Combined Sewer Overflows

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend knows that there is a major investment in infrastructure, the largest ever, which is seeing many of those thousands of miles of Victorian pipes being replaced by modern ones. It is absolutely vital that any developments take into account the sewage infrastructure. That is why we are insisting on the entire impact of those, and any, developments being reflected in investment, and why we are front-loading a lot of the expenditure. We are requiring water companies to do a lot, but that is what their customers and the people of this country want. We have the right system by which to make that happen, and we want to encourage that expenditure to happen as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the current system of private monopolies dates back to 1989, when Margaret Thatcher sold off the publicly owned water and sewage industry for £7.6 billion, debt free. Since then, average household bills have risen 40% above inflation, the companies are now £54 billion in debt and have since paid out £66 billion in dividends to shareholders. Of the bills that people are paying today, 20p in the pound is going to shareholders or to cover that debt. Given that the regulation of these companies and the economic situation are clearly failing, surely it is now time for the Government to at least set up the process of looking into how we can bring these companies back into public hands and run them for public good.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness, but I have certainly had it put to me in this Chamber that, when this system of private ownership was put in place, it was somehow an ideological Conservative Government that was doing it. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was done because we were the dirty man of Europe: our rivers were stinking, and a very small percentage of our beaches were compliant. Now, we have nearly 93% of our bathing waters in good or improving conditions. I am not naive; I know that there are serious problems. But if the noble Baroness is really suggesting that the way of dealing with this is to completely change it and require the taxpayer to pay billions of pounds to purchase these companies back, which would see investment in this country into the regulated utility sector fall off a cliff, that is very dangerous not just for our water industry but our energy companies and every other regulated utility.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that the source of that misinformation will not be a surprise to him or anyone else. It is a regular source of misinformation, and it was quite correctly shot down in flames by the Botswanan Government.

My noble friend raised an important point, on which I will end. We should use the Bill to improve conservation by getting rid of bad trophy hunting practices, while at the same time keeping the good and improving standards and welfare for all. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for bringing the Bill to the House and championing it. For the Green group, I express my strongest possible support for the Bill as it stands—and opposition to all the amendments.

I have been in your Lordships’ House for nearly four years, and I have to admit that I was rather surprised when I looked at the misnamed “grouping of amendments”. I have never seen this before: it is a list of 62 amendments in 62 groups. It is surprising that people who might perhaps regard themselves as champions of the traditions of the House have produced something that has not been seen in recent history—and I checked with someone who has been around the House for much longer. It could keep this House going for several days. Those who would champion the traditions and progress of the House appear to be heading in the opposite direction with this.

It is interesting to look at the gender balance of the names on the amendments: every single one is male. There is something to be said there. Only the other day, I had a conversation with a noble Lord about how it has often been put forward that, if we could hand over some countries in the global south to the women, and let the women run things, they would look different. That might be an interesting case study tonight.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but is she really implying that those people, such as myself, who put down amendments have no right to express an opinion on this, and that their views are valueless because they are not female?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I would love to see a true balance of gender in contributions in your Lordships’ House, as I would love to see a balance of membership in it. Of course, we are a long way from that point here and in the other place.

Something else that joins the people expressing views here tonight in terms of moving the amendments is that these are a small number of people who appear to think that hunting is a sport. It might be something like a sport if you gave the elephants, lions and birds guns but, until you do that, it is a slaughter—and that is what is being supported by the proposers of amendments to this very modest and heavily supported Bill.

It is noticeable that the amenders and the people sitting in the Chamber tonight are all largely sitting on the Benches on one side. But this was a 2019 Conservative manifesto promise—to ban imports of hunting trophies for endangered species. The intent for such legislation was in the Queen’s Speeches in 2019 and 2022. A 2022 public opinion survey showed that 80% of the British public support a ban on the imports of hunting trophies. Again, for those champions of tradition who say that we are the unelected House and that we should not stand in the way of the will of the House of Commons, the Commons passed this Bill with only minor amendments in March 2023.

I want to pick up just one point expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who spoke about closeness to nature. We are talking about imports of these trophies into the UK. Practices of indigenous people embedded in local landscapes is one thing; a UK dentist or aristocrat bringing back a trophy from Africa is something else again. So I ask everyone proposing amendments to this Bill to search their conscience to ask themselves what they are really doing in the Committee this evening.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I support it as the first amendment because it highlights straightaway the need to put conservation at the heart of this Bill—not simply disgust at the idea of trophy hunting, but conservation. I hope that the Government will take account of this and of the arguments that they will hear this evening on both sides and that they will be able to bring an improved Bill back to the House.

I was struck on reading back through the Second Reading speeches, which unfortunately I mostly missed, at how widespread the disgust is at this practice. I share it, as I have never shot anything or hunted anything, and I cannot imagine why people want to do this. But of course the point of this Bill is not to express disgust at this; it is to improve the prospects for animals that are being hunted. To do this, we have to look at the broader context. Particularly in Africa, we have a situation of huge rising demographic pressure and huge rising demand for the products of poaching, especially as those countries that believe in traditional medicine get richer, and the pressure on poaching for the ingredients for traditional medicine becomes more severe year by year. We can make sense of this Bill only by looking at that wider context and looking at whether it takes account of those pressures.

In the earlier debate, there was a certain amount of, “Well, we all pick our experts, don’t we?” Of course, we do all pick our experts to some extent—but I am sure that noble Lords would agree with me that this is not a reason not ever to listen to experts. I was extremely struck by the recent letter to the Times, signed by almost 200 different experts, who were very clear in their request that our Government

“should support an amendment whereby hunting trophies are permitted only if”—

I would say if and when—

“they demonstrate clear benefits to both conservation and local livelihoods, fulfilling the government’s manifesto commitment and helping, rather than harming, conservation.”.

I do not know whether any noble Lords have ever been involved in trying to put together a letter to a newspaper, but when you get one that is signed by almost 200 people from a very wide range of countries and associations, you have to feel that there must be some major arguments and major concerns that need addressing. Just to name some randomly, we have: Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, the Frankfurt Zoological Society and the charity Stop Rhino Poaching; and we have experts from Kew, Oxford and Cambridge. Those are experts that we need to take some account of.

I was also very struck that, in fact, our Government internally recognise that hunting is not necessarily at odds with conservation. In fact, the Minister made this point himself at Second Reading, pointing out that

“some of the richest wildlife habitats that we find anywhere on these islands are sustained through the activities of people who hunt for sport”.—[Official Report, 16/6/23; col. 2245.]

I want to emphasise the need to take account of expert opinion, and the need to look at the context within which trophy hunting takes place. This does not mean that there is no place for this Bill. As the noble Earl has said, there are nuanced arguments. But when there are so many people arguing that we need to amend and improve this Bill, we should take these recommendations seriously and make sure that conservation is at the heart of this Bill. I therefore support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trees (CB)]

I am sorry, but there is no grouping, is there?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Every amendment is in a group.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Can I invite the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, to support our amendments tomorrow, since he clearly laid out what this House does? Some amendments tomorrow exactly cover the kinds of issues that he was talking about.

Clearly, the Bill deals with a very passionately felt issue, with strong views on both sides of the argument. That has come across today in Committee and previously. The debate was introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, with his Amendment 1. However, before referring to that, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, for introducing this Private Member’s Bill and for her excellent introduction at Second Reading. We offer our strong support to this Bill. I remind noble Lords that the ban which has been debated has widespread public support and clear cross-party support in Parliament.

There are many amendments in front of us today, but our concern around Amendment 1 is that the effect of the noble Earl’s proposal would be to grant to the Secretary of State alone the power to decide whether a legal prohibition applies, where it is within scope. We do not think that is the correct way to go forward with any legislation. We have said with regard to many Bills that the strong Henry VIII powers being given specifically to Secretaries of State is not how to go forward with legislation. Also, the proposal is not a standard clause retained within conservation or animal welfare legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned. That is specifically why we would not support Amendment 1.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, tried to speak to Amendment 34. I would like to make a point about the groupings. Degrouping every amendment from the proposed government groupings to deliberately frustrate the progress of this Bill is pretty poor and undermines a manifesto commitment of the party that those noble Lords say that they support. They are part of this Government. They sit on the Government Benches. This is pretty poor behaviour on their part, and I want to put that on the record.

Clothing Sales: Sustainability

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what they assess to be a sustainable level of clothing sales by volume and material in the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have not made an assessment of sustainable levels of clothing sales, but reducing textiles waste will be critical to hitting our net-zero goals. Our Maximising Resources, Minimising Waste paper, published in July, outlines our initial policy proposals for reducing textiles waste. We propose to ban textiles waste from landfill, require clothing retailers to provide in-store take-back of unwanted textiles and ask businesses to separate textiles waste for reuse and recycling.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and am pleased that he acknowledged the critical place of dealing with the fashion sector, given that 20% of the world’s water use and 10% of greenhouse gases are generated by this and that the level of waste has trebled in the last 20 years. However, in the EU they are actually making very strong rules compared with what the Minister offered: clothing must become more durable, more repairable and more recyclable, and they are demanding extended producer responsibility. When is the UK going to catch up with—or, if we are to be world leading, exceed—what the EU is doing now?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have very demanding targets in our Environment Act commitments, which include reduction by 50% to 2019 levels. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the impact of fashion and textiles in terms of both carbon and the use of embedded water, and we will be publishing details next year of how we are going to progress the producer responsibility for textiles. Our priority is packaging.

Climate Change

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

When I arrived at Defra in 2010, there were five ministerial cars; that has gone down to one, and I travel mostly by the use of an Oyster card.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell me the comparative fuel consumption and emissions from a helicopter flight compared to travelling by car?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

No, I am terribly sorry, but I am afraid that I cannot.

Disposable and Reusable Nappies

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take following the publication of the DEFRA report Life Cycle Assessment of Disposable and Reusable Nappies in the UK 2023.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I acknowledge support in work on this issue from the reusable nappy industry-linked Nappy Alliance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, Defra’s assessment of disposable and reusable nappies concluded that no type of nappy clearly had better or worse environmental performance across its life cycle. We have no plans to take further policy action on nappies at this time. We hope that industry will use the report to continue to improve the environmental impact of nappies, and that it helps consumers make the best choice for them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, although I find it somewhat astonishing. I am not quite sure that he is looking at the same report I am, given that it shows that reusables are 25% lower for carbon emissions right now. If you have a green electricity supplier they are 93% better, and in terms of material outputs they are 98% better. This report clearly shows that if the Government want to deliver on their waste reduction, carbon emission and plastic pollution targets, as well as saving so many families money, they should work towards reusables.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I wish it was as simple as that. The noble Baroness is absolutely right with her figures on the global warming potential of reusable versus disposal nappies. However, reusable nappies have a higher environmental impact in 11 categories. These include terrestrial acidification, marine eutrophication—the noble Baroness shakes her head, but it is in the report—fresh water and marine ecotoxicity, an issue she has raised with me before, human carcinogenic toxicity, mineral resource scarcity and domestic water consumption. If you look at this in a one-sided way, as somebody once said, with every action there is an equal opposite reaction.

REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I too have experience of dealing with REACH at the European level. When I was the general secretary of the European Trade Union Confederation, we worked with the British chemical industry, including the Chemical Industries Association—often against opposition from the powerful German chemical industry lobby, which was hostile to the whole concept of REACH. I was very pleased when we got it through; as my noble friend Lord Stansgate just outlined, it was not without considerable difficulty and this is an extremely complex area.

I will make two points today. First, I want to give a little tribute to the Chemical Industries Association, which I have found over the years to be as good a lobby group as any in the business world in terms of taking a broad view of issues, as well as looking after its members’ interests. That is important.

I am particularly concerned to ensure that in the extension that has been given, which I support, we continue to adhere to EU REACH, because we have nothing at the moment and the game plan is there. No doubt we will have some variations on it in due course, and I accept that, but in the meantime, in the absence of a British UK-EU arrangement, I hope that the Minister can ensure that the British industry follows the EU rules until they are replaced.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to express significant green concern about this SI and the general direction of travel. We must look at the framework within which we are considering this. We have recently seen published peer-reviewed research showing that the world has exceeded the planetary boundary for novel entities. We have natural systems and, increasingly, human health systems, that cannot cope with the burden of novel entities. I usually talk about those as shorthand for pesticides, plastics and pharmaceuticals, but it is basically what is covered by the REACH directive.

There is now increasing scientific and public concern about the impact of these on environmental health and public health. PFAS forever chemicals are one example of an area that we are coming to understand in our understanding of biology. Most organisms on this planet are structurally holobionts, made up not just of their own entities but of bacteria, fungi and viruses. We are grasping the sheer complexity of life on this planet far more than we did 10 or 15 years ago, and the impact of these chemicals is increasingly understood—for example, the impact of chemical exposure creating antimicrobial resistance, a whole new area of research where there have been considerable advances in the last few years.

In that context, it is interesting to look at some figures. I pay tribute to CHEM Trust, which has provided me with a large amount of information on this issue, with significant expressions of concern. If we take the substances of very high concern, the UK has not added any hazardous chemicals to its list since we left the European Union, while 24 substances have been added to the EU’s list. Defra is considering just four out of 10 substances for the UK list which the EU added in 2021 but is yet to publish assessments on them. In the meantime, another five substances were added to the EU list in 2022 and nine since January this year. This is happening at a very significant pace, and we are falling further and further behind. There seems to be no interest. Can the Minister suggest how we might catch up with the EU in this specific area?

There are obvious public and environmental health issues here, but there are also issues for trade. If our companies are operating on our standards, they will increasingly be excluded from other markets. The Prime Minister has this week been speaking of the desire to be world-leading in innovation. When substances of very high concern are put on that list, there is a push on companies to look for alternatives—to innovate and find new ways of doing things. If we are not creating an environment in which that is likely to happen, then even in the Government’s own terms we are falling behind on the global stage of science and innovation.

Picking up on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, it is worth noting that the UK was one of the driving forces behind the creation of EU REACH and the restriction of chemicals regulations in 2007. Last night, I was at an Industry and Parliament Trust meeting, talking about trade. I heard there an expert in standards talking about how the UK has in recent decades been a leader in pushing the creation of ISO standards. However, it is our industry, our scientists and our NGOs that led that push towards higher standards. The Government must keep up, and support the drive in our industry, our NGOs and our scientists.

I shall pick up the points made by other noble Lords about the lack of regulatory capacity. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have pointed to this lack, which is creating serious problems that are being identified on every side. Others have already spoken about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which also highlights concerns about human health and the environment, and the HSE’s capacity. We are hearing the same messages from all angles.

In particular, the impact assessment says that the absence of data

“could lead to reduced regulatory oversight and regulatory delays”,

but suggests that it would not be significant because other sources of information can be drawn on. However, the publicly available information about registered substances in EU REACH does not include details on safety tests, uses and how the industry reached its conclusion on the hazards and risks of substances.

The time factor needs to be focused on, as does the fact that we know that today, at this moment, we are exposing everyone in Britain and every bit of the UK’s natural systems to harm from chemicals that we continue to release into the environment when we know we should not be doing so. That will keep piling the costs on. The slower we operate, the more costs there will be. Think of the pressure on our NHS and on one of the nature-depleted corners of this battered planet: if we act slowly, the costs will just keep mounting up. For example, I mentioned PFAS forever chemicals: once they are there, we cannot get rid of them. There is no going backwards if we allow their use to continue.

I have some very specific questions. Will the UK look towards mirroring, moving faster than and eventually matching the EU’s pace of action, particularly on the chemicals of most concern? The UK Government talk about whether a control is right for GB. Do the Government see lower standards as being in some way better for us? How can the Minister say that lower standards of chemical regulation and safety are better for us?

An issue on which I have done a great deal of work and have a great deal of concern is microplastics. The Committee will remember microbeads. Indeed, the Government acted a few years ago on microbeads, but many intentionally added microplastics are still not covered by that legislation, which the REACH work programme of 2022-23 indicated as one of its five priorities. However, it has not yet published an evidence review or initiated any restrictions. Can the Minister tell me when we are likely to see that evidence review on intentionally added microplastics? In the light of that question, I note that EU national experts recently voted to adopt restrictions at the REACH Committee. That is now going to the European Parliament and the European Council, so the EU has steps in progress on these microplastics. When will we?

To be really concrete and scientific, and to focus on the importance of this for environmental and, potentially, human health, we—by which I mean scientists collectively: the human race—have identified the new disease of plasticosis. That was identified in one species of seabird, because we have looked for it in only one species of seabird. We are choking this planet with plastics and we have no idea what that is doing to us or to nature.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I had the honour to serve on the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee when it considered Brexit and the trouble with EU REACH, in that it was not in the least transferable so it is totally dependent on grandfathering, unless there is a stream in which we allow people to apply for new chemicals. We obviously started from zero in our collection and we rely on manufacturers to submit the EU REACH approvals. Do we keep track of how extensive our REACH is, compared with the European one? As the previous speaker said, the EU is expanding its schemes. Do we have tighter regulations than the EU imposes at present?

--- Later in debate ---

We have made these changes to UK REACH without any impact on the high levels of human health and environmental protections, as demonstrated by the consistency statement and the impact assessments that accompanied the public consultation in summer 2022. Our chemicals sector is world leading and one of the UK’s largest manufacturing exporters by value. We fully recognise this sector’s economic importance and its importance to the way we all live our lives. At the same time, we also recognise the risks to human health and the environment if chemicals are not used properly. We must continue to strike an important balance between these two factors. I commend the draft regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I briefly raise two points? He said that a difference in exposure patterns would help to explain the differences in regulation between the EU and the UK. I tried to imagine what those differences might be. Some parts of the EU have considerably more heavy industry. We were at a joint event this morning where we were told that both have large areas of factory farming. Thinking about what people actually consume in the EU and the UK, I cannot think of any significant differences between the two that there would be in the pattern of life in terms of consumption. Either now or perhaps in writing, would he consider explaining what those different exposures are?

Finally, I acknowledge that the Minister very much welcomed and is enthusiastic about the microplastics review. What timeframe are we looking at there? I realise that he might not be able to be precise, but will it be this year or next year?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness half answered her first question. An example is that river flow is often lower in England than in the EU. That is a factor, but I will certainly go back to the department and seek further answers on that and on her subsequent question on plastics. I will certainly write to her.

Land Use Commission

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 22nd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord identifies a strange social phenomenon which is going on, where people who can afford to live in villages are driving into towns to commute or work there, and they are passing people who cannot afford to live in the villages but who work on the farms or in the countryside around them. We have a very clear, determined policy to extend the exception site housing scheme and support local authorities, parish councils and those communities which want to grow organically. Providing affordable housing in rural areas is key.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are some existing land uses that are simply too environmentally destructive, too carbon emitting, and have too little benefit for human and non-human animals, and that this needs to be addressed? Is that something the land use commission could address, or will the Government address it in other ways?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness is talking about; she might have given me some examples. It is important that a land use framework gives land managers the ability to plan into the future, knowing what is predisposed from the land, where it is best to plant trees, where we will concentrate our desperate economic and environmental imperative of reversing the declines in species, and where we will produce food. We will have a real attempt at giving land managers the understanding they need to take their businesses forward in this new and changing world.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register, being a farmer in receipt of payments. I shall speak from a grass-roots perspective and perhaps be a little more critical.

On 26 January this year, the Minister in the other place introduced the Government’s agricultural transition plan with the words:

“We will learn from the past”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/23; col. 1191.]


I regret that the Conservatives are slow to do so. The errors of the common agricultural policy will not absolve them of their mistakes, repeatedly made. That is not to say that I am not in favour of the new approach towards payments for environmental benefits; it is the poor way in which they are being introduced that I regret.

I regret that Conservatives still insist on basing environmental payments on the income-foregone model, long discredited since the start of Pillar 2 payments many years ago. I had thought that, under the new post-EU system, farmers were to be rewarded for the value of the benefits for the public good of enhancing the environment. Under the cross-compliance features of the CAP it made some sort of sense, but it makes no sense where schemes replace elements of agricultural production and payments go nowhere near the value of cropping, hence the poor uptake in many of the schemes under Countryside Stewardship.

I regret that the Conservative Government paid little attention during the passage of the Agriculture Act to calls that payments need to be worth while under new ELM schemes and that it would be foolish to reduce payments aggressively during the transition before there were meaningful ELM alternatives that could be understood and planned for in future farm business plans. This approach is not a way to build confidence. Conservatives tend to like to reduce, restrict and restrain rather than to undertake positive provisions for growing the market and providing inclusive initiatives.

Against the background of climate change, energy price rises and the war in Ukraine, food security and the lack of certain products on supermarket shelves have highlighted the reduction of support to, and confidence of, farmers. The disastrous trade deal with Australia and New Zealand, agreed by the discredited Liz Truss as Trade Secretary, is not welcomed.

The CAP was an agricultural policy, not an environmental one. Payments were made only to farmers. NGOs and environmental charities were envious that they did not qualify. The Government will say that the same budget of £2.5 billion is still being maintained, but it no longer goes only to farmers. No wonder the NGOs are enthusiastic in their praise. While the money is cut from BPS payments to farmers, can the Minister give the figure for the amount returned to farmers—as distinct from NGOs—from environmental land schemes? Is he able to break down that amount between farm types to clarify the effect of reductions to the uplands, perhaps the most stressed and vulnerable agricultural sector?

I will use another word beginning with R: could the Minister “refrain” from saying it is up to farmers to apply for the new schemes that were introduced in late January? The Minister’s department set itself the ambition of attracting all 80,000 farmers under the BPS to be involved in environmental land management schemes. The department would also need to include tenants, now able to take part under the Rock reforms. That would show the Government’s full commitment to have the countryside in a better state as we drive our ambition to achieve net zero by 2050. As a baseline, can the Minister say how many farmers—not NGOs—participated in schemes last year?

I urge the Minister to learn from the past and develop schemes that are simple and effective. Farmers do not want 100 pages of bureaucracy. Could communication be improved and directed at each qualifying farm in a determination to be inclusive and encouraging, as part of the 30 by 30 commitment? The ambition must be to include all the farms, with their farmers, in schemes at the end of the transition period that began in the Agriculture Act 2020.

Getting the wider 30% of land well-managed for biodiversity by 2030 is a huge challenge. I draw attention here to the fact that all farmers would want to be included, respond positively to challenges and can bring huge benefits across all types of land, in addition to those already protected under designated protections.

Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government intend the 2023 claim year to be the

“last year of the … Direct Payment scheme”.

In the new system for 2024, will the Government repeat the mistakes they committed previously, with a lack of timely detail, a lack of funding and the same philosophy of reduce, restrict and restrain? Perhaps the Minister can be encouraging this evening

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I find myself in the entirely familiar position of agreeing with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, particularly her reflections on the stranglehold that supermarkets have over farmers’ lives in this country. However, I find myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with both the Liberal Democrats’ fatal amendment and the regret amendment from the Labour Benches. At base, that is because, if we were not to take the steps that this SI delivers, the shift away would see £770 million—as calculated by the RSPB—taken away from helping farmers to take action on climate change, reduce water pollution, plant trees and restore nature.

It is worth noting that, under the Environmental Improvement Plan, 90% of the funding for tree planting —to meet the target of 16.5% of England being covered by trees by 2050—depends on ELMS funding. Some 80% of progress on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture depends on ELMS funding. Of course, that is not to say that there are not huge problems with where we are, as the right reverend Prelate, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others pointed out. The Carbon Brief website has a useful interactive table that lists the 270 activities that farmers can undertake to earn payments, particularly from SFI and CS schemes; 39 of those 270 are still at the planning stage, yet the base payments are being cut away.

The Minister will be surprised to hear that I will pass a small bouquet in his direction: the Soil Association has just acknowledged that payments for organic farming are rising by an average of 25% via the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which is a recognition of the benefits of organic production. But, picking up the points about small farms, it is worth noting—perhaps the Minister can write to me about this—that in Wales they are looking to reduce the size of farms eligible for farm payments to three hectares, or, alternatively, to farming businesses that rely on 550 hours of labour per year. Will the Government look at helping those smaller producers, particularly in horticulture, and perhaps small-scale livestock producers, to do that?

But—I suspect the Minister knew there was a “but” coming—my reason for regretting the Labour regret amendment is, as the Minister identified, the fact that farmers and land managers in the UK now need certainty about the future for long-term plans. If you are going to plant trees or herbal leys, you need to know what is happening not just this year or next year but in the long term. Given where we are in the electoral cycle, the Labour regret amendment will deliver to farmers a degree of uncertainty about where they might be in two or three years, in terms of the schemes that the current Conservative Government introduced—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I honestly do not think that my regret amendment does that at all. We are trying to point out that the transition has not been straightforward and is not working properly for either the environment or farmers, and that the Government need to urgently re-evaluate their approach to the ongoing transition in order to get this to work for everybody.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the reassurance. I hope that farmers around the country will hear and feel that there is a degree of certainty, because that is what they need, as I said.

I will now get to the part where I criticise the Government. With these kinds of policies, we need a method of policy-making by consensus. In other countries, particularly those with proportional representation electoral systems, there is decision-making that is arrived at by consensus. It would have been better if this had been constructed in a more stable and secure way, in consultation with all parts of our political system, to deliver the certainty that farmers need. As has been said from all sides of your Lordships’ House, that is not the position that farmers are in today.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer and landowner. Despite my position as a loser of financial support under the Government’s current policies, I am against these amendments.

Small farmers in this country, particularly upland farmers, are dependent on predictable government support to plan their businesses and to enable investment to achieve positive environmental outcomes. Many of those farmers are on a financial knife-edge, and these amendments would throw the plans for those embracing change into turmoil. I am familiar with the finances of typical upland farmers in my home county of Devon and their reliance on consistent and predictable government support. Changing that government support now is not helpful.

Food Price Inflation

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will know, we have extended free school meals to the largest group of children for decades, and we will continue to look at any other measures we can take. I draw her attention to the work that the Department of Health and Social Care has done for infants. It has increased Healthy Start food vouchers from £3.10 to £4.25, which is a significant increase, helping low-income families to buy basic food such as milk, fruit and vitamins, ensuring that families are not choosing between costs and healthy choices. There are many other areas where the Government can assist, such as advice on diet and nutrition that enables families to make the right choices for them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement expresses great faith in the food supply chain, which I can see only as an expression of extreme complacency. It also reflects that domestic suppliers—that is, supermarkets—have kept prices low. Has that not been the source of recent supply problems? The Government have been suggesting that we should be eating more turnips. Of course, the majority of turnips that we consume are produced outside the UK. Does the Minister agree that we cannot keep relying on the soil, water and labour of others to feed ourselves, particularly for the fruit and vegetables which we need far more of?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Our food supply chain was tested as never before through the pandemic. The noble Baroness looks at me as if to say that that is not the case—it is the case. It was tested as never before and found to be secure. With one or two short-term exceptions, it kept us in this country able to have the food that we needed available to us. On costs of lines in supermarkets, Defra works with retailers on a weekly basis to see what direction they are taking to tackle the crisis in household incomes and to make sure that lower-priced products are available, and that those lines are continuing. We do not have a command and control economy that directs our retailers in what they can produce, but they have risen to the challenge, providing a great many lower-priced lines which will continue to be available for families such as this. I hope that will continue.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

I cannot see where there is security of retained by default; I just do not see it and it is such an important issue that we really need proper clarification on. If the Minister is able to point out exactly where the Bill states that it is retained by default, that would be extremely helpful.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, and to speak to Amendments 126 and 130, which they have already so ably introduced and to which I have attached my name, both of which have the fullest and broadest possible range of support across parties and non-parties in your Lordships’ House. I essentially agree with everything the noble Baronesses said, although I would perhaps give the Government rather less praise for what I would say are the extremely limited measures on polluter pays they have so far delivered than the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, did.

First, on Amendment 126, Clause 15 has been described as the “Ministers can do whatever they like” part of the Bill. I note that the Peers for the Planet briefing, among others—I should declare my position on the advisory board of Peers for the Planet—says that the direction of travel of the Bill is deregulatory. We are hearing one set of rhetoric, but ultimately, what we are talking about is the law and what will be written into it. That is what will hold sway, not fine words we might hear about a desire for higher standards. It is important also to stress that both amendments deal with environmental issues, but these are also very acutely human health issues: look at the current parlous state of public health in the UK. We really cannot afford to be going backwards in any such areas.

Amendment 126 tries to address the fact that there are no non-regression clauses in the Bill. This is trying to bring in a non-regression clause in one area. I would like a non-regression clause to apply to every category, whatever a category is, that the Bill might identify, but I will stick with the things that are identified in these two amendments, at least as some kind of starting point. When we come to Amendment 130, it is clear—and we had long and hard fights in your Lordships’ House, as I recollect, in the Environment Act 2021—that we need non-regression clauses, and there is also the power to amend what we are now calling retained EU legislation, so it is there in primary legislation; the power already exists, with rules applying to it.

I am not a lawyer and I am not sure whether the lawyers present in the Committee can explain to me how we can have non-regression clauses applying to a set of regulations in one Bill while another Bill has no non-regression clauses. It depends which Bill you use as to whether regression or non-regression is going to apply. Let me guess which law the Government are likely to want to use. Let us have a guess, shall we?

I turn to Amendment 126, and I am seeking to add to rather than repeat what the other noble Baronesses have said. I want to focus on ensuring that we do not conflict with relevant international environmental agreements. I am actually not sure about that, with the way this is currently written—and indeed this is a fast-moving area. Of course, since this amendment was written, we have finally had, after 20 years of negotiation, very excitingly, the agreement on the high seas treaty. That is a real step forward. We also have a mandate for negotiating a UN treaty on plastic pollution. This is where a significant amount of environmental action is happening. We can surely have something in the Bill to say, “We will comply with the international agreements that we have signed up to”, and, indeed, in many cases that we claim to be, and in some cases are, leading.

It might be said that we do not need to do that, but if it is not a problem for the Government, why cannot we write it in anyway? Many noble Lords will have just picked up the Illegal Migration Bill, on the front of which is a statement from the Home Secretary:

“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions … are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government … wishes the House to proceed”.


I truly believe that we need a statement written into this Bill—perhaps every Bill—that we will comply with international obligations that we have signed up to.

Finally, I turn to the non-regression elements in both amendments and the paragraph in the famous letter about overall regulatory burden and what a “category” is. It might reasonably be thought that regulations applying to plastics are a category, so I will explore a practical example of what these amendments could stop. In the last week or so, some extremely disturbing research has come out on the impacts of microplastics; in particular, the newly identified disease of plasticosis. It has been found in the digestive tracts of flesh-footed shearwaters—that is only one seabird, but the experts tell us that there is no biological reason why what is happening to it is not happening to all of us as we ingest what research suggests is up to 5 grams of plastic a week, depending on your diet.

The disease has been given that name because it is like silicosis and asbestosis: it is an inorganic material causing irritation to biological tissues. This is really serious. A few days ago, the Times quoted Dr Luisa Campagnolo, an expert in histology and embryology, as telling the American Association for the Advancement of Science that

“we should not drink bottled water in plastic bottles.”

That is what someone who is looking at the damage being done to tissues is saying.

Let us imagine that the science gets stronger in the next year or two—we can see the direction in which it is heading—and we want to bring in an SI to end all use of plastic bottles for food materials and drinks. What could be the conceivable counteracting release of regulation to achieve a balance of no greater regulatory burden? What in the area of plastics would you have to abolish to balance that? These amendments attempt to deal with issues such as that.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these two amendments and congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman of Ullock, on the way in which they introduced them. It is slightly ironic that the Government have just published their Environmental Improvement Plan, yet we do not have any sentiment of improvement in this Bill. In fact, we have a distinct deregulatory flavour with this emphasis on not increasing burdens.

In a way, I will miss this Committee, because we have been getting these wonderful letters from Ministers over the last few days. I thank the hot and cold running supply of Ministers wheeled in for this Bill for their correspondence on the issues we have raised on the various days of Committee. I confess that today’s letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on the safeguards around Clause 15 did not leave me any the wiser on the definition of “alternative provision”, but perhaps most germane to these amendments was the letter of 28 February from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on the definition of “regulatory burden”. It left us all, as many noble Lords have said, confused about how not increasing the overall regulatory burden will be assessed—other than, as the Minister has just told us, that it will be up to Ministers to decide whether they are satisfied that the use of the power does not increase the overall regulatory burden in a subject area. I am sure that case law will have to prevail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I never said that. I was the Minister who made the sewer that is being put in place happen. I know all about the urban waste water treatment directive, and it is a very good directive indeed. It is cleaning up a lot of rivers and will ensure that we have more investment such as we are seeing in the Thames. There may be cases where there has been poor implementation, and there may be cases where there has been very good European regulation which we want to see retained. There may be areas where we can see an improvement which reflects a local dynamic in our environment.

We cannot talk about this in a binary sense. There is some very good EU law which we want to see continue, there are some areas in which it is no longer necessary, and there are some areas in which with a few tweaks it can be improved. Among the proposed conditions in the amendment is a requirement to publish a statement setting out how such environmental standards have been met. Such conditions are already being met under the Environment Act 2021. The Act has established a robust legal framework to deliver environmental benefits and hold Governments, both now and in the future, to account in delivering them. Crucially, the Act also established the Office for Environmental Protection, an independent body to scrutinise government delivery and progress on environmental ambitions. In addition, we have a statutory duty, through the Environment Act, to report annually to Parliament on progress against the environment improvement plan and to undertake a significant improvement test every five years.

To reiterate the point on REACH, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised, we recognise there may be concerns about the future of REACH regulation. That is why we have deliberately built protections into the provisions of the Environment Act. The Secretary of State must publish a statement to explain how any proposal is consistent with the basic aim and scope of REACH. There must be consultation before we can make any changes. We have also excluded more than 20 provisions to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, including the no dating, no market principle, using animal testing only as a last resort, and the public transparency of the system.

Finally, I want to clarify a response made to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, the last time I addressed the Committee on the Bill’s removal of interpretive effects. The removal of interpretive effects by the Bill refers to measures in Clauses 3 to 5 which repeal rights, powers and liabilities saved by Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They abolish the principle of the supremacy of EU law and general principles of EU law as aids to interpretation of the UK statute book. Retained case law is not being sunsetted.

Further detail on interpretive effects was set out by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his letter circulated before the Committee on 6 March. We will shortly publish a list for noble Lords, so they will have plenty of time and opportunity to review the regulations we intend to allow to expire at the end of the year and those we wish to retain.

The Government are committed to upholding the environmental protections. I hope I have reassured noble Lords, and I therefore ask them not to press these amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The Minister speaks for Defra and assures the Committee that the Government are entirely committed to progressing environmental standards and will follow international law. Why is there any problem putting a non-regression clause and an agreement to follow international law in the Bill if that is what the Government plan to do anyway? Further to that, can the Minister assure me 100% that before the next general election there will be no change of direction in the Government, change in Prime Minister or change in ministerial personnel?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I wish I could. I am very content with the current lot, and I hope they continue. I do not really understand the first point that the noble Baroness made. The Bill is quite explicit about where this stands in law. We want a proper regulatory regime underpinned by law; that is why we are having this debate.