Plastic Pollution

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are taking a number of steps domestically to tackle plastic pollution. First, we have banned the supply of single-use vapes which, when littered, can introduce plastic, among other substances, into the environment. We are also working with the devolved Governments to bring forward a ban across the UK on wet wipes that contain plastic. The collection of packaging reforms that we have brought in is the first step in the transition to the circular economy for all materials, including plastic. For example, the deposit return scheme includes plastic drinks containers. We have also extended producer responsibility for packaging, so that producers are incentivised to consider reducing the packaging that they use. Increasing the circularity of the plastic sector will reduce the need to produce virgin materials, which will reduce the plastic pollution associated with that. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the number of times that the task force has met.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, beyond health deception, cigarette filters are the single most-littered item on the planet. They are an environmental disaster: they do not biodegrade but break down into microplastics, polluting our rivers and oceans. Banning them would remove the illusion of safety from filtered cigarettes, at the same time preventing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste. If we can ban plastic straws, surely we can ban cigarette filters.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks an interesting question. According to Defra’s work, we know that cigarette butts are the most-littered item. People do not tend to notice them, because they are very small, but they cause enormous damage through pollution, particularly because of the chemicals that get into water systems. I congratulate Keep Britain Tidy, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has brought it into public perception more that you should not just chuck cigarette butts away; they can cause huge damage. We are going to monitor this further, working with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, but clearly the best thing is for people to give up smoking in the first place.

Water Companies: Fines

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to today’s proceedings and an equal pleasure to follow the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I am as interested as she is in the questions that she has posed to my noble friend the Minister, whom I am glad to see in her place. I am grateful also to the noble Baroness for affording your Lordships’ House a fresh opportunity to examine this question and to my noble friend Lord Sikka, who is unable to be in his place today, for providing me with some briefing materials on this subject. Characteristically, they anatomise forensically the behaviour of water companies and the regulator over the last few years in respect of the public, government and, it would appear, their own self-interest.

As I told your Lordships’ House yesterday in another context, earlier this week I was witness to an exchange on the UK’s priorities in respect of national security. One party to the conversation asked the other for an assessment of the UK’s highest priority challenges in the current geopolitical context. The latter, an expert on national security, responded by asserting strongly that we live in an age of impunity. To some extent, that phrase reflects a wide and growing public sense that many water companies are acting on just that basis too.

We heard some statistics from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, but perhaps I may add to them. Since privatisation in 1989, customer bills have risen by 363%. Between £52 billion and £85 billion has been paid in dividends, while the same companies paying out to shareholders have accrued what I thought was about £70 billion in debt—I now know that it is exactly £68 billion. But this debt is not the consequence of investment into infrastructure; no new reservoirs have been built while this industry has been in private hands, for example, but that is only one of many condemnatory statistics.

That is the context in which your Lordships’ House is debating this subject today and in which fines of £168 million against Thames Water, Northumbrian Water and Yorkshire Water were proposed by Ofwat on 6 August last year. As my noble friend Lord Sikka mentioned in his Oral Question on 29 January, there are two key contextual factors in assessing the proportionality of that response. The first is that these three companies have over 400 criminal convictions between them, and the second relates to the fact that these fines were proposed rather than imposed. It is difficult to imagine another context in which three individuals or organisations with a record of such malfeasance would be permitted to negotiate the extent and timing of their punishment.

I understand that there is a process and legislation which Ofwat must follow, which my noble friend the Minister alluded to in her response to my noble friend Lord Sikka’s Question, but surely we must consider changing that process and the provisions that mean that Ofwat and a company in breach of its obligations can reach a regulatory settlement. A promise of future good behaviour and compliance is surely difficult to accept in lieu of a fine, given that all precedents suggest that these companies have acted, as their criminal conviction rate shows, with blithe impunity. I count myself an optimist, but as Disraeli once said:

“A precedent embalms a principle”.


All precedents suggest these companies are careless of their obligations, have a record of putting the interests of their shareholders above those of their customers and have neglected the environment and infrastructure for which they are responsible and on which we depend.

I will close my brief remarks with two specific questions for my noble friend the Minister, but before I do that, I will say that I am with those who believe that any fines, when actually levied and collected, should be channelled into a hypothecated fund, whether the Water Restoration Fund or something similar, in line with the “polluter pays” principle. I understand the pressure on public finances—I was the Chief Secretary for a period of time—and the temptation to divert this money towards the Treasury, but this money is badly needed to undo the damage done by the mismanagement and irresponsibility of the water companies.

I have a short question from my noble friend in relation to this. I know from public sources the record of proposed fines. How much money has actually been collected from fines since this process started? This is an issue of public equity. These companies are leveraging the strength of their own self-inflicted weakness. Companies, including Thames Water and South West Water, pollute our waterways, mismanage themselves to the point of financial collapse, demand permission from Ofwat to increase bills by 44% and simultaneously announce their decision to increase dividend payments to shareholders. That sounds to me more like corrupt self-indulgences by the medieval church than a modern industrial practice.

In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister two further questions. First, during the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, the Secretary of State said that the Government will

“ban bonuses if water company executives fail to meet high standards”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/24; col. 79.]

Last week, Thames Water said it will circumvent that ban by increasing basic executive pay. What is the Government’s response to that, and how will they enforce any ban? If I understand the answer my noble friend the Minister gave to that Question when asked at col. 253, the responsibility for ensuring that bonuses are not paid or performance is poor lies with Ofwat. Is she able to point to any occasion when that power has been exercised against a poorly performing company? How do the Government intend to ensure that this sanction is not circumvented by simply increasing executive basic pay?

Secondly, do the Government have any plans to end the practice whereby, in lieu of a fine, a company can agree a package of investment which has the ancillary benefit of increasing the value of the company itself and results in increased dividend packages for shareholders?

Food Security

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I will answer a number of the noble Lord’s questions. We had a Question on solar farms last week; we are not building solar farms on grade 1 and 2—good-quality—agricultural land. On APR, Defra was in discussions with the Treasury to consider all the different changes for the spending review and is now in discussions on the next SR. The money that we are investing in farming is designed to support long-term food security in this country.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, under the last Government, just 4% of the ODA budget was devoted to agricultural assistance. Given the global growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change and the increasing propensity for food security to be weaponised in conflict, can my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government plan to increase the percentage of ODA being spent on agro-ecological measures?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there has been a growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change. I confirm that the FCDO’s ODA budget, which will be published in due course, will be £9.24 billion in 2025-26, and Ministers will consider the ODA allocations for 2025-26 over the coming months. We are committed to this; the Prime Minister committed to deliver practical support to communities facing hunger. This is backed by a £70 million package, including a new resilience and adaptation fund that channels climate finance to ensure that food-insecure households, in places such as Ethiopia, Chad and Bangladesh, can withstand extreme weather and other shocks.

Water Companies: Licence Conditions

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The capital requirement will be considered at the next spending review, which is due this year, so we will hear more about that in due course.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, your Lordships’ House is indebted to the forensic skills of my noble friend Lord Sikka. He is the one person in this House who needs no instruction about where to look for what is going on in businesses and in companies, and how important accounts are. With some assistance from him, I had a look at Thames Water’s accounts. Its accounts, directors’ reports and cash-flow statements say that it paid dividends to its parent company as follows: £37 million in 2022, £45 million in 2023, and another £37.5 million in September 2023. However, its own PR spin says that these are not dividends and that this is the way it is paying interest on its debt. That is not what the accounts are for, and the accounts are not right if that is correct. In December, a spokesperson for Ofwat said:

“Following notification that Thames Water has paid a dividend to shareholders, Ofwat is investigating whether this payment meets its licence requirements”.


The Minister is a knowledgeable man in this area, as he tells us, so he should be able to explain what is to be investigated. More importantly, does he know why Ofwat has not reported since December?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I also pay tribute to the accountancy skills of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka; they are very thorough. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has himself made an extremely good attempt at interpreting the accounts on that front. The issues around Thames Water and the dividend that it paid last year are subject to an investigation at the moment. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them.

Right to Roam

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

It seems like a similar issue to bikes on pavements—bikes on paths in the countryside. This is a really difficult area, and one I come across a lot in my private life, with people accessing the countryside in inappropriate ways. Paths are narrow, and it is often quite dangerous when someone on a mountain bike, or a group of people on mountain bikes, is coming down that path. It is intimidating, and it is very challenging to find a safe place and a safe way to make those two meet. I sympathise with my noble friend.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, traditionally, people in Scotland have been allowed freely to access the outdoors. I am 71 years of age, and all my life I have known that I was free to walk anywhere, as long as I did not do any damage. This was codified in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which set out the conditions that you must observe if you do so. Can we not just adopt the same here and let people enjoy this? it does not cause any problems.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

As a resident in Scotland, I would not necessarily agree with everything that the noble Lord has said. It is a devolved issue, and Scotland is entitled to make its own decisions on this.

Biosecurity and Infectious Diseases

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is both a delight and an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rees, and to join other noble Members in congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for securing this debate and for his excellent opening speech. We are fortunate in this House to have the benefit of their respective world-class scientific expertise, communication skills and deep commitment to the cause of increasing our biosecurity.

As is now clear, climate change is a driver of multiple other risks, from emerging zoonoses and disease transmission to compromised food security and an increase in drug-resistant infections. The Covid-19 pandemic is a lesson on the degree to which the entire world is vulnerable to a pandemic or another, as yet unanticipated, major public health event. It is sobering that by near-universal consensus, this vulnerability is set only to increase. The IPCC’s Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report could scarcely be more unequivocal on this specific question. It predicts that, in the near term, we will face

“multiple risks to ecosystems and humans”,

including a greater incidence of

“food-borne, water-borne, and vector-borne diseases”.

These are not merely warnings of a possible dystopian future, but something that already is crystallising into observable reality. We are seeing spikes in malaria transmission in large parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the first ever locally acquired cases of malaria in Florida and Texas, and, as has already been mentioned, outbreaks of dengue fever in Paris. In 2022, there were more cases of dengue fever in Europe than in the entire preceding decade. Forecasts suggest that, owing to a rise in global temperatures, malaria transmission seasons could be up to five months longer by 2070. Malaria rates in Mozambique are at their highest since the current reporting phase began in 2017. Over 70% of anti-malaria drugs in Africa are imported; what are we doing, or encouraging the international community to do, to stimulate local manufacture of drugs to ensure that weaknesses in the international supply chain do not result in preventable deaths in Africa?

What are the Government doing in either conducting or commissioning predictive modelling of the expected impacts of climate change on current and future disease transmission? If we are to equip ourselves adequately to deal with this crisis, a reactive approach will be insufficient. I welcome the new US-UK Strategic Dialogue on Biological Security and would be grateful for an explanation how, in granular terms, such co-operation will enhance our ability to anticipate future biosecurity threats.

On globalisation, I turn now to recent representations to the Government by port health officials in Dover. Since September 2022, when checks were first introduced, 57 tonnes of illegal, non-compliant pork imports have been seized in Dover alone. The Dover port health manager describes the scale of these illegal imports as “unprecedented” and suggests that for every tonne seized, multiple tonnes are going undetected. These illegal pork imports significantly increase the risk of African swine fever entering the UK, something that would have a devastating impact on agriculture and, in turn, offer a further incentive to those who wish illegally to import meat.

Given that the cost of living crisis has led to an increase in the illegal food trade, can the Minister elucidate the reasons for the proposed shift in customs checks from Bastion Point to Sevington, 22 miles from the Port of Dover itself? Defra’s rationale thus far seems to focus on cost but, given that concerns have been raised by industry sources at Defra forums, I suggest that it may be worth thinking again. The Dover Port Health Authority suggests that this change could easily lead to unexamined goods travelling 22 miles across the UK, with all of the attendant risks of possible infection, diminishing UK biosecurity. It claims it has not received appropriate assurances from Defra as to how existing standards could be maintained and that the Sevington facility, unlike Bastion Point, will not be operational 24 hours a day. Given the degree of concern expressed by the health authority and the UK food industry, does the Minister not agree that further work is needed before this change responsibly can be put into effect?

To return to the broader themes of this debate in the little time remaining, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Government’s 2023 biosecurity strategy. Its ambitions, if realised, would make a genuine and substantive contribution to enhancing our biosecurity. I agree with the Centre for Long-Term Resilience that sustained resourcing will be critical in making its implementation a success. While the £1.5 billion being spent annually is welcome, have the Government considered a longer-term, multi-year funding settlement that would enable implementation to proceed securely and at pace?

I remind the Minister that the Government’s first biological security strategy was published in July 2018, just as Parliament was rising for the Summer Recess. To my knowledge, it was never debated in Parliament and while it warned of the need to co-ordinate government actions better and for a “truly comprehensive approach” to meet risks, including pandemics, it manifestly failed so to do, to such an extent that the parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, in its December 2020 report, found that Covid-19 exposed “profound shortcomings” in Britain’s approach to biosecurity.

As this debate makes clear, we face a variety of long-term biosecurity threats, and our response to these risks must be considered, proactive and durable to ensure that we keep this country safe.

Zoonoses Research Centre

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are supporting something called the Quadripartite MoU for One Health, which includes the OIE, the WHO, the FAO and UNEP—apologies again for the acronyms. That is part of what we are doing to participate in measures to address the surveillance issues, so that we know about diseases sooner and can react to them, and it is part of the response which we in the UK, as has been already pointed out, are particularly skilled at providing. There are a number of other international bodies of which we are a part.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, three-quarters of emerging human infections are zoonoses, and Covid-19 is only the latest example of this. It is therefore surprising that in our biological security strategy there are only fleeting mentions of zoonoses—one in a footnote and one in the glossary, and nothing else. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the strategy is being refreshed. However, unfortunately the call for evidence for the refresh makes only a very generic reference to them. We will need to correct that if we are going to claim to be world-leading on this. Our own national biological security strategy should give this dimension the attention it deserves.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord is very knowledgeable on the wider context of threats, which the integrated review picks up. I point to the leadership that was given in the G7 when Britain had the chairmanship, and subsequently in other fora, to make sure that we are part of a global effort on this and that we are leading where we can add expertise.

Water Companies: Duties and Accountability

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are asking water companies to make all kinds of provision that will address the points the noble Lord has raised. Storm waters have flooded into our rivers for hundreds of years. The difference today is that there are areas of high population dealing with infrastructure that is seeking to catch up. That is what we are investing in. Through the very strict targets we have introduced in the Environment Act, through measures that our regulators are imposing on water companies, and through the delivery of record fines for water companies when they get this wrong, we hope to see—indeed, we insist that there will be—a dramatic reduction in storm overflows.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

Throughout the many years that these very companies have been discharging raw sewage into our rivers, their customers have, in contractual terms, been paying them to treat that sewage and release it safely. Surely, what they have been doing is not only a breach of contract, but fraud. They knew full well what they were doing but were charging people otherwise. Surely, accountability requires compensation for people who paid them to treat and dispose of this sewage properly, and an investigation into whether the directors and executives, who knew what they were doing, were behaving fraudulently.

Environmental Land Management Schemes

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think he will be reassured that, in moving from area payments to a more nuanced system of supporting environmental activities, farmers will be encouraged to farm their best land as best they can and look at those corners of fields and other parts of their farm that are less productive and are economic only because of the basic payment scheme. I hope he will see that kind of, if you like, market-led push by the Government as moving in the right direction. As far as a register is concerned, that will have to happen as part of further schemes, which will require local authorities, or local government at some level, to be involved in their rollout.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I join in the words of welcome to the Minister. Some 30% of farmland in England is let to tenant farmers. Published survey evidence reveals a lack of confidence and willingness among them to participate in the SFI pilot. Their association spokesperson said that

“tenant farmers are concerned that DEFRA does not fully understand or appreciate the diversity of land management models that exist within British agriculture”

and that

“the pilot may not be able to fully test out the implications of the scheme for the tenanted sector.”

How do the Government plan to ensure that this is not the case?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have had about 2,000 requests to enter the sustainable farming initiative pilot; we will probably go with around 1,000 of those, starting from October this year. We intend to have a wide geographical base as well as a wide group of different farm sizes; this will certainly include tenant farms, and we are working with the Tenant Farmers Association to achieve that.

EU: Xylella Fastidiosa

Lord Browne of Ladyton Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this is a priority. We have intensified our surveillance, inspection and testing regime for high-risk plants. We feel very strongly about this. The Secretary of State has written to Commissioner Kyriakides, and the Chief Plant Health Officer has written to the director of DG SANTE, because we think that this is a mistake and that the EU should be very concerned about the spread of Xylella fastidiosa into other parts of the EU. We are determined to exclude it from this country; that is a priority.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]]

Since we joined the EEC, most plant pests, animal diseases and invasive species discovered in the UK had established themselves first in mainland Europe. Consistently working with our European neighbours, we have been able to benefit from early warning of imminent threats and from guidance on the best management tools. Changing trade patterns under Brexit may result in the UK changing from an overall recipient to a donor of emerging biological threats of concern in Europe. How, and how well, are we prepared for that scenario?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we have increased investment in surveillance and inspection precisely for that reason. The United Kingdom has more protected zones for plant pests and diseases than any EU country. We are determined to enhance our environment, and clearly our future arrangements for sanitary and phytosanitary measures post the end of the transition period will be important as we increase biosecurity.