PFAS
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the consultation announced in their PFAS Plan: building a safer future together, published on 3 February, will include an option for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances to be banned in all consumer products manufactured or sold in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the PFAS plan was published on 3 February this year. It sets out for the first time the Government’s approach to minimising the harmful effects of PFAS while moving to safer alternatives. The plan includes consideration of measures to manage risks from PFAS in consumer articles. While there are no current plans to consult on banning PFAS in consumer products, any such future regulatory ban would involve consulting on a proposal.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. PFAS are considered to be harmful to the environment, and by the time we collect enough evidence that a substance is harmful, it is too late—it is prevalent in the environment and costly to clean up, if that is even possible. Considering this, a precautionary approach would be to not allow these substances to be sold or used in the UK unless they can definitively be proven not to be harmful. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to follow the precautionary principle and signal the Government’s intention to take rapid steps to end the use of PFAS in the UK. If we do not, there is a real risk that we will become a dumping ground for products not suitable for the EU market.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend raises a really important issue. When deciding what action they will take to address any PFAS risks, the Government will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement from the Environment Act 2021, which includes the precautionary principle. We know that many PFAS have useful properties and are widely used and that some critical uses of PFAS which benefit society do not currently have suitable and sustainable alternatives available. While we see their use continuing in the near future, we absolutely have to manage any risks effectively. The PFAS plan contains action to support this transition to alternatives.
British Farming: Competitiveness
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord in that I am not able to discuss any specific carve-outs that we are looking at during the negotiations with the European Union. What I can say is that the innovative areas that he referred to are under discussion, because they are very important both for our scientific communities and for our farming communities, and those discussions are ongoing.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. In so doing, I commend the work of my noble friend the Minister in achieving agreements with the European Union in that regard. Further to that, can I urge her, working with the EU as part of the reset, to ensure that we achieve an SPS veterinary and phytosanitary agreement that will help promote and protect our farming industry and food security, not least in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that working with the European Union around sanitary and phytosanitary issues regarding veterinary medicines is very important and something that we are clearly focused on. I also thank her for her role in the Veterinary Medicines Working Group. The whole group came together to do the best we could to ensure that veterinary medicines were still available in Northern Ireland after the end of the grace period at the end of last year. We will continue to work together on how we move forward within the EU reset.
Changing Weather Patterns and Floods
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of changing weather patterns in the occurrence of recent floods and flood warnings; and what steps they are taking to mitigate the impact of, and adapt to, heavy rainfall, including improved water storage and management.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the latest national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk was published in December 2024. This shows that climate-driven sea level rise and extreme rainfall will place a growing number of people at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. That is why the Government are investing at least £10.5 billion in England until 2036 to construct new flood schemes and repair existing defences, to protect communities from the devastating impacts of climate change.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer, which clearly illustrates that the Government see the urgent nature of climate change mitigations. On changing weather patterns, which are characterised by persistent rain during the winter period and drought during the summer period, what will the Government do to encourage farms to store water on their land, perhaps incentivising it through the ELM scheme, which, if done right, could improve soil health and retention and promote food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are committing the largest amount to ELM schemes in our country’s history. That is going to rise to £2 billion by 2028-29. Some of this funding will be used to invest in flood protection and to support farmers in tackling agricultural pollution. We want to focus our efforts on actions that have multiple benefits—for example, improving soil health, as my noble friend mentioned, so that soil can hold more water, which reduces flood risk, prevents pollutants entering watercourses from field run-off and improves crop health during drought. Natural flood management techniques provide multiple co-benefits. For example, near where I live, there has been activity around the River Cocker and Loweswater. There, the West Cumbria Rivers Trust and its partners have been involving local farmers to re-naturalise the river, create wetlands, and implement other measures that provide flood protection alongside improving water quality and enhancing the environment. I have seen with my own eyes, in my own community, how this can help.
Flooding Interventions
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what outcome-based measures they use to measure the effectiveness of flooding interventions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, properties better protected is currently our main measure for tracking the current flood investment programme. In addition, we measure asset condition. A new 10-year programme starts in April this year and will benefit 840,000 properties by 2036. Our new strategic objectives will drive funding towards the most beneficial interventions. This will be measured by a set of outcome metrics covering economic benefits and reduction in flood risk to properties.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. In October 2025, the Government committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences to protect nearly 900,000 properties. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what assessment they have made of this investment in flood defences, reducing insurance costs for those residents, bearing in mind the ever-present problem of climate change?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is correct that we have committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences, the reason being that flood risk is one of the factors that determine home insurance prices. Our investment programme is designed to manage flood risk by reducing it and by preventing further increases. Clearly, this can also take properties out of the need to use Flood Re for their insurance. To remind noble Lords, Flood Re is a joint government and industry flood reinsurance scheme designed to help UK households at high risk of flooding to access affordable insurance.
Plastic Pollution
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government have any plans to restrict the export of plastics through powers under the Environment Act to encourage recycling at home, rather than offshoring the problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, we really need to move away from this. Many members of the public, me included, put their plastic into recycling bins in very good faith and expect it to be recycled—I buy things made out of recycled plastic—but we have to look at how we can stop plastic that should be recycled just being offshored and dumped. We have seen too many photographs of the appalling outcomes of that. That is why we want to get this treaty finalised, why we are really determined to move forward and why we are also concentrating on having a genuinely effective circular economy strategy within Defra.
Farming: 25-year Road Map
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish the 25-year farming roadmap, announced in November 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are planning to publish the first iteration of the farming road map, on growing England’s future, later this year. The Government are working together with farmers to develop the road map and set the course of farming for the next 25 years. The ultimate aim is to maintain food production, meet our environmental outcomes, and deliver a thriving and profitable farming sector.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the confirmation that the road map will be published later this year. Generally, what will the timeline for implementation be? Specifically, will it take forward recommendation 12 of the Corry review, which made it clear that we must
“reform slurry application and storage to help address diffuse water pollution from agricultural sources”,
implementing
“a single set of regulations which farmers can understand and comply with”?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, the first iteration will be published later this year. As we are still in the process of determining the content of the road map, and therefore the timetable of implementation, I am unable to give a detailed answer to my noble friend. We will publish more details in due course. I can assure her that we are continuing with targeted engagement right across the sector in order that we can agree a collective vision and shape the first version of the farming road map through discussion with stakeholders.
Sustainable Farming Incentive
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we need to reform the system and we are working on that; we want it to work as effectively as it possibly can, both to support farmers and to deliver the environmental targets that we need. I have visited the RPA offices in Carlisle, and the staff there work incredibly hard. We are looking at how we can improve the digital support they get, for example, because we need to ensure that the RPA is fit for the future and able to support farmers as best as it can in the way that it needs to.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Statement today. On the sustainable farming incentive, I know that she visits Northern Ireland and the other devolved nations fairly regularly, examining agricultural and environmental issues. When she next visits Northern Ireland, could she discuss with the Minister for Agriculture there the impact of the withdrawal of APR and business property relief? They were essential to sustainable farming in Northern Ireland, where an acre sells for about £25,000. The level of investment and money needs to be investigated by the Government and the Treasury again.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for those questions. The last time I visited Northern Ireland, I went on a visit with the Ulster Farmers’ Union to a farm to look at the specific differences between farming in Northern Ireland and in England, and to listen carefully to their concerns about some of the issues that my noble friend has raised. I can confirm that I am going to Northern Ireland on Thursday. I will be spending two days there, and I have already asked for an agenda item with Minister Muir, who my noble friend referred to, to discuss exactly these issues. It is really important that Northern Ireland farmers are listened to, just as it is important for farmers in the rest of the UK.
Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend the Minister to the Front Bench, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on behalf of the Opposition, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House, a member of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly and a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group—which is all related to the European Union.
A very interesting YouGov poll was published in the last few days; it showed that the public in the UK wanted to join the EU again. This cannot be discounted, and I would like to leave that point with the Government. An interesting analysis was provided by Piers Morgan—who would not exactly have been seen as a remainer—who said he cannot see why the reset does not involve rejoining the European Union. Little benefit has come out of Brexit for the people of the United Kingdom, and we should make that point quite clear.
I support this statutory instrument, which is also supported by Logistics UK, which has had major problems with the border target operating model and its implementation. However, it makes the case for the single trade window, which is not reflected in this particular legislation. As I have already said to my noble friend the Minister, this is an issue which requires legislation. As my noble friend the Minister has said, there are some benefits in this statutory instrument which need to be highlighted, including amendments to provide a long-term legislative basis for the border target operating model beyond temporary powers.
The organisations involved in haulage and in bringing in and transporting plants and animals have no fundamental objection to this. However, they feel there is a risk that giving the BTOM a long-term legislative basis reduces the pressure on the Government to make a comprehensive veterinary and SPS agreement with the EU. I know my noble friend the Minister has already referred to this in her speech, and it is one of the areas that we have looked at in the Veterinary Medicine Working Group. I would be most pleased if my noble friend the Minister could confirm the ongoing situation.
This statutory instrument includes amendments to extend policies which are currently applied only to EU goods to goods from the rest of the world. This makes sense, as it will mean that rest of the world goods imports do not have an unfair advantage over EU goods regarding the border target operating model’s bureaucracy and costs. It also provides amendments to allow the BTOM to be updated more responsively to biosecurity risks. This sounds sensible if it is used only in cases of genuine biosecurity risk. It would be problematic if changing risk classifications became a way of raising more revenue for the Government.
In short, there are minor issues that are benefits in this statutory instrument. As a member of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we raised the point about administrative powers, which my noble friend the Minister addressed in her opening comments. However, there is disappointment that safety and security declarations will be made via the Government’s existing sub-optimal service, rather than the single trade window. That is why organisations such as Logistics UK—from which I have received representations and a briefing—in their spending review submissions to the Treasury have called for the development, thorough testing and introduction of a single trade window which efficiently and effectively operates as one border portal, and which is interoperable with international systems, to reduce the bureaucratic and cost burden on businesses. Can my noble friend say what the possibilities are of this happening?
In supporting this statutory instrument, I look forward to seeing the reset being promoted by the Government leading to a more enduring solution for all the people of the UK, including those in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that there is less trade friction, but that is why we have the Windsor Framework and the BTOM; they are both devices to manage the trade friction that would not have been there if we did not have Brexit. It all comes back to that horrible little subject. Many who once were Brexiteers now see that there is little value in it and that we should be reverting back to where we once were.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and explaining them in such detail. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, on tabling the regret amendment, which means that the matter can be debated properly in this Chamber and given the scrutiny that it deserves. Far too many of these regulations are being laid by negative procedure and affirmative procedure and are being brought to the Grand Committee. The full scrutiny of Members in this Chamber needs to be brought to bear on the contents of these regulations, because they have significant effects. A lot of them are very technical in nature—when you listen to the Minister introduce the matter, it sounds extremely technical indeed —but when one delves into it, one can see the significant ramifications, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, pointed out in her forensic analysis of the regulations, and the effects and implications that they have.
I am sure that the Minister, having listened to her noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, will go away and say that the answer to this is to persuade the Prime Minister to come out publicly and declare his wish to rejoin the European Union. He may try to resist that, for obvious reasons, not least that it would further diminish his standing with the people of the United Kingdom. There will be those who say that the answer is to undo Brexit, but I think that that debate is long gone. The issue that we are debating is how Brexit is done. The problem that we have in Northern Ireland is not the fact that we had Brexit but the fact that Brexit has been done in a way that separates Northern Ireland, wrongly, undemocratically and unconstitutionally, from the rest of the United Kingdom. Brexit can be done and must be done, if the institutions at Stormont are to endure in the long run, in a way that does away with the current problems.
On the issue at the heart of these regulations—the biosecurity of Great Britain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, explained at length—we had a recent example of the problem that is being created. On 16 January, the Defra Minister in the other place, Daniel Zeichner, told Members of Parliament about the steps being taken by His Majesty’s Government to protect people from foot and mouth disease in Great Britain. He said:
“The Government have taken decisive and immediate action. The import of cattle, pigs and sheep from Germany has been stopped to protect farmers and their livelihoods”.
The Minister did not talk about Northern Ireland voluntarily, but, when he was challenged, he said:
“Northern Ireland farms are just as important. In Northern Ireland, the controls will apply to meat and live animals moving from a 3 km protection zone and a 10 km surveillance zone surrounding the affected premises in Germany. Those products cannot be moved to Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; cols. 331, 336.]
The biosecurity of Great Britain was so important that the import of all cattle, pigs and sheep from Germany had to be stopped immediately. By contrast, cattle, pigs or sheep could come to Northern Ireland from anywhere in Germany, so long as they did not come from a 10 kilometre surveillance zone surrounding the affected premises.
The levels of protection the UK Government insisted on for Great Britain, and rightly so, could not have been more different from those the EU provided for Northern Ireland, the UK having abdicated its biosecurity responsibilities in relation to Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness said. In this context, the claim by the Minister in the other place that Northern Ireland farms are just as important looks limp, pathetic and absurd.
Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the instrument before us. I support its contents but I want to clarify a couple of issues.
Can the Minister clarify the situation in Wales? I understand her to say that the scheme will not be offered in Wales and that the Government are no longer engaging with Wales. Do they have a commitment from Wales? I just want to clarify that because, obviously, the situation in Scotland is welcome.
I am grateful to both Coca-Cola and the Food and Drink Federation for their briefings and preparation for today; I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Food and Drink, which is why I asked them for a briefing. They welcome the concept but, in their view, it is important that it is rolled out across the United Kingdom.
The Minister referred to other jurisdictions. I am familiar with how the scheme operates in Denmark; it has had rather perverse consequences. I sometimes feel as though I could pay for my whole Danish holiday if I went around collecting all the bottles and cans left after picnics in parks across Copenhagen and took them back. The deposit—it is called Pant—is actually set at quite a high level, so it would be helpful to know what level the Minister and the Government have in mind. Obviously, it has to be set at a level that is affordable for the consumer, ensuring that they are willing to go back and return a container to the place where it was bought.
Obviously, we must have a deposit management organisation on side. Who will be the deposit management organisation in England? Will it be the supermarket? As consumers, we are concerned about the impact this will have on small convenience stores, which will perhaps not have the facilities to take these returned bottles or whatever after use. It would be helpful to have clarification on what the costs will be and who will provide the service, because they are going to require a very large facility to accommodate the containers being returned.
Coca-Cola is keen to see the DRS—the deposit return scheme—considered as part of the extended producer responsibility. Is that something the Minister can confirm this afternoon?
The Minister concluded by saying that the monitoring and enforcement will be done by, among others, trading standards and local authorities. Are the Government convinced that they will have the resources to do this? Obviously, it is an additional responsibility over and above what they are currently doing in relation to food standards and other commitments.
Finally, if glass is to be excluded at this time, when do the Government envisage glass being included? As I understand it, glass is included in most other jurisdictions, so a big chunk of deposit returns will be excluded if glass is not included.
With those few queries, I lend my support to the scheme.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for presenting the case for the deposit return scheme. I declare my interest as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House. I welcome this SI and agree with my noble friend that it will make a major contribution to the reduction of littering. Numerous cans and other types of litter are strewn across the countryside and nobody appears to take responsibility, apart from local neighbourhoods that engage in their own collection schemes. I laud them for doing so.
I have some questions in relation to Northern Ireland. Normally this would be a devolved measure. I suppose that the UK Government were trying to ensure that there was a collective approach on the part of the Government and the devolved nations and regions. Perhaps my noble friend could explain the purpose of including the devolved nations and regions. Also, will the money collected from this scheme in Northern Ireland go to the Treasury, or will it go to the Department of Finance, where it can be invested in local schemes, and into the general exchequer for the delivery of lots of different types of service? I am well aware of the value of the plastic bag scheme in reducing litter but also in terms of the money. It has added to the portfolio of money available for the enhancement of services.
Secondly, I have a couple of questions in relation to Wales, which, I note, has not signed up to this scheme. How can the interoperability of the four UK schemes and the avoidance of unique identifiers in the Welsh market be assured? With Welsh proposals not yet published, how can the October 2027 introduction date be assured to avoid material switching under the EPR scheme? Will the Government ensure that the divergence of the Welsh scheme does not impact the governance of the UK, Northern Ireland and Scotland deposit return scheme and the appointment of a scheme administrator?
Those are the issues that most interest me in this SI, which I strongly support.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I echo the comments made by the two previous contributors on compliance for small businesses, which is crucial. It is all very well for large companies to say, “Yes, we support these schemes”, but the burden will often fall heavily on the small retailer, in one form or another. I should start with a mea culpa, in that I was head of personnel for Coca-Cola when it introduced the first ever plastic bottles into this country, so it is all my fault. For the benefit of my noble friend next to me, in particular, the first plastic bottles produced in this country were made in a factory in Leeds—a bottling plant in Pudsey.
I therefore also have a memory of glass bottles and the system that worked then. The glass bottle return system had gone out of operation in most parts of the country when plastic bottles were introduced. At the risk of being accused of regionalism or being rude about the Scots, that system lasted longer in Scotland because that part of the country returned their products to the retailers to reclaim the deposits available.
Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an important question. I met APHA yesterday to discuss exactly this issue because, when there are outbreaks of more than one disease, it has to look at how it will manage all the different aspects. It has assured me that it is confident that it has the resources to manage the response currently, and I am pleased that the Government have awarded funding to Weybridge to ensure that our future capability will be there.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on her wonderful work with the devolved Administrations, in meeting the various Ministers and organisations in the agricultural field. Whenever she next meets the Minister in Northern Ireland, will she ask him what joint work can be done to address disease in not only poultry flocks but animals such as TB reactors? That is a major problem for our farming industry.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I actually met with the Minister in Northern Ireland only yesterday, and we have very regular meetings. Biosecurity is incredibly important, and it is important that we work right across all our devolved Administrations as well as with our European colleagues. I am more than happy to discuss this—I have discussed it when I have gone over to Northern Ireland. I have met farming communities over there and looked at the biosecurity measures at ports for things such as African swine fever. We are being very proactive about this.