticide use, combined with integrated pest management. We can all see the potential of harnessing the natural power of biodiversity and the advantages of precision applications in the future. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that the action plan on pesticides does not go far enough. We have to bear in mind the huge vested-interest lobby trying to draw out the reforms, which are needed more urgently. This does not answer the problem addressed in this amendment: we need to have confidence that, in any consultation, the voice of residents will have the same weight as that of the farming community. This is why we need the best independent scientific evidence to underpin our policies.

The Government clearly feel that we can farm with fewer pesticides. They have said that during the Agriculture Bill and in the action plan since. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, presented us with a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between growing food and public health; we can cut back on the application of pesticides and still grow food but live a healthier life.

However, for the foreseeable future, spraying will still take place and, as the UK Pesticides Campaign makes clear, the real problems often lie in exposure to mixtures of pesticides. Therefore, we cannot just sit back and wait for the technology or for nature-friendly applications of the future. We need measures to protect people from the suffering that is occurring now. It is clear that the regulations in existence are inadequate to protect the local population. I hope that the Minister has listened to this debate seriously and will give assurances that the Government will take these concerns on board.

We also wholeheartedly welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, which would provide added protection for pollinators, particularly bees. We are now much more aware of the importance of pollinators to our crops and to levels of biodiversity, yet since 1990 the UK has lost 13 out of its 35 native bee species. All the evidence shows that pesticides, and particularly neonicotinoids, are seriously harmful to our dwindling bee population. This is why the EU has a ban on the use of neonicotinoids.

We understand the concerns of sugar beet farmers, but sugar beet is a complex crop and ending the ban is not necessarily the solution to tackling crop blight. To quote a much-quoted Michael Gove again,

“Unless the evidence base changes again, the government will keep these restrictions in place after we have left the EU.”


In a Commons debate on the issue earlier this year, the Minister Rebecca Pow said:

“We supported the ban in 2018 and we stand by that now”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/21; col. 262]


So we have to ask what has changed, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has pointed out, the Government have now lifted the ban, even though evidence of its harm has not altered. To the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I say that a risk assessment was carried out, but the Government chose to ignore it.

This is why we support the eminently sensible amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, which would take the decisions out of the hands of politicians and pass them to an expert scientific authority. We need to be assured that the Government are not being put under undue pressure from the business sector to maintain its market access. I therefore hope that the Minister takes both these amendments seriously and comes back with a government proposal that adequately addresses these concerns.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I shall start by addressing Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Noble Lords are right to shine a light on this topic today, and I hope I can reassure them on the Government’s position. The Government fully agree that pesticides should not be used in a way that harms human health.

Under the current regulatory system, pesticides are authorised for use only where a comprehensive scientific assessment determines that there are not expected to be any harmful effects on human health. The assessment, carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, covers all situations where people may be exposed to pesticides. It specifically covers the potential impacts on those who live, work or take their leisure around treated areas. I am not going to pretend that it is a perfect system—if it was, we would not be having this debate. Historically, there has been an unnatural, unhealthy closeness between the regulated and the regulators, here and across the European Union. I remember the lobbying efforts which were deployed to prevent the European Commission introducing a tough approach to the regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. It was probably the biggest lobbying exercise that I have ever witnessed, and I remember writing about it years ago. That situation is true of the UK too, and I suspect of most countries. There is no doubt that despite the existing protections—which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described as one of the toughest approaches, which is probably true—harmful chemicals have been poured into our soils, our waters and throughout our food chain. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right that the status quo is not sufficient. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that it needs to be put under the microscope.

With that said, authorisation is frequently refused because the proposed use of the product is not demonstrated to be sufficiently safe to people or the environment. These controls allow pesticides to be used where they are deemed to be safe and where they are considered necessary for UK farmers. Unfortunately, in the current system, pesticides are a core part of the control of pests, weeds and diseases. Without them, it is estimated that UK farmers would produce around one-third less food. At the same time, we must—and do—recognise the need to change the current system and to reduce our dependence on the use of pesticides. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked about productivity, and I want to throw into the debate that it is not always the case that large intensive monocultures for export are more productive than the smaller, more diverse and perhaps more traditional farms that they often replace. A seminal report was conducted by the UN FAO and the World Bank, which surprised themselves by discovering that the small diverse mixed farm was productive per unit of land, where the large intensive monoculture for export was often more productive per unit of labour. In terms of getting food off the ground, it is not always the case that modern industrial farming produces more.

Under the 25-year environment plan, the Government committed to developing and promoting integrated pest management. Applied properly, this approach maximises the use of non-chemical control techniques and minimises the use of chemical pesticides, including by pursuing nature-based, low-toxicity solutions and precision technologies. This will reduce risks from pesticide use and the amounts used over time. In addition to that, as noble Lords will know, we are moving to a system away from the common agricultural policy toward the environmental land management system which will be rewarding and paying farmers for the delivery of public goods. That means, among many other things, a clean environment. I add that in their consultation on the draft revised national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides, the Government also committed to reviewing the code of practice that governs all professional users of pesticides. The code’s statutory basis means that it can be used in evidence if people are taken to court for offences involving pesticides.

Turning to Amendment 254, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, she is of course right that the use of pesticides must not put pollinators at unacceptable risk, for all the reasons that she gave and which I will not repeat. It is impossible to exaggerate the existential damage that would be done were we to see the continuing decline of pollinators on the scale that we have seen in recent years, so I will not take issue with her at all on that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

161: After Clause 77, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty on water companies: untreated sewage
In Part 1 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after Chapter 1 (appointments) insert—“CHAPTER 1ZADUTY ON WATER COMPANIES: UNTREATED SEWAGE17ZA Duty on water companies: untreated sewage (England)(1) A water company in England must take all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters.(2) The Secretary of State, the Authority and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to seek to secure compliance with that duty.(3) In this Chapter, “water company” means any company holding an appointment under Chapter I of this Part (appointments).17ZB Requirements in connection with section 17ZA duty Reasonable steps to be taken by water companies in accordance with the duty under section 17ZA include, but are not limited to—(a) maintaining and publishing a register of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and any other sewer catchment assets from which discharges of treated or untreated sewage may be made to inland waters;(b) publishing biannual reports on the operational status of those assets;(c) progressively installing capacity to monitor continuously all discharges of treated or untreated sewage into inland waters from those assets and publishing the data so obtained;(d) monitoring and publishing reports on the quality and duration of discharges made from CSOs;(e) as part of drainage and wastewater management plans, setting out steps to ensure that—(i) biological or nature-based treatments are progressively installed where practicable and made operational at wastewater treatment works discharging to inland waters that do not otherwise provide for the tertiary treatment of effluent; and(ii) reliance upon CSOs is progressively reduced; and(f) any requirements specified by the Secretary of State under section 17ZC(2)(b).17ZC Report on measures to assist water companies in fulfilling section 17ZA duty(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on measures to assist water companies in fulfilling the duty in section 17ZA—(a) within one year of this section coming into force; and(b) in every calendar year after the year in which that first report is published.(2) Each report under subsection (1) must for each of the measures listed in subsections (3) to (7) set out—(a) the Secretary of State’s assessment of the contribution that measure could make to reducing treated and untreated sewage discharges to inland waters in England; and(b) what steps, if any, the Secretary of State intends to take in connection with that measure, including any specific requirements on water companies in relation to their duty under section 17ZA. (3) Measures intended to separate surface water and sewage collection including—(a) requiring all new developments of more than two residential or commercial buildings to have separate surface water and sewage collection systems;(b) bringing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 into force for England;(c) requiring all new surface water collection systems to incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS);(d) requiring all major retrofitting or redevelopment projects of buildings where practicable to incorporate SUDS and separate surface water and sewage collection systems; and(e) amending strategic guidance to the Authority to require it to facilitate capital expenditure on—(i) nature-based drainage systems, such as integrated constructed wetlands, and(ii) SUDS.(4) Measures intended to reduce the volume of sewage produced by domestic properties, including—(a) requiring by 2025 all domestic properties to have a metered water supply when being leased, rented or sold;(b) requiring the Environment Agency to maintain a register of all private sewage treatment systems;(c) amending Building Regulations to require efficient processing of grey water (sullage);(d) requiring all new domestic and commercial outside ground-level surfaces where practicable to be made from permeable materials; and(e) introducing water efficiency labelling on household appliances.(5) Measures to reduce the polluting content of sewage, including—(a) establishing a regulatory standard for flushable products;(b) prohibiting the use of plastics in sanitary products and wet wipes;(c) reducing the use of microplastics in flushable products; and(d) prohibiting the disposal of fats and oils into sewers by food service establishments.(6) Measures intended to reduce the impact of CSO discharges, including—(a) requiring the Environment Agency to work with water companies in reducing harmful discharges from CSOs; and(b) directing the Environment Agency to research the effects of CSO discharges on water quality in inland waters and water bodies.(7) Measures intended to promote improvements in bathing water quality in inland waters, including—(a) setting statutory targets for the increase in the number of bathing waters classified as “good” or “excellent”;(b) designating a minimum of two inland bathing waters, to include one in-river inland bathing water, in each water company area for each year of any price review period; and(c) amending strategic guidance to the Authority to require it to facilitate capital expenditure on the improvement of water quality in inland bathing waters. 17ZD Reports on performance against section 17ZA duty (1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the performance of water companies against the duty in section 17ZA—(a) within one year of this section coming into force; and(b) in every calendar year after the year in which that first report is published.(2) Reports under this section must include assessments of—(a) the performance of the sewerage assets of each water company; and(b) the quantities of treated and untreated sewage discharged into inland waters from those assets.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts into the Environment Bill the provisions of the Sewage (Inland Waters) Bill, which was prepared by Rt Hon Philip Dunne MP in the last parliamentary session.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am moving Amendment 161 in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Our amendment would insert a new clause based on the wording of the excellent Private Member’s Bill tabled in the Commons by Philip Dunne, which fell without a Second Reading. It sets out the requirement for water companies to take all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters. It sets out the responsibilities of the Government and the Environment Agency to ensure compliance. It sets out the monitoring, reporting and wastewater treatment plans that need to be in place. It sets out the requirements to separate surface water from sewage, reduce the volume of sewage, reduce the polluting content of sewage and increase the quality of inland bathing waters. It would require the Secretary of State to report on progress in delivering this duty within one year of the section coming into force, and every year thereafter.

I gather that there have been a number of discussions with Philip Dunne since his Bill was published and that the Government committed to take his Bill forward. I understand that this is what the Minister’s Amendments 165 and 300 are meant to achieve. But, by any measure, the Minister’s amendments are pale imitations of the original. Gone is the obligation on water companies to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters, combined with the obligation on Governments and the Environment Agency to secure compliance. Instead, in the Minister’s version, the Secretary of State must simply prepare a plan, which may include proposals to reduce sewage being discharged by storm overflows. It also includes several exemptions, which could undermine the whole intent of the clause. This is more than a difference of semantics; it fundamentally changes the tone and the urgency of the amendment, when what is needed is swift and strategic action to end the pollution caused by storm overflows.

We therefore also support the series of amendments to the Government’s amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, which put the original bite back into the clause by adding back the duty on water companies, taking out the exemptions and adding in dates to give a greater sense of urgency. These amendments achieve much the same as our original Clause 161 but by a different route.

This issue is urgent. Our rivers and inland waterways are being routinely polluted by raw sewage. It is affecting our biodiversity and wildlife and putting human health at risk. A recent report from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology shows that water companies are being allowed to unlawfully discharge raw sewage into rivers at a scale at least 10 times greater than the Environment Agency’s prosecutions indicate. Professor Peter Hammond found that, although there were 174 prosecutions of water companies between 2010 and 2020, in the same period there were 2,197 potential breaches recorded.

Earlier this year, Thames Water was fined £4 million when the sewage treatment pumps failed one night in 2016, allowing what was described as an “avalanche of foul waste” to spread over Green Lane recreation ground. Enough toilet paper to fill 2,500 refuse bags was recovered from the scene. It seems that our outdated sewage infrastructure cannot handle the pressures of increased population and climate change that cause these storm surges.

At least that case finally came to court. The fact is that the Environment Agency can no longer cope with the pressures on it, due to huge funding shortfalls. In a letter to the Secretary of State this year, the chair of the Environment Agency, Emma Howard Boyd, wrote that the drop in grant had forced it to reduce or stop critical work such as responding to environmental incidents, allowing it to attend only the more serious ones. In the meantime, the latest data shows that every river in England is polluted and is failing to meet the minimum water quality test—and, as we know, we have the lowest bathing water quality of any county in the EU.

So this is an urgent issue, and the Government’s proposals in the Bill are just not good enough. I therefore hope noble Lords will support our amendment and those in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I beg to move.

Amendment 161A (to Amendment 161)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 161A withdrawn.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and supported our amendment this evening. I also pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage for its excellent campaigning role in highlighting the terrible current state of our water quality.

To pick up on some of the contributions, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, rightly raised the environmental damage that can be done by septic tanks and the need to link them to the main sewerage system. As he said, their existence is a primitive legacy of a pre-industrial age and a symptom of a lack of investment in the infrastructure over many years.

My noble friend Lord Whitty has a considerable background in the water industry, and I bow to his greater knowledge on all of this. He rightly pressed the point that we need to reduce household consumption of water within a deliverable timescale. As he said, we will have a chance to debate some of these issues in more detail in one of the later groups, so I will hold many of my comments back for that. But I agree with him that a declaration about reducing water consumption at the front of this part of the Bill would be very important. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised issues that are coming up in later groups but equally relevant to this one; we will come back to those.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his thoughtful and detailed contribution. He raised the important point about the need to involve local catchment partnerships in preparing the policies to reduce sewage discharge and the need for stricter criteria on when such discharges should be allowed. He made the point that they could also have a role in designating bathing sites, and I am grateful to him for alerting us to the fact that 1.2 million people are involved in outdoor swimming. We all seem to know somebody involved in it these days, so its popularity is clearly increasing. It is obviously something to be welcomed in terms of health. We also need to know the adverse health effects if people are swimming in these waters. That point was also well made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and I were in exactly the same territory. He echoed a number of the issues that I had raised about the government amendment. As he said, it is not good enough to reduce sewage discharges; we should instead resolve to eliminate them. That point was echoed right around the Chamber this evening. The noble Duke has clearly not been too impressed by the discussions that he has had with the Minister so far. His amendment would also improve other loose wording in the government amendment; again, his thoughtful corrections are very welcome. We could discuss tactics and the right way forward later but, whether we have one amendment or a number of smaller ones, I think the noble Duke and I agree on what the ultimate objective should be.

I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. She rightly stressed the context of reforms needing to be based on nature-based solutions, and her point was very well made. She and my noble friend Lady Young raised the importance of setting out as soon as we can to separate storm and drain water from the sewerage system, which would obviously alleviate pressure on some of the discharges.

The noble Lord, Lord Oates, made a very important point about why the exemptions which the Government currently have in their amendment simply should not be allowed to apply. His example of the discharges into the Hogsmill illustrated that very well.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. We obviously welcome the task force and the extra money that has been made available. I also agree with him that we owe a great deal of thanks to the engineers, who often battle with outdated plant when they come out in difficult circumstances and weather conditions and at all times of the night. It is not an easy job, but their job would be considerably enhanced if they were able to deal with more modern equipment. I will need to consider the Minister’s points, which he raised primarily in response to the amendments of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, in detail, because I know that he went through them point by point.

However, none of this captured the urgency of the situation and the need to get a better grip on the performance of the water companies. This is at a time when they are still paying huge bonuses to their executives, rather than fixing the outdated sewerage infrastructure in a timely way. So I reiterate that the solution to our amendment would be for the Government to table a revised and improved amendment which more clearly matches what was originally put forward by Philip Dunne, which my colleagues in the Commons certainly felt was destined for the Lords and to be in the Bill—so there is disappointment in that Chamber as well as this one that that is not where we are at the moment.

I would be happy to have further discussions about this, if that can be arranged. There is a solution to be had here but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 161 withdrawn.