Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Whitty

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I oppose the Commons deletion and commend Amendment 11B, which proposes a revised version of what was Clause 38 in the Bill as it left this House.

I thank the Minister for his explanation, and for his courtesy, throughout this discussion and when meeting me yesterday, but I am afraid that he has not yet convinced me. I appreciate that many in this House do not regard this issue as important enough to be dealt with at this late stage in the Bill’s passage, but the Bill will define the future practice of agriculture in this country. We are dealing with agriculture’s relationship with nature, the environment, the food trade and so on, but it also must be about its relationship with those human beings who live and work in our countryside alongside that agriculture. Too many of those rural inhabitants have had health effects from exposure to pesticides, which have been and remain a serious threat to their physical quality of life. They deserve at least the limited and straightforward protection which my amendment provides by requiring the Government to regulate the distance between them and pesticide operations.

There have essentially been only three arguments from the Government against this principle. The first is what the Minister has just said: that the EU authorisation process nowadays ensures that even repeated exposure to the application of legally authorised pesticides cannot lead to serious health effects. I regret to say that medical reports and evidence from rural residents, some of which noble Lords will have seen, suggest substantially otherwise. Noble Lords will also recall the powerful speech on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on the medical issues that residents and others affected by pesticide poisoning have suffered.

I accept that there have been significant changes in EU pesticide authorisation, but they are not sufficient. One of the easiest and most obvious ways to prevent such exposure from causing health effects is to ensure that the exposure to crop spraying is at a prescribed minimum distance from where people are most likely to be: in their own homes, their children’s schools, and so on.

The principle of my original amendment continues to be supported by many in this House, if not all, including my original co-sponsors the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, of the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, of the Conservatives, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for the Greens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. However, perhaps it was phrased a little loosely. The main objection in the other place by the Defra Minister, Victoria Prentis—she used slightly overstated terms—was that it would close every field to pesticide application. That was never the intention, so we have deleted the wording which gave rise to that objection and taken out what was originally subsection (1)(b). The only open spaces referred to now are those that are part of education or healthcare facilities. That should deal with the substantive objections that were made from the Government Benches in the Commons.

The other objection, repeated by the Minister just now and in the wording of the Commons reasons, is that Ministers already have these powers. I have two comments on this. There is a key word in my amendment —“must”. If Ministers did have these powers, they have not used them. This amendment would require them to produce draft regulations and to submit them to the usual consultations, and then to both Houses. At the last stage, and in correspondence, Ministers argued that they had possessed these powers since the EU directive in 2009 and the transposition of that in 2012. The Minister has just said that they have actually had these powers since the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. There is no specific reference there to distance or to residential property—there is a brief reference to healthcare facilities—but even if Ministers are right, and they do in general terms have the right to prescribe distance, why have they not done so in the eight years since the transposition of the EU regulation, and in particular since that 1985 Act? If they are claiming that they already have those powers, they must explain to the House why they have not used them. If we do not pass my amendment indicating that they must introduce such regulations, we may have to wait another 35 years for rural residents to be protected.

I give notice—I should have done so at the beginning —that, unless I hear something different from the Minister, I intend to press this amendment to a Division at the end of this debate.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 17B, which would create a new clause for a strategy to reduce emissions from agriculture, having regard to our national and international obligations, and requiring an interim strategy for 2030 commensurate with meeting our 2050 net-zero target.

This is a clearer and simpler version of Amendment 100, which we passed by a 49-vote majority on Report. I have since had a further opportunity to reflect on the Minister’s detailed response to my amendment, and I am also grateful for the meetings that he has arranged before today, and the promise of a future meeting. I have also read with interest what the Minister in the other place, Victoria Prentis, had to say about our amendments.

At the heart of our disagreement is whether individual government departments should be required to spell out how they are going to meet their share of the obligation to deliver net zero by 2050. In the debate on the Bill last week, the Commons Minister said:

“If we are to achieve the UK’s net zero target, emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors. Not setting sector-specific targets allows us to meet our climate change commitments in the best and speediest way.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/74; col. 74.]


Of course I agree that emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors, but I fail to see how this can be achieved unless you precisely set sector-specific metrics and outcomes. If not, you end up with precisely the criticisms levelled by the Committee on Climate Change, which said that the voluntary approach in agriculture has not worked, and that there is no coherent approach to emissions reductions in agriculture at present. The result, as noble Lords will know, is that our agricultural emissions have stayed static, at about 10% of the total, when we should be playing our part in driving emissions down. Given that the Climate Change Act was passed in 2008—12 years ago—we have quite some catching up to do. This is why our amendment introduces the concept of a strategy to be published for staged progress to be delivered by 2030. Given that we seem to have made little progress in agriculture in the first 12 years, this interim strategy seems all too necessary, otherwise we risk getting close to 2050 and realising it is too late to take deliverable measures to meet our target.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Whitty

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief, but I am afraid I will revert to many of the points which were touched on under the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and I am not entirely sure that the Minister has entirely convinced me.

There is a central point. I am all for simplicity of legislation, but the Minister keeps referring to the seven cottages on Kew Green and the wish to extend the existing leases. Everybody understands that, and I do not think there has been any great dissent in the Committee about the desirability of so doing, but the Bill refers to,

“the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years”.

That to me means all land. The Crown can and does give leases. The specifics on the two royal estates which make up Kew add complexity to the issue, but as it stands we could have 150-year leases on any of the land that Kew covers. There is no distinction in the drafting of the Bill between core and non-core land. I appreciate the Minister’s assertions that this one of the most protected pieces of land in the nation. I accept that there are all sorts of protections built into the current situation. I also deeply appreciate the Minister and his staff and the staff of Kew meeting me and discussing this at some length, but I come back to the text of the Bill. There is no difference between us on the objectives, but for the first time 150-year leases could be granted under this Bill, without restriction, on any piece of land which the botanical gardens now cover.

I understand all the protections that are built in, but I go along with the French of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Times change. Secretaries of State change. The arrangements for the Charity Commission will change. It may be that the implications of being a world heritage site change. It may even be possible that the political control of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames changes dramatically—that is slightly less likely. Kew Gardens need to be protected against change. In so far as this Act will continue to be the basis on which leases are granted for 150 years over an unlimited period forward, we have to have rather more protections here.

The regulatory structure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has identified is complex. Therefore, it is almost certain that departmental structures and memoranda of understanding will change over the next 150 years and beyond, and rightly so in many respects. However, we are dealing with the Bill as it stands. As I said, I do not object to Kew’s ability to raise money. In many respects, I think that it will greatly benefit from private finance coming into the organisation—or more so than is the case at present, although it has been quite successful at raising money in recent years. However, we need a restriction on the way in which the land will then be used.

My amendment recognises the multifaceted aspects of Kew. Essentially, it is scientific, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, but Kew’s objectives relating to science, the environment, education that stems from that science, and the amenity and enjoyment value—the sixth function, as the noble Viscount called it—all need protection. Therefore, my amendment stipulates that the use of the land should not challenge or undermine any of those objectives and outcomes. It is couched in pretty broad terms. It says that the use of the land must either contribute to or support Kew’s objectives—support can mean bringing in the finance for those objectives—or at least be compatible with them. The word “or” there in my amendment should perhaps be “and”, because in a sense compatibility with those objectives is my central point.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether a developer could build possibly unsuitable residential buildings on those sites. The Minister said that everybody would object to that, so it would not happen. However, under the Bill it could happen. That is my point. At Second Reading I explained my ancestral and childhood love and affection for Kew, and that is shared with a wide range of people. However, certain developments in the rest of London, including those along the Thames in, say, the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth, which we can look at over the bridge down the road, have not exactly been compatible with their surroundings.

If anything impinged on Kew, it would be detrimental to its amenity value, it would probably undermine its UNESCO world heritage site designation, and it could change the public’s attitude towards it. I completely accept the Minister’s view that such development is unlikely. In the short term it is almost impossible because Ministers will have the present apparatus of regulation and planning controls at their disposal. I have no desire to challenge the intentions of the Minister, the department or the Kew trustees in bringing forward these proposals. However, this House and this Parliament need to say, “Well, yes, do all that, but let’s write in a general restriction to ensure that these probably imagined and scaremongering possibilities do not arise”. I would feel a lot safer, as I think other lovers and supporters would, if those restrictions were put in.

I hold no great attachment to the precise wording of my amendment. I would be delighted if at the end of this debate the Minister said, “We accept the principle but we will ask parliamentary counsel to draft an alternative form of words that will achieve the same objective”. That outcome would be very helpful and I would welcome the Minister saying something like that at this stage. If he could bring something forward on Report that achieved those objectives, I would very much welcome it. However, in default of that, I would like the Minister and the House to take my amendment seriously. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I have my name to my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment but I also have Amendment 4 in this group so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I introduce it at this stage; it addresses the criteria to be used for any lease extensions.

I should say, as is implied, that we support Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. This goes back to the Second Reading debate, where—I agree with the Minister—we are more or less on the same page; we are trying to find a way around some of these issues. During the Second Reading debate there was some concern from around the Chamber, expressed in different ways, about what was perceived as an inevitable weakening of controls over the use of the land and property, which could indeed result in developments which adversely impact on Kew’s global status and reputation. I heard what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I am not sure that anybody will try to build a high-rise block of flats, but there could be issues around the commercial development of restaurants or shops and so on which could—not necessarily at the outset but as time went by—damage the reputation of Kew. These are some of the issues that we need to extract, and ensure that they are put to rest.

Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Whitty

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a fairly fundamental objection to this set of regulations. I am sure that most of the detail is absolutely correct and necessary and I cannot say that I have read every sentence of these two regulations, but I have long held, going back to my days as the Minister in Defra, that the current regime for the regulation of pesticides, both at British and European level, has been inadequate for a number of reasons, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I am rather afraid that the “solution” of leaving the European Union is going to aggravate that position.

Most of the issues I have approached the department on in recent years have related to human health, but it is a much wider issue than that. I believe that the totality of the approach to pesticide regulation does not take into account the widespread effects of misuse of pesticides, the lack of enforcement on the way pesticides are used and the relative ease with which new pesticides and modified pesticides come on to the market. In some cases, the EU regulation has actually been held back by previous British interventions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I commend the current Secretary of State on neonicotinoids, but in general it is the Brits who have held back and there has been a lot of pressure—corporate pressure, one has to say—on the totality of the system. This could reinforce that tendency.

I understand, and I have been in some contact with the department about, the need to introduce provisions on chemicals broadly—on REACH provisions. These regulations tend to mirror, in a sense, the broader regulation structure of REACH. In the main, I think it is very sensible to maintain the success of the REACH provisions, but pesticides are different. They are different because they have a serious and often unacknowledged human health impact. More particularly, I want to emphasise tonight the effect they have on the environment in general: the effect of pesticides on the air, the water and the soil.

Soil has been degraded as a result of the overuse of pesticides. Pesticides in the air have affected both human and particularly insect life: this week we have seen very serious effects in the form of the worldwide reduction in insect life, some of which has been caused by pesticides here and elsewhere, and on the water system. One of the successes, to some extent, of the water framework directive has been to reduce that effect; nevertheless, there is still a very serious problem in our water supply, as the effect of pesticides comes through the soil, into the water and has an effect on insect life and on whatever you call those creatures that crawl on the bottom of our rivers—I am sure that my noble friend Lady Young can name them all, but I cannot—and therefore on our diversity. A lot of those are affected by the misuse or overuse of pesticides.

It is true that successive Governments have attempted to rationalise and pinpoint the use of pesticides more effectively in terms of agricultural use. However, unlike the industrial chemicals that will be covered by the transposition of arrangements on REACH, the use of pesticides—this particular form of chemical—is a matter not so much of industrial use but of agricultural use: its effect on the environment, on land management, on soil management and on air quality. I therefore find it somewhat surprising that we are to retain the HSE rather than an environmental body to oversee this. I know that the HSE has access to significant scientific information, and the transfer of a separate pesticide arrangement into the HSE probably was an improvement, but would I argue that if we are going to move to a new regime post Brexit, the appropriate body is actually the Environment Agency, because it has responsibility for agricultural practice and land use; for air, water and soil.

That is where, together with human health, pesticides have an impact. I am therefore disturbed that the whole rationale for these arrangements is to assign that role to the HSE and not to the Environment Agency and devolved environment agencies. I ask the Minister to think about that; it is not necessary, but we are moving into a new era, and the responsibility ought to be with an environmental body rather than with one which deals with the industrial use of other chemicals.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his courtesy in meeting us before this debate. I also thank the two noble Lords who have raised a number of important issues about these SIs, all of which I agree with. They both made very powerful points.

These SIs go to the heart of our concerns about the transposition process. This goes right back to our earlier discussions on the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The use of pesticides is of huge public interest—a point made by the noble Baroness—and they present significant environmental and public health challenges. It is an issue where the use of the precautionary principle is vital—supported of course by strong scientific evidence and detailed scrutiny of the potential impact of the new products.

At the moment, we have in the EU a thorough process of evaluation of products. The responsibilities for risk assessments are shared out across member states. There are clear decision-making roles for the European Food Safety Authority, the rapporteur member state, individual member states and the European Commission. All this is supported and backed up by access to the best scientific advice. While no process is perfect, there is considerable assurance that within the EU a detailed assessment of the risks has been carried out and cross-checked.

These proposals are intended to replace all of this with an assessment by the Health and Safety Executive and a decision in the hands of one person, the “competent authority” as described in the text—otherwise known as the Secretary of State. Under these proposals, full power to make, amend or revoke guidance, principles and regulations for the UK rests with the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers. There is a major loss of scrutiny, checks and balances, and audit powers.

This really is not good enough. It does not represent an accurate transposition of the current EU provisions into UK law. It also reopens our argument about the need for an independent environment watchdog to oversee the application of these new rules. This is a point other noble Lords have made—my noble friend Lady Young made it very eloquently in the earlier debate. That watchdog clearly needs to be in place from day one. I know that the Minister has said he cannot be precise about the timetable for this, but it would be helpful if he could reassure us again that the watchdog will be in place from 1 April, and that there will be no delay.

There is another big issue about what we will lose when we transpose to the UK. How can it be acceptable that the only reporting mechanism on national decisions for new active substances will be to publish the information online, when the previous EU regime required a report to be made to the EU Commissioner and a proper process of scrutiny and approval?

It also raises once again the fact that, by leaving the EU, we are cutting ourselves off from access to a huge resource of scientific data and analysis. Should we not be taking urgent steps to agree with the EU that we will continue to share this data for mutual benefit? For example, we will no longer have access to the advice of the European Food Safety Authority and will therefore have to pay considerable sums of money to try to replicate its advice. Would it not make sense to negotiate a mutual recognition agreement with the EU so that decisions taken in the EU and the UK continue to be mutually honoured? Can the Minister say whether discussions are taking place to create a shared register of approved pesticides and a mutual recognition scheme across the EU and UK, and what the timescale is for the outcome for those discussions?