Environment Bill

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, we very much agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said about the potential of this deposit return scheme to show us to be a global frontrunner as we move towards a more circular economy. We also very much support the opening amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which highlights the laggard nature of the Government in bringing forward this DRS, with the latest consultation showing that it will not come in until the end of 2024. We absolutely agree with her that the Government ought to get on with this by next year as an initial step.

We agree with almost all noble Lords that this must be an all-in scheme. There are costs to that, which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, highlighted; another is the cost to local councils, as with an all-in system you remove aluminium, which is one of their most valuable recycling assets. However, we very much believe that the benefits outweigh those costs. We must resist those voices saying not to go down the all-in route. The Government’s impact assessment shows that there are very strong benefits to all-in, in the amount of recycling and the impact on cutting littering. That is important, but for me the issue mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about consistency with Scotland is the strongest case for all-in. We know where the Scots are going with their DRS; we feel very strongly that, to get the maximum benefits from DRS, there should be consistency with Scotland.

On that basis, although I listened to the very articulate arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on the case for a differential rate for sizes, I am not sure I want that put in the Bill at this stage, as there is an issue about ensuring that consistency with Scotland is uppermost in our mind. I therefore wish the Government to look at that again but do not support that going in the Bill at this stage, although I understand and accept the arguments she made. I hope the Government will look at them carefully. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, deposit return schemes are another important reform introduced by the Bill to maximise our resource productivity. It was heartening to hear support across the House for their introduction.

This Government are determined to crack down on the waste and carelessness that destroy our natural environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was right to point out in her opening speech that in our manifesto we committed to introduce a deposit return scheme this Parliament. We remain absolutely committed to delivering on that commitment. I thank her for Amendments 133 and 133A. We are currently analysing responses to our consultation from environmental NGOs, businesses and trade organisations on the deposit return scheme, which consulted on implementation timelines for 2024, the scheme design and the exact responsibilities of a deposit management organisation. This also included proposals on the size of containers and materials to be included. We will publish our response as soon as possible.

I appreciate that noble Lords are keen to see the introduction of a DRS for drinks containers introduced as soon as possible—so am I. But realistically, particularly following the impact of the pandemic, we need to make sure we balance this anticipation with the needs of businesses, which will need time to adapt their processes to a DRS. The impact assessment for this measure identified that the net costs to businesses were likely to be £266 million a year, so we need to make sure that we fully consider the time needed for them to adapt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to intervene—briefly, I was withdrawn from speaking in this group—and I would like to support what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has said about the concerns of small breweries. I was to some extent heartened by the Minister’s response that there is provision for making special arrangements in the regulations, but I would just like to ask him whether he recalls, five or 10 years ago, the rather serious activities of the major brewers in kicking out and treating badly many small pub landlords, which ended up with a lot of fuss. In the end, a Pubs Code Adjudicator was appointed to try to protect the independent landlords and, to some extent, the beers that they supplied. We have to remember that the big brewers are not charities. It is really important for the growth of the industry and the variety that the new brewers provide that there is a real, solid protection for the small brewers when it comes to the deposit return schemes. I hope that the Minister can confirm that.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I remember well the scandal of five to 10 years ago. Indeed, there were a number of people in my own former constituency who were affected, and I was very much involved in the all-party group that called for the Pubs Code Adjudicator, so I very much note his comments. I hope that the noble Lord was reassured by the reassurances that I provided in relation to small businesses and our attempts to insulate them as far as possible from any avoidable cost.

[Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recollect that, in the state of Oregon in the United States, where the returnable container schemes were pioneered many years ago, the key to success was that when the affluent discarded them, the less affluent picked them up and returned them?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I was not aware of the example from Oregon, but there are plenty examples from around the world of people at the very bottom of the economic ladder deriving livelihoods from being involved at one level or another in the recycling sector. That is certainly the case. I thank my noble friend for his comments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of our amendments. As I said in my opening remarks, there is already considerable evidence from Europe that deposit return schemes drive up recycling levels of bottles and cans and thereby cut back on litter and landfill. That point was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, among others. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, rightly highlighted the success of Germany and the fact that it has been organised on a unitary basis across the German state—there are lessons to be learned from that.

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, latterly put the question about the affluent and the less affluent. It is true that, once you put a small value on an empty bottle, people will be less inclined casually to throw it away, and even if some individual cannot be bothered to collect the deposit, there will always be others who will pick it up for that reason. However you go about it, it will undoubtedly reduce levels of litter and drive up recycling.

I agree, of course, with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and others that what we need is an all-in scheme for it to be really successful.

There is no reason why this scheme cannot be operational by 1 January 2023. Indeed, there could be perverse consequences if Scotland had such a scheme ahead of other nations. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that England has become a world leader in foot-dragging, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that England is becoming a laggard, and I agree with both of those sentiments. I think that we all agree that a united scheme across the four nations is the way to go, but we cannot expect Scotland to hang around while we make our minds up about this, so we have to move at pace and move together.

I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a sensible point about deposit fees having to vary with the size of the container. I understand some of the complexities around that, but we need to make sure that we are not incentivising a switch to plastic that might otherwise occur.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, raised the issue of small producers and small breweries, and I agree that there need to be arrangements for start-ups and new businesses. There are, of course, many small drinks companies bringing new products on to the market—indeed, many of them are promoting healthy drinks. I am not convinced that small breweries need a special exemption, but I understand the point he makes. Of course, the scheme is not intended to place an extra burden on small businesses, and we have all said that it needs to be simple and straightforward to administer. I would have thought that all those companies—the breweries and other small producers—would welcome schemes that prevent their empty containers becoming litter or landfill just as much as anyone else. I remind noble Lords—some of us have been around for rather a long time—that we had bottle deposit schemes in the past, so in a sense this is nothing new.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but nothing he said explains why we cannot have a DRS by 1 January 2023, and I disagree that he is on target to meet the Conservative manifesto commitment on this. Businesses have known that this is coming for some time; we have had time to make the transition, and there is still time within the next 18 months to complete that transition. The Minister also talked about Schedule 8, but the problem, as with all those schedules, is that it is not specific; it is just enabling. It does not guarantee anything. It just says that these things “may”—going back to our famous word—happen.

I will, therefore, reflect on the Minister’s comments, but I hope he has heard the strength of feeling around the Chamber today: people want action on this, and they want it quickly. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

146: Clause 56, page 38, line 2, at end insert—
“(6) The requirement in subsection (5) may be met by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in inserted section 45AZC(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for bringing forward these amendments, which we strongly support. They both made important points in the introduction to their amendments, and I thank them for that.

In recent years, there has been a lot of discussion, both in politics and the media, about food waste. Some countries have already made laws to try to reduce food waste. In France, supermarkets are not allowed to waste their food; they have to give it, for free, to homeless people. France consistently tops the world rankings for its lack of food waste because of this, and Germany now has similar laws on food waste, so I strongly urge the Minister to follow in their footsteps and take note of these amendments.

Globally, food waste is estimated to cost £2.9 trillion a year. That is enough food to feed every hungry person in the world twice over, yet food insecurity and hunger still exist in both developing and developed countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, talked about the problem of school holidays for children who are dependent on free school meals and issues with crop failure in the developing world.

WRAP estimates there is the potential to redistribute a further 190,000 tonnes of surplus food from the retail and food manufacturing sectors. Some of the surplus is difficult to make use of; it could be costly, in that it would need to be reworked or repackaged, and some surplus would not be edible. But WRAP still estimates that around 100,000 tonnes are both accessible and edible. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, mentioned food that is rejected—perhaps it is misshapen. It is a nonsense that we throw away perfectly good food.

It is clear that we are not adequately distributing the food we produce. It is also clear that the environmental costs in water, energy and space to grow food that is not eaten is more than our environment can take. When food waste ends up in landfill, even though it will decompose, it contributes to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it biodegrades. The amounts it produces during this process are on a level with the use of cars and fossil fuels. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that education is an important part of what we need to do to resolve these problems.

We have heard how much we throw away in the UK, but the 25 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions just from the UK’s food waste is more than Kenya’s total annual emissions—a country of 53 million people. This is disgraceful. Even if you count only the edible food wasted, it comes to a total of 14 million tonnes. If we eradicated this, according to the Government’s latest data, it would be equivalent to taking one in five cars off the road. Considering this Government have set a target to reduce greenhouse gas levels by 68% of 1990 levels by 2030, reducing or even eliminating food waste seems like an obvious and easy step to take towards that goal.

Supermarkets are partially to blame for the global food waste catastrophe. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made this point well and looked at responsibility in the supply chains. We know that supermarket food waste comes to around £230 million a year, but also that they can be part of the solution, with significant power to have an impact on the amount of food we waste. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, rightly talked about how they stepped up during the pandemic. They can behave differently.

We can look at ways in which this can be done. Expiry dates is one. We know that consumers get confused about what the dates for food safety mean and, because of that, a lot of edible food is thrown away at home. There is not enough understanding of the difference between sell-by, use-by and best-by dates. We could do something about this confusion and lack of consistency. Supermarkets can play a role in standardising this information, so that consumers have it in an accurate easy-to-understand format. One personal bugbear is whether we really need a date for fresh fruit and vegetables; it is obvious to me when something has gone off. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talked of a need to find a use for all foods, which is really important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, talked about food banks, FareShare and the role that supermarkets can play. They can and do donate, but food banks have a limited amount of time to turn overripe produce around before it goes bad, and they are prohibited from giving away food that has passed its use-by or best-before date. Again, perishable foods can end up in the bin. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, we need to find ways to use all food.

Two years ago, in June 2019, more than 100 of the biggest players in food, including all the UK’s major supermarkets, signed a pledge to take action to drive down food waste and raise public awareness of the issue. The Government have also expressed their commitment to supporting UN sustainable development goal 12.3 to help halve food waste by 2030 and to report on progress and prioritise action. I ask the Minister to provide an update on progress on that pledge and the actions that are being prioritised to meet our obligations on SDG 12.3.

Food waste in the UK is a huge problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly said it is a scourge in our society, and it is time for the Government to legislate. As well as an environmental disaster, it is a social catastrophe, when we consider the 10.5 billion meals that wasted food could have provided to deprived people. I appreciate that the Government have cut down on their food waste in recent years, but there is still an awfully long way to go. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and other Lords, have said, I look forward to reading the Government’s food strategy. They must grasp this opportunity and do something about this. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her unwavering dedication to this issue. We have discussed it on numerous occasions, both recently and before I became a Minister, and she knows that I share her passion.

The impacts of food waste are profound. I was going to give some examples, but they have just been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I will not repeat them. It is true, however, that the impacts of food waste on unnecessary land use, unnecessary conversion of intact ecosystems and emissions are enormous. If food waste were a country, it would be the third or fourth largest emitter in the world. The madness of throwing food away at these levels is evident when there are people who do not have food to eat.

I turn to Amendment 149, which covers a lot of ground, and a similar amendment from my noble friend Lord Caithness, Amendment 149A. Through powers in Clause 49 and Schedule 4 to the Bill, the Government will be able to place obligations across the supply chain on food producers, retailers and supermarkets, making them responsible and liable for surplus food and food waste at all levels of the waste management hierarchy, including prevention and redistribution of food waste. I am pleased to confirm to my noble friend Lord Caithness that this could be through obligations such as food waste reduction targets, as outlined in his amendment, and moving food up the waste hierarchy with a focus on prevention and redistribution. In response to points raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I confirm that the Government will be able to place obligations across the supply chain, from producers to manufacturers to caterers. We will also have powers to enforce these obligations if any producers were to breach them.

I reiterate that the Government are fully committed to meeting the UN sustainable development goal 12.3 target, which seeks to halve global food waste at consumer and retail levels by 2030. Of course, we have a long way to go, but significant progress has already been made, with a reported 27% per capita reduction to date, excluding inedible parts. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I felt it a little unfair to say that the UK is miles behind. It is true that there are miles remaining to go to tackle this problem, but the UK is a world leader in food waste prevention. We have, for example, been singled out by the World Resources Institute for the work we are doing. There is much more to be done, and there are lots of steps which have been put forward by noble Lords today in this debate which we should seriously consider, but it is not true to state that we are miles behind other countries.

To ensure we are on track to meet the sustainable development goal target, the Government have put in place a range of measures to tackle food waste across the supply chain and in households. For example, we already have powers to introduce the public reporting of food waste by businesses and are about to consult on that. The consultation will cover implementation timelines, the inclusion of primary production food businesses and proposes a range of food businesses including retailers which would then be in scope. Regarding the noble Baroness’s amendment, we will first assess progress by food businesses to reduce food waste through various government measures which already exist, and which we are including here. We will then review progress after mandatory food waste reporting regulations have come into force. We have powers in this Bill to then propose or amend producer responsibility obligations broadly in line with the noble Baroness’s amendment. Unless we see serious progress, the Government will necessarily act.

I would like to mention some of the things which the Government are already doing to tackle this problem. For example, we have funded WRAP to work on the Courtauld commitment 2025 to introduce the food waste reduction road map, an objectively ground-breaking industry-wide toolkit with commitment from more than 250 businesses. We are supporting several WRAP’s campaigns, including the citizens strategy, the Love Food Hate Waste campaign, and we backed the UK’s first food waste action week in March this year. These campaigns are clearly designed to shift consumer behaviour, which is a major part of the solution.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

151: Schedule 11, page 190, line 41, at end insert—
“(4A) The requirement in subsection (4) may be met by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in inserted section 81A(4) of the Environment Act 1995 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest through my involve at Rothamsted, which carries out research on pesticides and pollinators.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty—and welcome him back—for introducing his amendment on the impact of pesticides on human health with such knowledge and such detail. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for championing the very important case of pollinators, to which I have added my name.

As my noble friend Lord Whitty reminded us, these issues were debated in some detail during the consideration of the Agriculture Bill, and it is right that we return to them today. I very much commend his Amendment 152 because I think that it is a common-sense and reasonable proposal that we have before us today.

During this debate, noble Lords have shown considerable concern, passion and determination about these issues. As noble Lords have said, we are talking about the application of poisons here, so we cannot take these issues lightly. My noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have given powerful examples of the public health concerns which can arise from close contact with pesticides. As they said, asthma, respiratory problems, skin disorders and even cancers are destroying people’s lives. Sadly, all too often, our experience has been that the health problems come to light when the damage has already been done. We discover in retrospect that what was promised to be safe turned out not to be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, pointed out, we are still learning and we are also storing up problems for the future, for example, given our understanding of the impact that antimicrobial resistance can have on public health.

The point at issue here is the particular concern about the impact on those living and working adjacent to fields that are regularly sprayed. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, at least farm workers have access to protective clothing but no such provision is made for the local population. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that spraying is already covered by the regulations, but the problem is the difference between the regulations and practice. It is obvious that the rules are not being adhered to in their current form, which is why we need to spell out more specific protections. This is what my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment does and why it particularly singles out spraying adjacent to homes, schools and health facilities. I would have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would have understood and agreed with that. We are not trying to ban the wholesale spraying of crops; we are just trying to put some limitations on it.

The UN report The Right to Food, published in 2017, highlighted that chronic exposure to agricultural pesticides is associated with a range of diseases, including cancer, sterility and developmental disorders. The local population, rather than professionals, were often subjected.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to reduce levels of pesticide use, combined with integrated pest management. We can all see the potential of harnessing the natural power of biodiversity and the advantages of precision applications in the future. But I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that the action plan on pesticides does not go far enough. We have to bear in mind the huge vested-interest lobby trying to draw out the reforms, which are needed more urgently. This does not answer the problem addressed in this amendment: we need to have confidence that, in any consultation, the voice of residents will have the same weight as that of the farming community. This is why we need the best independent scientific evidence to underpin our policies.

The Government clearly feel that we can farm with fewer pesticides. They have said that during the Agriculture Bill and in the action plan since. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, presented us with a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between growing food and public health; we can cut back on the application of pesticides and still grow food but live a healthier life.

However, for the foreseeable future, spraying will still take place and, as the UK Pesticides Campaign makes clear, the real problems often lie in exposure to mixtures of pesticides. Therefore, we cannot just sit back and wait for the technology or for nature-friendly applications of the future. We need measures to protect people from the suffering that is occurring now. It is clear that the regulations in existence are inadequate to protect the local population. I hope that the Minister has listened to this debate seriously and will give assurances that the Government will take these concerns on board.

We also wholeheartedly welcome the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, which would provide added protection for pollinators, particularly bees. We are now much more aware of the importance of pollinators to our crops and to levels of biodiversity, yet since 1990 the UK has lost 13 out of its 35 native bee species. All the evidence shows that pesticides, and particularly neonicotinoids, are seriously harmful to our dwindling bee population. This is why the EU has a ban on the use of neonicotinoids.

We understand the concerns of sugar beet farmers, but sugar beet is a complex crop and ending the ban is not necessarily the solution to tackling crop blight. To quote a much-quoted Michael Gove again,

“Unless the evidence base changes again, the government will keep these restrictions in place after we have left the EU.”


In a Commons debate on the issue earlier this year, the Minister Rebecca Pow said:

“We supported the ban in 2018 and we stand by that now”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/21; col. 262]


So we have to ask what has changed, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has pointed out, the Government have now lifted the ban, even though evidence of its harm has not altered. To the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I say that a risk assessment was carried out, but the Government chose to ignore it.

This is why we support the eminently sensible amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, which would take the decisions out of the hands of politicians and pass them to an expert scientific authority. We need to be assured that the Government are not being put under undue pressure from the business sector to maintain its market access. I therefore hope that the Minister takes both these amendments seriously and comes back with a government proposal that adequately addresses these concerns.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I shall start by addressing Amendment 152 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Noble Lords are right to shine a light on this topic today, and I hope I can reassure them on the Government’s position. The Government fully agree that pesticides should not be used in a way that harms human health.

Under the current regulatory system, pesticides are authorised for use only where a comprehensive scientific assessment determines that there are not expected to be any harmful effects on human health. The assessment, carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, covers all situations where people may be exposed to pesticides. It specifically covers the potential impacts on those who live, work or take their leisure around treated areas. I am not going to pretend that it is a perfect system—if it was, we would not be having this debate. Historically, there has been an unnatural, unhealthy closeness between the regulated and the regulators, here and across the European Union. I remember the lobbying efforts which were deployed to prevent the European Commission introducing a tough approach to the regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. It was probably the biggest lobbying exercise that I have ever witnessed, and I remember writing about it years ago. That situation is true of the UK too, and I suspect of most countries. There is no doubt that despite the existing protections—which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, described as one of the toughest approaches, which is probably true—harmful chemicals have been poured into our soils, our waters and throughout our food chain. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right that the status quo is not sufficient. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that it needs to be put under the microscope.

With that said, authorisation is frequently refused because the proposed use of the product is not demonstrated to be sufficiently safe to people or the environment. These controls allow pesticides to be used where they are deemed to be safe and where they are considered necessary for UK farmers. Unfortunately, in the current system, pesticides are a core part of the control of pests, weeds and diseases. Without them, it is estimated that UK farmers would produce around one-third less food. At the same time, we must—and do—recognise the need to change the current system and to reduce our dependence on the use of pesticides. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked about productivity, and I want to throw into the debate that it is not always the case that large intensive monocultures for export are more productive than the smaller, more diverse and perhaps more traditional farms that they often replace. A seminal report was conducted by the UN FAO and the World Bank, which surprised themselves by discovering that the small diverse mixed farm was productive per unit of land, where the large intensive monoculture for export was often more productive per unit of labour. In terms of getting food off the ground, it is not always the case that modern industrial farming produces more.

Under the 25-year environment plan, the Government committed to developing and promoting integrated pest management. Applied properly, this approach maximises the use of non-chemical control techniques and minimises the use of chemical pesticides, including by pursuing nature-based, low-toxicity solutions and precision technologies. This will reduce risks from pesticide use and the amounts used over time. In addition to that, as noble Lords will know, we are moving to a system away from the common agricultural policy toward the environmental land management system which will be rewarding and paying farmers for the delivery of public goods. That means, among many other things, a clean environment. I add that in their consultation on the draft revised national action plan for the sustainable use of pesticides, the Government also committed to reviewing the code of practice that governs all professional users of pesticides. The code’s statutory basis means that it can be used in evidence if people are taken to court for offences involving pesticides.

Turning to Amendment 254, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, she is of course right that the use of pesticides must not put pollinators at unacceptable risk, for all the reasons that she gave and which I will not repeat. It is impossible to exaggerate the existential damage that would be done were we to see the continuing decline of pollinators on the scale that we have seen in recent years, so I will not take issue with her at all on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

I am most grateful, and I thank my noble friend for his answer. He may have said this in his reply, but I ask again because I could not pick it up. When authorisations are given for substances, is the mixture—the toxic cocktails, if you like—actually checked? I am no scientist, but I do know that when you mix certain chemicals together, they have a different effect from what they have when they are on their own. I am just wondering whether that is checked to make sure that the effects are not harmful.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My noble friend raises an incredibly important point and I have to be honest and say that I cannot give him an authoritative answer. He is right that the synergistic effect of mixing chemicals creates entirely new qualities, and two relatively harmless chemicals, or not particularly dangerous chemicals, mixed together can create something that is lethal. A decent, proper and thorough regulatory system absolutely would test new chemicals as they enter the market on the basis of how they are likely to interact with chemicals that they are likely to meet. I am afraid this is not an area I have any expertise in, but I will look into it as a matter of urgency, and I will write to him and place my answer in the Library.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and all noble Lords who supported my amendment. I find the Minister’s reply slightly equivocal. I have been in his shoes, and I know that sometimes you have to read out stuff with which you do not entirely agree. I rather think that, in the light of his final remarks, that is the position the Minister finds himself in today. Nevertheless, there are some points that we on our side have to take into account, but I ask that the Minister takes our position into account.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for welcoming me, but he was wrong to say that there are relatively few cases. There is a significant number of cases, some of which are due to historic exposure but, nevertheless, there is a large number of cases—thousands. Around the world, there are several tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of people who are seriously medically affected, in some cases lethally, by the use of pesticides.

I applaud the Government's long-term aim of reducing pesticides, in one sense. I would prefer the long-term aim to be the elimination of non-organic pesticides, but that is for the long term. The amendment deals with a very specific and, as I said, modest proposition in the more or less immediate term.

To reply to the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Cormack, the present regulations are not effective. They largely depend on codes of practice, which are not directly legally enforceable. The rights of residents are only minimally covered. I agree that we need to put those regulations under the microscope, but my belief—and that behind the amendment and shared by those who support me and the thousands of people who have been affected by pesticide exposure—is that, having put them under the microscope, we must reach the conclusion that those areas where people permanently live, work or attend must be permanently removed from airborne crop-spraying application of pesticides.

It is not a simple question, and there is not a simple scientific argument, about how far that should be, because the wind changes and methods of application change. I was slightly alarmed, although I think it was supposed to be reassuring, that part of the medium-term development of pesticide application could be the use of drones. On one level, they may be more precise, but on another, they are less controllable. Rural residents will certainly be fearful of that.

All those issues must be taken into account. Some of us may want different and more radical long-term objectives, but the amendment relates to the distance between places where people are in our countryside and where toxic material is being put into the air which they can breathe and which touches them and can affect them and their children.

Any putting under the microscope of the present situation would reach the same conclusion: we need a distance. As I said earlier, the exact distance and regulation is a matter for further discussion with the Government, but the principle needs to be in the Bill, and I shall return to this at a later stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Like other noble Lords, I am deeply disappointed by the very modest amendment that has been brought forward by the Government. Ahead of Report, I very much hope that the Government will think again and bring back an amendment, in consultation with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that can satisfy the House. As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, this is absolutely not a partisan matter; it is a matter of fixing something that has to be fixed. If the Minister is unable to come forward with a government amendment, I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Duke, between them, would be able to come forward with an amendment that would command the support of the whole House.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions on storm overflows. I am grateful to those both in this House and in the other place who have dedicated so much time to giving this issue the attention that it rightfully deserves. We have listened to noble Lords and parliamentarians in the other place, and we are all united in our view that action is needed. This is why we have tabled government amendments to change the Bill.

I shall move Amendment 165, in my name, will commit government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from overflows and the harm this causes by September 2022. Work is already under way to develop the plan, including via the Storm Overflows Taskforce, made up of Defra, the Environment Agency, Ofwat, the Consumer Council for Water, Blueprint for Water and Water UK. I hope that noble Lords can appreciate that, if the plan is to deliver the change we want to see, it needs to be evidence based and developed in consultation with all key stakeholders. When we talk about stakeholders, that is not just the water companies but the NGOs and organisations battling to protect our rivers, as well as Members of this House and the other place. We need to get this right.

Government will be required through this new amendment to report to Parliament on progress towards implementing the plan. These reports will align with price review cycles so they can inform decisions about sewerage company funding. The amendment will also require water companies and the Environment Agency to publish annual data on storm overflow activity. This will improve transparency by ensuring that information on the activity of overflows is made available to the public, and ensure that Governments are held accountable for making progress.

I shall also move Amendment 300, which provides for the new clause after Clause 78, relating to storm overflows, to come into force two months after Royal Assent. Once in law, these measures will become an important step in tackling the scourge of sewage pollution in our rivers. I am pleased to say that they have been very warmly and enthusiastically welcomed by Philip Dunne, who tabled the initial Bill. The key word there is “step”—it is not the end of the journey but a step within that journey.

I turn to Amendment 161 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. My amendments also impose similar requirements to publish information on the activity of overflows. They do not, however, include precise legislative provisions on how a reduction of discharges from storm overflows could be achieved. That is to ensure that options are not limited before due consideration is given to the most productive and effective approaches. However, the plan itself, which the government amendment will require us to publish, will include specific measures to reduce discharges and the harm that they cause. The Government will consider a range of options during the development of the plan, including many of those outlined in the noble Baroness’s amendment, and there will be many opportunities for stakeholders to feed into its development. It is for these same reasons that it would also be inappropriate to change the wording from “may” to “must”, as Amendment 168 from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, proposes.

Amendment 169 was also proposed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I would first like to thank the noble Duke and my noble friend Lady Altmann for taking the time to meet with me again last week. I want to put it on record that I and the Government absolutely agree that we should be making much more use of nature-based solutions, particularly with regard to storm overflows. Nature-based solutions can play a key role in meeting flood resilience objectives in addition to numerous objectives in the Government’s 25-year environment plan at the same time. The beauty of nature-based solutions is that, while they are deployed to tackle one problem, they tend to answer so many other problems at the same time. They are not a silver bullet for all locations and all issues, and we will need to rely on a wide range of solutions to tackle the harm caused by storm overflows, including a combination of green, blue, and traditional grey infrastructure. But where a workable and appropriate nature-based-solution exists—I say this in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—our view is that it should be the default option. Government and water companies are also already investing in nature-based solutions to deliver multiple outcomes for the water environment and for biodiversity.

For example, in the Hanging Langford flood alleviation scheme, the Environment Agency used innovative permitting to allow Wessex Water to discharge, on the requirement that it provide a reed bed to treat the overflows. As a result of this nature-based solution, these sewage discharges are treated naturally and have negligible bacteriological impact on the River Wylye. This is exactly the sort of scheme we wish to see more of, and we are working with the Environment Agency and Ofwat to encourage greater take-up of nature-based solutions. I might add that the process that I have just described on the River Wylye would not qualify as elimination of storm overflows, as specified in Amendment 166—it would be regarded as management—but it is absolutely the kind of solution that we need to back. We need many more such solutions, but the language there is key and I will come back to that later.

I also assure the noble Duke that the current duty in the Bill allows for the government plan to use nature-based solutions where they are the most effective tool. On this basis, the Government do not believe it is necessary to specify them as a requirement in the Bill.

The noble Duke’s Amendment 166 was addressed by most noble Lords who have spoken today. All discharges to the water environment, including from sewer overflows, require a permit issued by the Environment Agency. The Bill contains clauses to place a statutory requirement directly on sewerage companies to produce drainage and sewerage management plans. This will ensure they are able to better deal with sewage discharges and tackle future risks. The statutory plan introduced by the Government’s new amendment will be based on robust evidence and consultation with all stakeholders, as I said earlier. It will be vital to have that evidence base and stakeholder participation to make sure that we have a plan that really works. I promise the noble Duke that the intention of his Amendment 166 is one that I and colleagues in Defra firmly share. We will take it into account as we draw up the plan.

On the noble Duke’s Amendment 167, storm overflows are a last resort in modern sewer design, but the age of our sewerage system means that their complete elimination is a major undertaking. For example, I am told that replacing all combined sewers with a separated sewer system would cost in the region of £200 billion to £500 billion, and would not eliminate the need for overflows in the system to cope with emergency situations. That does not mean that it is impossible or that things cannot significantly improve.

The agreed goal of the Storm Overflows Taskforce is to eliminate harm from storm overflows in the long term. The reason that the harm bit matters relates to the point I made earlier about the difference between appropriate management through nature-based solutions and elimination. The task force is working on options to achieve this goal and has commissioned research to gather evidence on the costs, benefits and feasibility of different options. This research project is due to be completed in early summer. The Government will take full account of the task force’s research findings and recommendations, other relevant evidence and views from the full range of stakeholders in drawing up our new statutory plan. We will decide on the precise details of our plan based on evidence and from weighing up the costs and benefits of all the different options. As I said when we spoke last week, I am keen to continue discussions with the noble Duke and other noble Lords with an interest in this, so we can discuss the options in more detail and look at them exhaustively.

On the noble Duke’s Amendment 170, the Government agree that transparency and monitoring are essential for creating a complete picture of the health of our water environment and to inform our decisions.

On the noble Duke’s Amendment 171, the Government also agree with the need for urgent action on this issue. To deliver a proper, comprehensive and robust plan, September next year does not feel like an exaggerated delay. We need to make sure that the plan is the best it can be, and is based on robust evidence, enabling all the appropriate consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and understanding the impacts of the plan on business, water customers and the environment. We do not yet know what the cost of the full solution would be, and we need to know that before we pass legislation.

On the noble Duke’s Amendments 172 and 173, the Government are already placing new duties on water companies and the Environment Agency to report on storm overflow activity. This includes information on investigation and improvement works. Clause 78 requires sewage undertakers to develop a drainage and sewerage management plan. These set out how they will maintain an effective system of sewerage and drainage and will include considerations of storm overflows.

Amendment 173, specifically, goes beyond information the Environment Agency currently owns, but additional transparency and reporting measures relating to undertaker performance will also be considered in developing the plan and through the task force. The Government do not feel it would be right to pre-empt this work by implementing additional reporting requirements at this stage.

The Government share the ambitions of the noble Duke in his Amendment 174. However, this amendment risks expanding the definition of “discharges” beyond the EA’s permits and creating confusion between the treatment of permitted and illegal discharges. The purpose of proposed new Clause 141E(2) is to define what a storm overflow is and this definition ensures that our amendments to prevent the harm caused by storm overflows apply only to permitted discharges. We already have a robust regulatory regime in place for tackling illegal discharges. They are subject to enforcement and fines by the Environment Agency and therefore it would not be appropriate to bring them into the scope of this proposed new clause. As most noble Lords have said today, the key issue is not illegal discharges but what is currently legally permitted in our waters.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for such a detailed response to this series of amendments. I must admit to some disappointment that we do not seem to have persuaded the Minister—yet—to move very far. It seems generally accepted in the Committee that government Amendment 165 is not strong enough, and I hope it will be possible to strengthen it. As noble Lords will be aware, many of my amendments have been intended to persuade the Government to take water quality as seriously as they clearly take air quality, as we heard in the debates this afternoon. I will continue to press some of these points. I am most grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and others between now and Report to see if we can strengthen the new government clause, with the intention—which we all have—of cleaning up the rivers of England. I thank the Minister and look forward to meeting him in the coming weeks.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I simply thank the noble Duke for his interest in and commitment to this area, and reiterate that I am absolutely persuaded and committed to ensuring that our approach as a Government to tackling this problem matches the scale of the problem itself. To that end, I look forward to future discussions with him and other noble Lords.

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.