Agricultural Subsidies

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to linking agricultural subsidies to the creation of buffer zones between farmland and rivers, to reduce pollution and encourage wildlife corridors.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Defra recognises that riparian buffer strips are an extremely effective measure to improve the natural environment. They link riverside habitats, provide a valuable resource for plants and wildlife, and enhance water quality. We are working with farmers and other stakeholders to design an environmental land-management system that will pay public money for public goods, delivering an environmental outcome and contributing to achieving the 25-year environment plan.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, which sounds very optimistic. However, will these be compulsory? Will there be legislation about it? Will this sort of thing be in the Agriculture Bill so that re-wilding and creating such buffer zones can be absolutely everywhere, rather than just here and there?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is precisely why Clause 1 of the Agriculture Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may give financial assistance for, or in connection with, a number of purposes. One of those is,

“managing land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment”.

There is no doubt that there are nearly 100,000 acres of land in riparian buffer strips beyond two metres. We wish to continue with this because there are a lot of benefits to it.

Environment Plan

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, after the draft legislation on the environmental principles and governance has been published, there will be a period of pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, there has already been consultation, and responses to that consultation, on the principles and governance. That will also be published; we are continuing to analyse the responses. There is a lot of work in process, and a lot of that will come forward so that there is pre-legislative scrutiny and, indeed, further public reflection.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I would like a better answer if possible to the original Question. Legally binding targets are, quite honestly, non-negotiable for many of us here. Secondly, there is no point to those targets if we do not have a body with the powers to hold public and private organisations—the Government and, for example, car manufacturers—to account. Will the new body have those tough powers?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I apologise that I am not in a position today to go beyond a certain point because I must not pre-empt what is coming forward. All I can say is that these are issues that have come forward and been aired in the consultation. We will bring forward proposals; Parliament will have time to look at them before Christmas, I hope. We will make sure it is possible for Parliament to reflect on this, and will ensure further observations too. We want to get this right. It is essential that we enhance the environment.

Roundup

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the safety implications for consumers of the retail sale of weed-killers such as Roundup; and whether they will introduce legislation to address any risks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, there is robust EU and UK law on the use of weedkillers. The Government will always base their assessments of safety on the best scientific evidence available. Clearly, users of Roundup and other weedkillers should always read the instructions and use the product responsibly, and in accordance with the instructions, as indeed they should for many other household products.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that it is general knowledge that the landmark verdict in a case in the United States was that Roundup and glyphosate herbicides can cause cancer, and Monsanto has acted with “malice and oppression” by selling it in full awareness of the risks. Given that here in the UK farmers have to keep such pesticides under lock and key in a steel cupboard, how can it be all right to sell it freely in the supermarkets on open shelves? Is that not a risk for both shoppers and workers?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the recent case was a civil court case with a non-expert jury. There was no new scientific evidence presented regarding safety as part of the court case, and so it does not raise doubts about the scientific assessments underpinning the EU approval decision. Of course, we have in this country, and through the EU as well, very strict rules about authorisations and approvals. There are many requirements for Roundup, and it is important that it is used responsibly, but it is safe.

Brexit: Food Security

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, at the Mayor of London’s Food Board, we produced a strategy for sustainable food for London; I wonder whether the Government would like a copy of it. Frankly, the idea that we will have American produce that none of us wants to eat is horrifying to most of us. Would the Minister like a copy of that sustainable strategy?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am always interested in any material the noble Baroness wishes to supply me with, but all of the standards—whether on chlorinated chicken or hormone-induced beef—are already in the EU withdrawal Bill. All these things are on our statute books, so the idea that we are going to start trade arrangements which compromise the very high standards we have in this country will not take place.

Songbirds

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness for introducing this issue. It is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, pointed out, an indicator of other, much deeper problems for our environment here in Britain.

We know that 16 species of our favourite songbirds have declined by more than one-third since 1995, including such iconic birds as the cuckoo and the wood warbler. To address this decline, and all the other linked environmental issues, we need massive changes to land use in our country. Part of that relates to the issue of land ownership. Too much land has been concentrated in too few hands. The vast majority of our land is still held by a small number of hereditary families, possibly including some of your Lordships. Many work very hard. I know of one Peer who has a 50-acre wildflower meadow, which is extremely difficult to create and maintain. Many large landowners improve their land for now and for future generations. But there is an inequality that has to be tackled. Margaret Thatcher used to speak of the home-owning democracy; perhaps the time has come for a land-owning democracy. I am using a Conservative link, so that it feeds into the Government’s ears.

Perhaps the biggest impact a freeholder could make is to lease parcels of land—the rocky, sloping marginal bits that you cannot work out what to do with, or that do not have any obvious use. If you lease a parcel of this marginal land to someone with ideas and enthusiasm, they can manage it in an ecologically friendly way. That is what happened in Old Sleningford Farm in north Yorkshire, where a 17-acre smallholding is leased and managed in a revolutionary way. In exchange for a peppercorn rent, this patch of rocky dirt has been transformed into what is called a “food forest”, with over 250 species of fruit and nut trees being grown organically. The freeholder himself loves it, and gets chickens and bacon and an endless supply of fruit; the leaseholders have crafted a successful local business; and local people visit to get involved in tending the land, as a sort of social exercise.

We are still stuck in the 20th-century mindset brought about by the World Wars when maximising production was the sole purpose of agricultural policy. We have to move on from that and think in a more modern way. We know how to fix the problem of climate change, but we are not doing it fast enough. The longer we stall, the worse things will get and the more it will cost to remedy. Some people think that it is crass to talk about nature in monetary terms, because it is worth much so more than money can ever reflect, but it is a simple fact that our environment and ecology have an immense economic value in terms of the products and services that nature provides to us for free. It represents billions of pounds-worth of natural capital. In the end, our natural capital is the only infrastructure that really matters—more than all the roads, rail, electricity and internet. We can lose all those things, and all the money in the world but, if we lose our environment and ecosystems, everything else becomes worthless.

We have big opportunities over this Parliament, with numerous Bills dedicated to farming and the environment. We will literally shape the future of our country with the words in those Bills. We showed in the withdrawal Bill that we will improve legislation in the face of stiff government opposition, and I hope that we will continue in that spirit as we address the challenges of our environment and ecosystems.

I went to a farmers’ market yesterday and was lobbied very heavily by a beekeeper. He outlined the problem that in Britain we import far too many bees and do not encourage our own natural bee population. No bumblebees are currently commercially produced in the UK, and the substitution of home-grown produce has commercial, biodiversity and biosecurity advantages for the whole country. Apparently, subspecies of honey bees are also being imported, with a resulting loss of quality over succeeding generations: bad temper, swarminess and lack of local adaptation. This goes way beyond songbirds; it is about every single part of nature, and we have to protect it.

Animal Products: Labelling and Packaging

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am well aware that I am speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, but I think I should take advice from colleagues in that department.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister knows the term “barn-raised chickens”. It sounds very cute and cuddly, but in fact under that designation nine chickens can be squashed into one square metre. Does the Minister think that that might be a little misleading for the general public?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is why in this country we have the largest free-range flocks in Europe. The definition of eggs, as compared with other food products, is one of the legal definitions, precisely so that the consumer knows the difference between free range and barn.

Northern Forest

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, will the northern forest in any way compensate for the losses of ecology and biodiversity that we will experience with HS2? The National Trust says that over a dozen sites of special scientific interest will be affected and that we will lose 250 acres of green belt and more than 30—I have completely forgotten what I was going to say, but the point is that HS2 is going to be very damaging. I do not see how this northern forest can in any way compensate for the losses that we will experience from that.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, tree planting needs to take place across the United Kingdom. HS3 and the northern powerhouse will bring an improvement for all the communities of those cities. It is really important that we plant more trees and achieve our objective to increase tree cover across the country.

Recycling: Chinese Import Ban

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to ensure that materials collected for recycling by local authorities are not incinerated as a result of the Chinese ban on taking plastic and other waste materials.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are encouraging industry to access alternative markets and are taking steps to reduce waste and recycle more. Where waste cannot yet be recycled, modern incineration facilities ensure that it can be used to produce energy and to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. These facilities divert waste from landfill and are tightly regulated by the Environment Agency. Our resources and waste strategy will set out further actions to increase recycling and manage waste to incineration.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we hear fine words from the Government, with lots of promises, reports, press releases from No. 10, and so on. But recently, the UK declined to commit to the EU-wide 65% recycling target by 2035. That target does not seem unreasonable. Why do the Government not put their promises into action?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we certainly need to consider this target carefully. The approach we want to take in future is to support our ambitions in tackling avoidable waste and supporting a circular economy. However, we need to consider this further because we do not want perverse incentives on heavy waste when actually, we need to consider what the most important waste is that we ought to be reusing and recycling more.

Environment: 25-year Plan

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who has such expertise in the natural world. It is also a pleasure to see the Secretary of State with us today. I hope that he is listening to the debate but I do not think he has done so very much so far. I think he should be separated from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, if the Government Whips could do that.

I would very much like to welcome this document and, in a sense, I do as the Government appear to be thinking in the right terms. However, there are two huge flaws which they have to put right before they take this measure any further. I would be happy to give them the Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society, if they are interested, which should put them on the right track.

The first problem is that there is not enough reference to legislation in the strategy; in fact, there is barely any. The Government cannot talk in these fine terms if they do not say exactly how they are going to bring their proposals into being. That is a big flaw. Secondly, the strategy talks about the effects of climate change and how to deal with them but does not talk about its causes and how to deal with them. Therefore, it is talking about damage limitation: how to manage damage and decline. We cannot allow that; we just do not have the time. The Government are already in breach of a lot of their environmental commitments. Climate Earth has taken them to court on air pollution, and won the argument in court. It has taken repeated threats from the EU for the Government to do anything about cleaning up our polluted rivers. The Government do not have a very good track record of delivering on the environment. That just does not wash when they have a 25-year environment plan. I could have written the executive summary to this plan; I thought it was very good, but the plan itself is lacking and lightweight and is a missed opportunity.

I know that much of this 25-year plan has arisen thanks to the work of the Natural Capital Committee. That committee has recommended that the plan should be placed on a statutory footing. Therefore, I have four questions for the Minister. If he cannot answer me today, perhaps he can do so in writing. First, when will the Government commit to incorporate the plan in statute, or will they indeed do so? That is incredibly important. Defra has said that it will “legislate when needed”, but the Government’s intention seems to be to legislate in dribs and drabs, with no coherence—the odd Bill here and the odd statutory instrument there. It is a very weak approach. The Secretary of State seems to have a genuine interest in, and care for, the environment. However, Ministers move post, enthusiasm wanes, reality bites and sometimes it is difficult to get legislation through Parliament. Therefore, we need to move fast and get an environment Act in place so that all these aims and ambitions are turned into law while we have the political will to do so.

The 25-year plan makes a lot of natural capital and that is very welcome as environmentalists have talked about it for decades. However, I am worried that it will go down the same path as David Cameron’s commitment to make national well-being a key economic indicator and a central part of decision-making. That idea seems to have died a death; we do not hear about it anymore. That shows that these lovely ideas are completely useless if they are not put into legislation. If the Government are serious about natural capital, they should put the Natural Capital Committee on a statutory footing, with powers to scrutinise legislation and assess its impact on nature’s common wealth.

It is impossible to go through this debate without mentioning Brexit. I will not rehearse my speech for tomorrow—or Wednesday—on the withdrawal Bill but the Government need to heed the fact that they must get their legislative proposals in order, and fast. These gaps will have to be filled before the Committee stage, otherwise there will be no option but for your Lordships’ House to put forward amendments that put these things into the Bill. Can the Minister please commit to publishing legislative proposals urgently, so that we are not forced to try to put stopgaps in the Bill?

The plan also proposes to embed a principle of “environmental net gain” in the planning system. We all know that nature is a very complex system and not easily replaceable. Environmental net gain cannot be allowed to be an excuse for developers to ruin one area and replace it elsewhere—for example, by planting orchids a couple of miles away. That just does not wash. I was on a council which took away a substantial chunk of land and then gave back the same area, but in tiny squares and triangles all over the council’s area. That just was not good enough. The RSPB has been mentioned today. It has expressed concerns that net gain must be based on a three-step mitigation hierarchy. It says that developments must, first and foremost, avoid any impact. Secondly, it says that if impacts happen they must be mitigated and, thirdly and only in exceptional circumstances, that there must be compensation where biodiversity or environmental impacts cannot be avoided. There are some irreplaceable habitats. We have heard about ancient woodland, for example, which, once lost, cannot be replaced. Such habitats are inappropriate for this concept of net gain.

It is amazing how quickly the time goes. We really have to do something about plastic quickly. Something the Government could do almost immediately is to have a deposit system on plastic bottles. Please, are we going to see that? I am also incredibly concerned about recycling at the moment. The recycling market is struggling with low oil prices, which means that it is much better to produce new plastics than use recycled ones. That is of course an absolute disaster. I would like to know whether the UK Government have been lobbying against EU recycling targets. Is that true, and what representations have been made to the EU on those targets? I am very concerned that we are not ambitious enough in our recycling targets. On air quality, I propose to bring a Bill before your Lordships’ House on clean air. I very much hope that it will get general support.

There are many green voices in this Chamber. I might claim to be the only Green Party Member here but I am not the only green voice. I hope that the Government will listen to these green voices and hear the critique of their 25-year plan and how we can improve it to make it a real environmental plan, not just fine words.

Waste: Chinese Import Ban

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for bringing forward this topical and timely debate, which enables us to give immediate feedback on the Prime Minister’s speech today on the 25-year environment plan. Being an optimist, I had hoped for some concrete measures in the speech, but, sadly, it was underwhelming. I am told that it was very lyrical: I did not pick that up. I did spot that absolutely nothing new was said on climate change and there were no strong measures, or even suggestions, for legislative change that could actually make a difference. I do not understand how the Prime Minister can claim that we as a country are leading on climate change when she is about to give the green light to more fracking, we are still banning onshore wind development, we are still trying to build new nuclear power stations and we are giving tax breaks to oil and gas. None of those things will help us have a cleaner, greener, safer planet. At the end of my few words, I will make a few suggestions to the Government for things that could be brought in fairly quickly and would make a difference, so that people like me could then say to the Government, “Well done”. That would be a wonderful day.

I realise that many of us have said similar things today. We are all concerned about the China ban. The ban on recycled waste going to China will lead to a UK pile-up. The big problem for me and many other Greens is that the UK is on the verge of burning more waste than we currently recycle because our recycling is failing for all sorts of reasons. It is not that people care less about recycling—in fact, people care more and more about it and diligently separate their waste—but some councils, perhaps because of contracts that they have got locked into with incinerator companies, pile all the waste back together and throw it into incinerators. The public really do not like that and incineration is not the way forward. The point at which we will incinerate more waste than we currently recycle is getting nearer because of the China ban.

There is a logic to generating some electricity from waste that we cannot recycle or reuse. That is meant to be a last resort, but it simply is not that any more. We have created instead a market-driven system of incinerators that constantly need to be fed. As restrictions have been placed on sending rubbish to landfill, our waste has been diverted into these newly built incinerators rather than into increased levels of recycling. Burning waste is not good for climate change, and there are fears over the health impacts because of the weakness of air pollution monitoring systems.

However, it is the sheer waste of resources through burning that offends me so deeply. Incinerators are the ash-producing products of our make, break and throw away culture and, as such, have to be rethought. I do my best to refuse, reuse and recycle, but sometimes that is difficult. I have sought out shops where you can pick up your vegetables, weigh them yourself and pay at the till. You do not even need paper bags, let alone plastic bags; you can put everything in your big shopping bag. It is possible to do so, and many greengrocers have always done it. It is only the rise of huge supermarkets that has encouraged so much wrapped waste. The classic story about the Marks & Spencer cauliflower steak involved a slice of cauliflower that was wrapped in plastic and put on a plastic base. Organic coconuts have also been wrapped in plastic. If ever a fruit had an impermeable, safe exterior it is a coconut.

The Prime Minister’s speech was underwhelming, without any real sense of urgency to deal with a situation that we all care about. None of us can any longer say that we do not understand it or do not know what is happening. The design of housing is part of the problem—we had a housing debate earlier—but that is also part of the solution. Green solutions do not encompass only recycling or stopping incineration, they encompass everything. For example, good design of blocks of flats means that people can recycle easily. They can also recycle their food waste which at the moment is being thrown away by nearly every council in London and the UK.

The China ban shows the folly of a strategy that relies on exporting our recycling and burning the rest. A charge on incineration would level the playing field, and that is one of the ideas that I shall put forward. Companies and consumers need a steer and a nudge. It is not enough to urge companies to have plastic-free aisles, you have to legislate for it.

In a spirit of Green generosity I shall list a few measures that could be brought in, some fairly quickly, and would show that the Government are taking the situation seriously. First, on the issue of using less, plastic-free aisles would be wonderful but it should be mandatory and not left simply to urging companies to introduce them. We have to ban plastics that we cannot recycle; they are not a sensible way forward any more. We must bring in an incinerator charge so that companies are paying the true cost of burning valuable resources. We must also ban the building of more incinerators; we have plenty at the moment. We must insist that any materials used by manufacturers and producers have a minimum recycled content, so that they understand the need to use recycled materials. The Government could bring in tomorrow a deposit on glass and plastic bottles, and I look forward to that. Quite honestly, nature does not waste anything—and neither should we.