Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Blencathra and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments, which were inserted by the Government in the other place. Amendments 4 and 8 introduce the requirement for all water companies to have a social tariff for those consumers who are unable to pay their water bills due to their circumstances. Some water companies already have a social tariff in place but others do not. I welcome this measure to ensure that all water companies will be required to assist those vulnerable customers who are unable to pay the full water rate.

These amendments are almost identical to those tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, prior to them subsequently tabling their own social tariff amendment—the ones we have before us today. Although it would have been preferable for the Government to have accepted the original Liberal Democrat amendments, it would be exceedingly churlish of these Benches to reject the amendments before us this evening, which achieve the same outcomes. We are therefore happy to fully support this group of government amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in the nicest possible way, that I feel she did me a disservice in her remarks in the previous debate when she suggested that our support for a statutory instrument was to slow things down. Our support for the statutory instrument was to get better parliamentary scrutiny. As a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I am well aware of the speed at which the Government can go at times, and making statutory instruments is not a slowing down measure.

However, I officially rose to speak to the government amendments in this group which were made in the other place. The principal, substantive amendment relates to the special provision in water company charging schemes and will help the Government to ensure that water companies take a consistent approach when supporting vulnerable customers. We are firmly in favour of protecting consumers from unaffordable increases in their bills, and we are disappointed that the Government rejected our amendment to protect consumers from higher water bills at Report.

The other government amendments largely relate to the commencement of the Bill, and we will not oppose those changes at this stage.

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Blencathra and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly support. The Environment Act 2021 made provision for household waste to be collected for recycling as one of the main planks of its purpose. We are four years on from that Act. The collection of separated waste on a countrywide basis was moving slowly towards completion at the time of the general election. I congratulate the Government on moving this issue forward and not leaving it on the back burner. I have received a brief from the Green Alliance and seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The instrument explains very well what will happen. English waste collection authorities and other waste collectors are to collect plastic, glass and metal recyclable waste streams together in all circumstances and not just where an exception applies. Paper and card will be collected separately from other recyclables to avoid cross-contamination. Food waste will be collected with garden waste; again, not just where an exception applies. This decision is not in line with international best practice nor government evidence. There will be provision for an exception to be applied to card and paper. This will be done by a written assessment. This is not robust enough and is not likely to lead to increased recycling rates generally, as paper and card will be contaminated when mixed with plastic, glass and metal, some of which will have food residues still present. The Minister has already referred to this.

The Government have decided that it is acceptable to collect glass, plastic and metal together and that this will not have a significant impact on the ability of the materials to be recycled. No evidence is provided that this is the case. However, there is evidence that 16.6% of materials at recovery facilities are rejected due to contamination. While the contamination rate for fully separated collected recycling is much lower, the co-collected material contamination rate is 13.5%, compared with just 4% for collections of recyclables kept separate. WRAP suggests this could be as low as 1.6%.

The Environment Act 2021 was clear that recyclable waste was to be collected separately so that recycling rates could increase. Recycling rates have not increased from 44%-45% since 2015, as the Minister referred to. The country therefore missed its target of 50% recycling by 2020 and the target of 65% by 2035 looks extremely unlikely. The public care deeply about the hazard that waste causes to wildlife, domestic animals, biodiversity and our general enjoyment of our environment.

Plastic pollution in particular is damaging our bird and animal species, with reports of plastic in birds’ nests and hedgehogs getting discarded strimmer thread caught around their legs. If recycling rates are not increased, our reputation in the light of more efficient schemes in neighbouring countries will be damaged and the confidence of the public will be further dented. If the public believe that, although they are keen to assist with recycling, a proportion of this is still going to landfill, they will be disheartened and stop bothering to separate their waste.

According to the Green Alliance, the cost of contamination to UK recyclers is more than £50 million a year. I lived in a council area that for many years collected weekly food waste and recycling and separated paper and card, cans and metal, glass and plastic, some in bins and some in bags. The residual used to be collected at two weeks and then moved to three weeks; there was no problem. The system should not get bogged down in the number of bins that people may have to have. If recycling is carried out correctly, the residual waste should automatically reduce.

I return to my comments about evidence. Is the Minister able to say what evidence there is that contamination will not occur if the waste streams for recycling are collected together? The original impact assessment noted that mixing food and garden waste together affects quantity and quality, which leads to

“lower amounts of food waste being collected and less efficient treatment through in-vessel composting compared to anaerobic digestion, which produces energy and organic soil improver or fertiliser”.

According to WRAP research in the Government’s impact assessment,

“separate weekly collections of food waste can capture twice as much material per year compared to mixed food and garden waste”.

Food waste makes up nearly a third of residual waste. Providing separate collection options is the best way in which to achieve the legally binding target in the Environment Act on waste minimisation. The Environment Act’s legally binding targets are not to be discarded without serious consideration of the implications for our wildlife and biodiversity.

Is the Minister able to share the Government’s evidence on what led to the exemption for separate waste collections and to what extent the Government expect local authorities to make use of the exemption? Cost alone should not be the overriding consideration. There has been extensive consultation with the industry on this matter, and with the English waste collection and disposal authorities and the Environment Agency. Some 76% of respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances.

Agreement by the industry does not automatically mean that recycling rates will increase. I note that Ipsos has been commissioned to do an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period from February 2022. We are three years into this evaluation. Is there any mid-term update on how it is going?

While I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking recycling collections forward, I am disappointed that we had static recycling rates at 44%-45% for 10 years under the previous Administration. I am not convinced that the scheme now being introduced will move us forward to the 65% needed by 2035. I appreciate that local authorities and the industries will have to amend the way that they collect and deal with various waste streams, but they had since 2021 to think about this and get ready. I fear that the proposals in this SI are not stringent enough to make the difference that is needed for the sake of our country, its people and its wildlife.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, if it is Monday in Grand Committee, it must be recycling day. Generally, I am very supportive of these regulations, if they bring about some standardisation in our bin collections around the country, but they raise several important questions about how the changes will be implemented and the potential long-term impact. Permitting English waste authorities to co-collect dry recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass and metal—in a single container is eminently sensible; so, too, is keeping paper and card separate. I have concerns about amalgamating garden and food waste, and I shall come to that later.

The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers: one for residual, non-recyclable waste; one for food waste mixed with garden waste; one for paper and card; and one for all other dry recyclable materials, including plastic, metal and glass. Although these exemptions are a sensible and pragmatic solution to logistical challenges, they raise a crucial question: how will the quality of recyclable materials be affected by the co-collection of plastic, glass and metal? Co-collecting different materials might cause contamination, making it harder to separate and process them effectively later in the recycling process. I hope that the Government will make it clear to local authorities that we expect co-collection to increase recycling for each of the co-collected products and that they must avoid contamination.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Blencathra and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his sterling work over the last seven days in Committee, for his incredible stamina, and for his courtesy and politeness when replying to debates. I will be very brief, since the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has set out very clearly and convincingly the essential case for permitting gene editing as soon as we are free of the EU, very ably supported by my noble friend Lord Ridley, who also made a thoroughly learned speech.

Did we not hear passionate speeches last week on controlling the use of pesticides? Gene editing will give us crops which will not need pesticides because they will be pest-resistant. I passionately believe in growing more of our horticultural crops and a lot more under glass. That is expensive, but what if we could double the yield of tomatoes grown under glass? That has been achieved by Professor Lippman in the United States with just one type of tomato. We can do that with all crops, vegetables and fruits, increasing yields, making them more pest- and drought-resistant. We might be able to make them more water-resistant so that we do not lose so many thousands of tonnes of potatoes, as we did in the wet autumn of last year.

Imagine the health potential of crops which are more nutritious, sweeter but with less sugar or gluten, crops which ripen with less heat or sunshine or mature in a shorter period. The potential, as described by my noble friend Lord Ridley, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and other noble Lords, is enormous. This will be the next agricultural revolution and the UK can be in the lead in Europe and the world once again. Our crop geneticists will also overtake America once we are freed from the dead hand of the EU. Those who argue that we still need the EU court controlling our affairs should remember that it was the EU court which ruled that gene editing should be governed by the same controls as genetic modification, a decision that made no sense in science, morality or logic.

I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment, and, if the wording is not perfect, that they will bring forward a government amendment on Report.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I too rise with some trepidation after the contributions from luminaries with such vast experience, for whom I have tremendous respect.

In his first speech on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister set out his priorities for government. He outlined the role that genetically modified crops could play in our future:

“Let’s start now to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules, and let’s develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world.”


Given that statement, it is surprising that this amendment was not introduced in the other place when the Bill was debated there. Did the Prime Minister not trust his fellow MPs and colleagues to pass the amendment?

In November 2017 the Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, ruled out allowing more GM foods in the UK. However, negotiations for a free trade deal with the US are expected to include a push for loosening restrictions on GM foods in the UK to create a market for US GM crops. The cultivation of GM crops is currently banned in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Lord Blencathra and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is an honour to have participated in the debates today. They have been informed by the wisdom and farming experience of noble Lords who collectively have farmed this country and made our land what it is with over 1,000 years of experience between them. I refer to two Dukes, four Earls, a Viscount—and of course we Barons, who are 10 a penny. As a Scot, I might be right in saying that the nobility of Dundee and Montrose have about 1,000 years of experience of farming in Scotland between them.

However, tonight, I want to commend in particular a Baroness, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her words of wisdom. We do not need a new ADAS; the best advisory service on nature-friendly farming, the environment, wildlife and ELMS is Natural England, and I declare my interest, as per the register, as a member of its board.

I did not seek to speak after the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, at the conclusion of his last wind-up but, wearing my hat as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I stress that the codes of practice that he referred to should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny simply via the negative procedure. Far too much government guidance and far too many codes that avoid parliamentary scrutiny are coming out, imposing possibly quite severe consequences for business and subjects. Parliament should have a chance to look at those codes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I often agree on things—to our joint consternation—but on this amendment I disagree with her. I trust and have trusted the Government, the Secretary of State and his predecessor before him when they have said that the Government will spend the same amount on supporting British agriculture, although by different means, as has been spent under the EU regime. I passionately support maintaining the same level of funding.

I am afraid that it is a bit naive of us, and it is also fairly meaningless, to try to put that commitment on the face of the Bill, since it guarantees nothing. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to reduce the amount in the future, a simple amendment in the Finance Bill would negate such a provision and remove this clause. If it were possible to tie the Treasury’s hands to a future level of funding when passing a Bill, the statute book would be awash with such Acts of Parliament. I am confident that the Government will honour the promises they have made and that there is no need for this amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, this group also deals with funding and the snappily titled “multi-annual financial assistance plans”. We have heard much about the level of funding that the Government are guaranteeing for the farming community. This is set at £2.8 billion. It sounds sufficient, but exactly what it is proposed to cover is unclear. Many of the amendments that we debated on the first day in Committee sought to ensure that certain aspects of our agriculture were included in that funding.

Many noble Lords have spoken in favour of Amendment 105. Payments to farmers should definitely arrive on time. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is seeking to ensure that the overall financial assistance is not reduced and that no more than 5% of this assistance is spent on administration and consultancy. I am sure that we have all had experience of the costs of consultancy spiralling out of control. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to this. The Government will have difficulty in reining consultancy back once it has begun. Similarly, it is important that any funds unspent in one year are carried forward to the next and future years, rather than being returned to the Treasury, when they will likely be lost to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, drew attention to that. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that this will happen?

The question of public access to farmland, water and woodland, and how it will be funded and monitored, was raised by my noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is also extremely important for the health, well-being and enjoyment of the public in general. It is necessary to understand how the plan will work to deliver public good in this area.