Environment Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Report stage
Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment should be recognised as absolutely necessary and straightforward but it is one, unfortunately, that the Government have resisted. Like the air quality debate that we have just had, it concerns human health, but it also has wider environmental implications. The detrimental effect of chemical pesticide spraying on those who live, work and congregate close to where spraying is carried out is well established. The medical effects are now well known—although, as the Minister himself had to admit the other week, not the particular effects of specific combinations of chemicals included in the cocktail of chemicals that are often sprayed these days.

In earlier stages of this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, the detrimental effects of spraying on individuals and families over long periods have been spelled out in great detail; they are familiar to GPs and medics here and around the world. Some effects are acute and some short term, such as breathing difficulties; some are utterly chronic, and some are lethal. The most vulnerable are those right next to the spraying and, in particular, those who are subject to repeated doses because they live there.

Noble Lords will be aware of the views from most scientists, the royal commission and, broadly speaking, global medical opinion. Noble Lords will also have been made aware of particular concerns of individuals who have been affected and have suffered chronic ill health and eventual disability because of this exposure. I have met some of the victims and have heard of large numbers of others.

It is the essential human issue that we are attempting to address in this amendment, but there are, of course, wider arguments. In the terms of some of the responses during Committee and through the passage of the Agriculture Bill, the arguments got mixed up. It is true that many people, including myself, would wish to see the eventual phasing out of all chemical pesticides. The numbers of people wishing for that outcome apparently, according to the news last week, include President Macron. However, irrespective of my views on the longer term, this is a very specific issue, for now. It means that we would protect from current pesticides the health and well-being of literally thousands, or potentially hundreds of thousands, of rural residents in this country. This amendment is not about the bigger picture; it is very specifically about the protection of our rural residents in their homes, gardens, schools and public places. It is an in principle amendment, leaving details subject to the regulatory process. Protection for our rural population is essential, but the regulatory process will obviously allow opinions on the detail. If we adopt this amendment tonight, that process will start now.

Unfortunately, the Government have found all sorts of reasons for resisting this amendment, or a similar amendment, starting with the early stages of the Agriculture Bill. Ministers have adduced a whole range of metamorphosing reasons for opposing the amendment. At first, they said that it was unnecessary because Ministers already had the power to make regulations on distancing of spraying of pesticides and, at that time, they sort of did—but it was under EU law, which left it discretionary on the member state to implement it. We never used that discretion and, with the end of the transition period, that power disappeared; it was not transposed into UK law. The reality is that that power had been there for over a decade and successive Governments had never used it; that is why we need a specific amendment requiring the Government to introduce regulations to implement that principle and not leave permissive powers mouldering on the statue book for another two decades.

The Government then argued that this country’s licensing system for pesticides was world beating—to use that phrase—and did not need any improvements, and that the danger of residents spraying pesticides in their houses and gardens was negligible these days. Yet the Minister was unable to tell the House what tests were made on cocktails of pesticides and, also, on medical evidence, which in particular my noble friend—or, I should say, my noble co-signatory—Lady Finlay adduced during the passage of the Agriculture Bill and this Bill.

There are multiple incidents of acute harm, burns and breathing problems but, far more disturbingly, there are large numbers of cases where long-term effects are seen on neurological and immune systems, lung function and foetal health. These are dangerous. Of course, we are protecting other people; those who use the pesticides are protected by very strict health and safety regulations, wear protective clothing and are usually within a cab. Consumers are protected by very strict rules about pesticide residues being left on vegetables and fruit that reach our shops and markets. The people who are not protected are those who live in our countryside, right next to where this spraying is carried out. I find that omission appalling, and I do not understand why the Government are so reluctant to do something about it. I hope that I have the wholehearted support of this House in instructing the Government to do something about it. As I say, the details of that can be sorted out in regulation, but let us at least make the principle clear tonight.

In Committee, I refrained from quoting anybody, but a couple of examples caught my eye when I was going through this the other night. One woman said:

“My family have always lived next to fields sprayed with chemicals. My husband and my son died from neurological diseases. Our neighbouring farmer and his wife both have MS”—


and, she says, it is all down to those chemicals. Another said:

“I am sprayed with cocktails of pesticides by my neighbour, a fruit farmer, around 20 times per year. As a toxicologist I know that these agents are not meant to be used anywhere near residences and yet my home is covered with these chemicals every time he sprays”.


The Government themselves recognise this issue. In the codes of practice, they require farmers and others to notify nearby premises, but that is not enforced, and, in most cases, it does not happen. There is no such notification and, even when it does happen, there is no notification of what precisely is being sprayed because, by and large, by that stage, the particular application is not clear. However, it is clear everywhere else; it is clear to the medics and to the manufacturers, who put very strong warnings against inhalation or skin contact on the containers for these pesticides—and rightly so, because they are being responsible. I am asking the Government to take their responsibilities at least as seriously and today adopt an amendment that will give some hope to those families who historically have seriously suffered debilitation and sometimes worse, and to ensure that it does not affect families in the next generation.

I hope that the Minister will change course on this issue, accepting the need to look at it again and to take action to introduce regulation. Unfortunately, successive Governments have not done that, which is why I require the amendment to instruct the Government to take action. I hope that the House fully supports me on because too many people’s lives have been blighted to ignore this problem. I hope that the House can support this amendment today.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, and I support it very strongly. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will test the opinion of the House.

We have major problems with these chemicals. First, our testing regime tests single pesticides, but does not look at combinations or mixtures of pesticides. Secondly, people are required to notify local premises prior to spraying, but there are two difficulties with this: as downwind is not necessarily a short distance, these chemicals can travel very long distances, and you cannot predict the direction the wind is blowing. Another difficulty is that they sit on the land on crops, and when the sun comes out, they vaporise. Even though people might have been warned about spraying, the vaporisation means that the amount in the air goes up again and it is spread still further towards people living in the vicinity.

I have a list of references from different parts of the scientific literature which I will not go through in detail now, as it is not the time. But I point out that pesticides can cause deformities in unborn offspring, cancers, and mutations that poison the nervous system and block the natural defences of the immune system. The irreversible effects are permanent and cannot be changed once they have occurred. I have looked after an awful lot of cancer patients, many coming from farming communities in Wales. When they are young and ask me about exposure to chemicals, it is very difficult to have that conversation, because by then they, or maybe their child, is already so seriously ill or dying, that everything is irreversible. We cannot carry on doing this and polluting the environment without thinking again. Article 3(14) of EU Regulation 1107/2009 defines rural residents living in the locality of pesticide-sprayed crops as “vulnerable groups,” and they are recognised as having high pesticide exposure over the long term.

The side effects of the individual chemical agents are quite scary. When one looks at the cumulative effects long term, we cannot continue to ignore them. The effect on rural residents will go on and on, even for those living at sizeable distances. I hope that the House will reflect on the debate we had on the Agriculture Bill, when the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, told the Committee that we need a population in good health to cope with the threat of infection during the pandemic. We cannot carry on having a rural community that is being poisoned by its own actions in an attempt to supply us with food which is cheap and probably underpriced for the value which should go to farmers for responsible farming. I hope that this House will support this amendment.

Fire Safety Bill

Debate between Lord Whitty and Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in relation to the responsibilities of leaseholders. It is important that this is reflected in the terms of the Bill. Leaseholders are not the responsible person unless they happen to be co-owners or co-freeholders, and as we heard in the debates on earlier amendments, leaseholders are being faced with quite substantial costs. It would be wrong if the legislation allowed an interpretation whereby in certain circumstances they were the responsible person. They are not. The owners or their agents are the responsible person and we should make that quite clear.

I also strongly support the principles of the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Like him, I am astonished that at the moment, the regulations relating to domestic dwellings and indeed other buildings do not include a requirement on new build and major refurbishments for the installation of sprinklers.

Perhaps I may divert slightly from the question of high-rise domestic buildings. When I was at primary school in the 1950s, the school burned down. The fire actually started in my classroom. The report on that fire suggested that a simple sprinkler system would have quickly suppressed the fire and saved the building. As a result, when we returned to school, we were accommodated in temporary huts. Those temporary huts, in 1952, were required to have a rather crude sprinkler system. I was astounded to find out that in the year 2020, there is no such requirement for school buildings and no such requirement for high-rise buildings and premises in multiple occupation. That is something that should be addressed, if not in this Bill, at least in the batch of measures being brought forward by the Government in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy.

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue because it needs to form part of the Government’s thinking in relation to the overall response to fire safety problems. I hope that at some point the Minister can indicate where that proposition will end up. I would strongly support such an addition.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise that I could not participate at Second Reading. I had wanted to raise carbon monoxide detection—a silent killer production of combustion—with fire detection, but I understand it is outside the scope of this Bill. I would like to speak to Amendment 8, to which I have added my name. Let me explain why.

I remain haunted by seeing the blazing Grenfell Tower from my daughter’s window, and I have every sympathy with those whose flats all over the UK find their leasehold purchases are now valueless and are still paying out their mortgage and charges. Back in the 1970s, we financially squeezed ourselves to buy our first flat, only later to find it was built with high alumina cement and, until deemed safe, completely worthless. That is why I feel a commitment to others caught in this plight. This amendment would bring further clarity to the meaning of a “responsible person”, and ensure that leaseholders who are not also freeholders are not made liable or responsible for any remediation work needed as a result of poor building and development decisions on flats which they believed, and were told on checks, comply with building regulations. I want to read the Minister’s response to the previous amendment very carefully, as I hope that it allays some of my concerns, but I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has raised some ongoing questions.

The huge costs of fire safety checks, materials testing, removal and replacement of dangerous materials, and the retrofitting of sprinklers and other fire safety equipment, all currently fall to leaseholders. Let me illustrate this with information from one such leaseholder. For residents of three blocks of flats in Baltic Avenue, Brentford—which probably should never have been signed off—fire safety checks have been quoted between £15,000 and £24,000, the mock testing of current cladding and insulation will cost £50,000, and rectifying all identified issues has been initially quoted to be at least £6 million. The previous group of amendments highlighted the huge burden on leaseholders, so who is responsible? This is surely the responsibility of developers and their team of architects, builders, et cetera, and the freeholders—and what about the banks that earn an income from the loans?

As the Minister has pointed out, he is well aware of the crippling costs, and he is clearly committed to doing something about the many leaseholders living in flats that are currently valueless, that cannot be sold or re-mortgaged. Many leaseholders are already financially stretched and bought their flats using the Help to Buy scheme, but if they cannot afford to pay for the fire safety checks they need to obtain an ESW1 form, Homes England will not value any properties bought under the scheme. Despite living in flats that are valued at zero, many leaseholders still find themselves having to cover interest payments on a loan that was given on the basis that if it fell in value you paid less. If the flats are worth zero, have all these loans been reset to zero, and are we sure that that has happened?

Even more seriously, these leaseholders are now suffering real mental health problems, not only from the financial burdens but because they know they are stuck in flats tonight that could go up in flames at any moment. The removal of cladding and other dangerous materials really is a matter of life and death. All this means that insurance costs will be sky high for buildings that are still considered to pose such a high risk. Can the Government give us some evidence of really speedy action?

In July, the housing Minister agreed that all costs should not have to be met by leaseholders and should be met by the developers or building owners. Many leaseholders believe the Government have changed their position, saying that leaseholders would still have to foot some of the bill, but they just do not have the money to do it. This amendment rectifies this by being absolutely clear about who is responsible for what, and that is why I support it.