Agriculture Bill

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I enthusiastically added my name to the amendment proposed so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I also enthusiastically support the whole amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who is an expert in this subject.

What the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is really talking about is not just agricultural workers, but the future health and prosperity of villages. In much of south-eastern England, villages have effectively been turned into dormitory settlements for some time. The same process, particularly together with people retiring, is happening in the rest of England. If we really want viable, thriving, multigenerational communities that can support schools, shops and so on in villages throughout England then we have to have housing that ordinary young people can occupy when they get together, get married and so on, otherwise they will be forced out into the towns and lost for ever, and the villages will become older and older. We see that process happening all over the place.

Not everything that Baroness Thatcher’s Government did was a disaster, but one of their great disasters was the right to buy in rural areas. Every village used to have its own little council estate, as well as little cottages that provided for young people and what I call ordinary people—working-class rural folk. They have almost all gone; a few places were lucky and were allowed to except themselves.

Some 46 years ago I became the chairman of the housing committee in Pendle. In one village there was a little settlement of two rows of cottages owned by the water board, which had let them go derelict. It was going to demolish them because they were of no use to it anymore. I managed to get the council to buy and renovate them. By working with the parish council and the WI in that village, we made sure that they were available to rent for local people. Then came the right to buy. I am still proud of the fact that, as a result of what I did, that wonderful little settlement still exists and was not knocked down but, unfortunately, it is all now owner-occupied and selling for extraordinary high prices by east Lancashire standards.

Something has to be done about this. I believe that a new generation of rural housing to rent at affordable prices should be an absolute priority for a Government. Having said that, this issue is not for this Bill, but for other action by the Government, but Governments of all kinds have not taken this seriously for years.

The only other thing I will say on this is that the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, refers to seasonal workers. There are a lot of people going around now saying it is dreadful that people in this country are too lazy, too fat or whatever it is to pick strawberries, plant cabbages or whatever they might be required to do. I do not think that is the problem at all. The problem is that, for young people setting off and making their lives, seasonal work by its very nature is not attractive. They want qualifications and training, as in this amendment, and jobs—not jobs for life, because they have gone, but nevertheless skills and qualifications that will lead them to a secure career and the ability to get jobs throughout their lives. Going to pick potatoes in potato-picking season simply does not do that.

I believe that the future for seasonal work is to reduce a large amount of it by introducing far more robots and mechanisation into the countryside. That may be what the parts of the Bill concerning productivity are all about, I do not know; perhaps the Minister can tell us. I also believe that if that happens, it may be possible to turn some of that seasonal labour—I say some of it; perhaps not a very high proportion—into permanent full-time jobs. Perhaps that would be not for the farmers themselves, but for the contracting companies providing the labour and the machinery to do different things at different times of the year. That is the kind of strategic approach that we want.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness’s strategy thinks along those lines, nor whether the Government are thinking about a strategy for this, or whether they are just panicking about the fact that fruit will go unpicked this year, next year or whenever, but that kind of strategic view is what is required. It is a very good reason to pass the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I can be reasonably brief because my noble friend Lady Jones introduced her amendment so comprehensively. I also support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Judd.

A new British agricultural policy requires a new sort of agricultural and horticultural workforce that is more highly skilled, with differential skills but nevertheless better skills and qualifications recognised, and with a more permanent existence. We certainly do not require a reliance on gangmasters and seasonal workers imported temporarily from overseas.

It has been a mistake to rely so heavily on overseas labour for our agricultural workforce. It has been a mistake to cut back on agricultural and horticultural training. It has been a mistake to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board, which I strongly opposed at the time. It has been a mistake not to use the powers introduced in legislation in my time at Defra to enforce proper standards where there are gangmasters. There are some decent gangmasters, but the Covid episode has shown that many workers in this sector, both agriculture and the processing industries, are treated appallingly and housed in terrible conditions, which in some cases has thrown up problems with the spread of Covid. There have been a number of mistakes and we are not starting from a good position.

The new form of agricultural policy throws up a lot of new challenges that will need flexibility, higher skills and better management, but we have a chance to rectify this. The terms of the amendment set out a framework for a much more substantial strategy to recognise and update the skills of the workforce that we will require. Without it, we will not deliver a brave new world of English agriculture or a better impact by agriculture on our environment and our countryside. I strongly support the amendment; indeed, I regard it as an essential part of the Bill and of our future strategy.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 218 and Amendment 219 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, respectively.

The Bill provides us with an opportunity to change and update agricultural policy. As part of this, we must have the infrastructure on the ground to deliver the services, the product and the food. We had a long debate on Tuesday about food security, and this involves having the agricultural workers to do the picking and harvesting. If we want to professionalise the operation, we need agricultural workers who are trained, given incentives and have access to affordable housing—all of that is required. Therefore, I believe a duty must be placed in the legislation to sustain the employment of agricultural workers and put it on a very permanent footing.

On 20 July, the Minister very kindly provided a detailed Written Answer to my Parliamentary Question on the supply of labour on farms in England and Northern Ireland. He mentioned the seasonal workers pilot, which seems to have been impacted upon by the effect of Covid-19 on the allocation of visas, particularly in Ukraine and Belarus. I understand that those restrictions were lifted on 1 June. Could the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the number of additional workers who have come in?

Secondly, there is no doubt that farming and agriculture face many challenges, notwithstanding Brexit and Covid. Workers have to ensure they and those working for them are protected from the pandemic; hence the need for this strategy and for the duty to be placed in legislation. I have no hesitation in supporting Amendment 218, of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and Amendment 219, of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

221: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of pesticides: limitations on use to protect human health
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purposes of agriculture near—(a) any building used for human habitation;(b) any building or open space used for work or recreation; or(c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present including, but not limited to—(i) schools and childcare nurseries, and(ii) hospitals.(2) Regulations under this section must specify a minimum distance between any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) to (c) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide, and list any category of building or location.(3) For the purposes of this section “public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would have the effect of protecting members of the public from hazardous health impacts from the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public.

[Lord Whitty [V]]

My Lords, earlier in this Committee stage, a number of noble Lords—I remember, in particular, speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—spoke movingly about the impact of pesticides on human beings and the distress that it had caused. I thank them for that. I also thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for co-signing what is clearly a multiparty amendment.

The amendment is a vital but limited attempt to protect residents in rural areas from exposure to the spraying of pesticides and herbicides by requiring spraying to be carried out well away from homes and public buildings and from spaces where the public congregate. I am well aware that there is a wider background to this, which I will partially comment on, and it can be quite controversial, but this amendment is straightforward and, as such, I hope that it will be adopted by the Government at the end of this debate.

Much of the Bill is about the protection of wildlife, the health and welfare of farm animals, biodiversity, plant conservation, and water and air quality, but there is little recognition of the terrible damage to humans of ingesting chemical pesticides directly into their lungs, eyes and bloodstream. Many chemicals used in agriculture, including on UK farms and elsewhere, can, on their own or in combination, cause the breakdown of parts of the human immune system. They can poison the nervous system and cause cancer, mutations and birth defects. Rural residents are well aware of the problems. Campaigners on this have dossiers on rural families who have suffered, and I shall give your Lordships a couple of examples of the testimonies.

One is from a woman in the countryside in the north of England:

“I have brought up my family of three next to a frequently sprayed arable field. On many occasions, the spray has gone over the children as they’ve played. It has covered our washing and gone through our windows. We are long-term tenants on this land, yet we are treated as if this has nothing to do with us. We do not know what these chemicals are, only that the farmer, when mixing them and pouring them into his tank, wears full protective clothing and then sits in a protected cab.”


Another says:

“I live in a rural area and have done all my life. The spraying of crops has been carried out almost daily. I suffer from two chronic diseases, one of which is likely to be fatal.”


Another resident says:

“My neighbour sprays so close we can sometimes feel the drops on our faces and there is nothing we can do. My children are at risk.”


However, there is something that we can do. At the moment, manufacturers, rightly, attempt to label their pesticide, insecticide and herbicide products with warnings. These comes in various forms, with labels saying “Very toxic by inhalation”; “Do not breathe spray, fumes or vapour”; “Risk of serious damage to the eyes”; or “Harmful: possible risk of irreversible effects through inhalation”.

Farm workers are covered under health and safety laws and by manufacturers’ advice to wear protective clothing, and most do so, but residents are not so covered. Guidance has been given to users that they should inform residents in advance of spraying and that the chemicals used should be clearly identified and communicated to residents. That advice is normally ignored and pretty well never enforced.

Ministers and others have, in debate on this Bill and elsewhere, lauded the UK pesticide regime as one of the best in the world. Frankly, that is not a great accolade given the exposure of whole populations in much of the world to pesticide damage, as recent reports by the United Nations have emphasised. It is wrong to claim that the EU or UK systems are safe. In particular, they do not protect those who live close by.

When I more or less did the Minister’s job 20 years ago, I inherited the responsibility for pesticides, and I was concerned then about the degree to which the pesticide industry influenced the regulatory structures, and particularly enforcement. There was a degree of producer capture, and that anxiety has not gone away. Now that we are so-called free of EU regulations, there is a danger that that influence will grow further and that the lives of residents in the UK will be less safe. There have been occasions when the UK has been the country least keen on EU regulation in these areas. Whereas in most of the Bill, and in most of the Government’s vision for the future of agriculture, we are trying to go further than the CAP straitjacket in order to protect the environment and animal health, there is a danger that we will relax the pesticide regulations. However, we should be adopting strategies that enhance protection.

The amendment would at least have the effect of protecting residents and the public from the hazardous health impacts of spraying near buildings and spaces used by the public. As I said, it is in a sense a relatively small step, but it is absolutely vital for those families and populations. Ultimately, we need to see a longer-term strategy to develop non-chemical methods of crop protection, but this is an improvement that we can impose now, and one which should be part of the Bill.

Crucially, it establishes the principle that there must be minimum distances between pesticide spraying and occupied buildings. The details would be subject to wide consultation and to secondary legislation. A number of noble Lords have asked me why we do not specify the distance in this primary legislation. As we know, there will be some discussion about that and it would be normal for the details to come in regulations. However, there will be differences of opinion between farmers, manufacturers and campaigners for rural residents, and it is best that the precise distance is left for consultation and scientific measures. I myself would be inclined towards a substantial distance, but there will be other views about the practicality of that.

Tonight, let us establish, as part of the Bill, the very basic principle that human life and human health are protected and need to be protected. In the longer run, we need a proper strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate chemical pesticides, or at least the wholesale use of them, and to replace them with non-chemical forms of plant protection. However, that is a wider issue. Immediately, we need to protect the rural residents who are at risk. My amendment is a very small but vital part of the journey and I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it, either this evening or on Report, for the sake of those rural residents who feel, and are, unsafe, and the many who have been distressed by the impact of pesticides on them and potentially on others. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I have signed his amendment, which he has explained extremely eloquently. I also support—although I have not signed—the other amendment in this group, because both recognise the harmful effects of pesticides on human health and the health of our wildlife and countryside. This comes just days after Monsanto/Bayer agreed an out-of-court settlement of $10 billion in compensation to farmers who claim that Roundup caused their cancers.

Agricultural chemicals is a huge industry, and big agri-businesses are spending billions of dollars to avoid a court finding that their products cause cancer and other health problems. These two amendments are common sense when it comes to protecting our health and that of our countryside from these dangerous chemicals. Banning the application of pesticides in areas of human habitation, work and education will directly protect people from their toxic consequences.

Amendment 226 would help us shift more broadly from pesticide use towards alternative farming practices. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I would be very happy to work with noble Lords to bring these amendments back on Report, because they need to be included in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s comments and know that they come from a deep knowledge and understanding of the issues surrounding this sector. We have our own experts in the HSE who are undertaking ongoing research. I am aware of the settlement in the States relating to the use of glyphosates and its potential connection with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Her concerns are being addressed in ongoing research programmes within government.

[Lord Whitty [V]]

My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s reply. My amendment relates to several hundred thousand people in rural areas who are not protected by the present law. In so far as there are codes of practice, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, those have frequently been breached and, as far as I am aware, nobody is being prosecuted for it. We therefore need something in primary legislation to deal with the situation of residents.

Others are covered. Workers are clearly covered by the health and safety regulations, and, these days, most farm workers observe the need to protect themselves. That they have to, as I said earlier, indicates that there is a serious danger to human health from coming into contact with some of these chemicals.

That danger has been underlined for years. We had a royal commission 12 or 13 years ago which showed the dangers. We have had the chief scientific adviser to Defra report on the global use of chemicals and the dangers they present to human health. On the legal side, we have High Court judgments and United Nations reports. There is no need for any more proof that such chemicals are dangerous, particularly to those who are frequently exposed. Clearly, workers used to be frequently exposed before they adopted protective means and some, regrettably, still are, but the next group who are exposed, rural residents, are not so protected by the law. My amendment would reduce the exposure of rural residents. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in general supported this approach. He emphasised walkers, bystanders and visitors, but they are sort of protected by the health and safety legislation already because they would be on the premises of the user of those chemicals. People who are a few yards away from those premises are not so protected, yet medical records show that continuous exposure over several applications of spray has caused serious medical problems.

My amendment would protect a group which is not currently seriously protected by the present law or present practice. Clearly, there are different sorts of chemicals, and we are concerned particularly with those which are sprayed across large fields and affect those adjacent to them.

However, there is an overall problem in the use of pesticides in relation both to human health and to adverse effects on soil, water and air quality. We need a strategy. Amendment 226 would begin to give us a strategy, although, if we are to have a comprehensive strategy, we need clear targets for the elimination of chemical pesticides in as many areas as possible and for the development of alternatives.

Yes, there are serious possibilities for replacing these chemicals in the research labs and in industry. Serious strategies on the application of chemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides are being adopted to limit the exposure to others, but there is no legal protection for those who are most frequently vulnerable to pesticide spray—that is, those who are right next to fields where it is being sprayed across the crops. This is a problem not only when the wind is blowing; the droplets stay in the air for some time, even when there is not a heavy wind. We have a sufficient history of medical problems to prove that those rural residents are seriously affected, but we do not have any serious legal protection for them. One simple way of doing it is in my amendment: to restrict the spraying of crops close by residential buildings and other public buildings.

I want to return to this. I am really sorry that the Government did not see this as a modest but important step for the protection of people whom, frankly, our law does not protect at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I will decide what to do at the next stage.

Amendment 221 withdrawn.