Water Companies

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

One thing we have been doing is working with landowners on small storage areas. We know it can be very effective in things such as flooding, as well as providing water for livestock, for example. It is a very good point because, as well as building new large reservoirs to provide drinking water, we need to look at how we put less pressure on our water system. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be very helpful.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, are the rumours true that the Government will not publish the water Bill until Thames Water is resolved? The company is in breach of its licence conditions by not having held any grade credit ratings for nearly the last two years and by having failed to tell Ofwat and the Government about change of control. The only plan for the future appears again to be to leave it up to shareholders to own and pillage. Its independent expert states that the cost to the Government of special administration would be zero in the medium term, so why not get on with it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware of any such rumours. I do not know where they have come from, but I am not aware of them. On Thames Water, the Government are actively working very closely with Ofwat, which is evaluating the latest proposals from the consortium. Clearly, in doing that it has to take the best interests of customers and the environment into account. We are looking at all and any eventualities that may come out of those discussions with Ofwat, which includes being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.

South East Water: Disruption of Supply

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

The Government established the Water Delivery Taskforce last spring to ensure that we have sufficient water supplies and wastewater capacity to support the Government’s ambitions and the country as a whole. Having sufficient water supply is absolutely critical for the country, and is something that we are taking very seriously. I am sure the noble Earl will be interested in looking at how the proposals in the water Bill, which is coming later this year, will also help to support the long-term security of our water industry.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

At what critical point of failure are the Government willing to act in the interests of customers in the South East Water area, who have been failed time and again? Will the Government now urgently consider a different model from the previous Government—one which rejects shareholder profit being placed above investment in more resilient systems—and change to something like a mutually owned public-benefit model, or will we continue to see care homes struggling and businesses closing because they are failed by a service that is so fundamental? When exactly will we get a water Bill to fix this?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not think there is anybody in this House who would disagree that the water industry needs a serious shake-up. That is one reason why we brought in, as a priority, the Water (Special Measures) Bill when we came into power in the previous Session, and it is why a priority for this Session is the water Bill that will come later this year. Clearly, proper support for customers is critical. We cannot have a situation where customers cannot rely on their water service. We will be bringing in reforms in that Bill that should lead to greater control in order that we do not continually end up in the situation that we have ended up in recently.

Access to Nature Green Paper

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I meant she had never seen a red squirrel, which is very sad. I am also happy to pitch for a red squirrel on the cover of the Green Paper when it comes out.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Will the Minister explain how the Government’s planning reforms will improve access to nature and identify the most nature-deprived communities, given what feels like the absence of a clear strategy? Access to nature is the strongest driver of local pride, and there is significant public support for something along these lines, including the National Trust’s own Nature = Future campaign.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One reason we are determining the new national river walks in the places we are looking at is to get more deprived communities out into nature. That is why the Mersey Valley Way, which starts in Stockport, was chosen first. It gets people from those deprived communities out into nature, close to home. The figures we are getting at the moment suggest that it is being well used. It is incredibly important and we will continue to do what we can to encourage those who do not access nature to do so for their own health and mental well-being.

EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course, while the negotiations are ongoing—there are regular meetings, and it is reaching an intensive phase—I am afraid I cannot give any detail at all. However, as I said before, as a sovereign country we need to choose to align where it is in our national interest, but at the same time we need to ensure that where we have areas where we believe we need to be able to do our own thing, if you like, we are in a position to do so. But, as I say, those negotiations are still ongoing.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, how will the Minister ensure that farmers, consumer groups and innovators are not only consulted but that their concerns get to directly shape the final SPS agreement? Although I understand that the negotiations are ongoing, is she able to give any kind of guarantee here today that there will be explicit safeguards for novel foods and precision fermentation so that regulatory alignment does not stifle British innovation?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, while negotiations are ongoing, I am unable to give guarantees, but I will say that we are working extremely closely with all those who would be impacted by the outcomes of any SPS agreement, particularly on agri-foods. We meet very regularly with farmers, producers, hauliers and supermarkets—I spent last week in Northern Ireland doing a big business round table with Northern Ireland producers particularly on this—so we are very keen to ensure that we hear from everyone who is likely to be impacted.

Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 19 March 2026. They reflect the Government’s commitment to securing strong outcomes for nature recovery while supporting sustainable economic growth, as outlined in the Corry review. The regulations are a practical example of that approach in action.

The UK’s wildlife trade regulations give effect to our international obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES exists to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants is legal and sustainable and does not threaten the survival of species. The United Kingdom has long played a leading international role in strengthening the convention and combating illegal wildlife trade, and we continue to do so.

Domestically, CITES controls are implemented through a strict licensing framework administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Every year, approximately 60,000 permits are issued to businesses and organisations engaged in legal and sustainable trade—ranging from the pet trade to horticulture, cosmetics, zoos, museums and orchestras. While modest in overall scale, this activity supports diverse livelihoods and interests across the UK.

However, parts of the current system are complex, duplicative and rooted in processes designed for trade within the EU. These regulations therefore modernise this framework. They retain strong protections for endangered species while removing unnecessary administrative burdens where risk is low, improving efficiency for businesses and regulators and strengthening enforcement where needed. The instrument amends four pieces of assimilated EU law and revokes one that is no longer required. Taken together, the amendments strengthen conservation protections while allowing the digitisation and modernisation of administrative processes.

The reforms reflect a precautionary, risk-based approach and have been informed by consultation with environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives, enforcement bodies and the UK’s scientific authorities. This ensures that protections for species at risk of overexploitation not only remain firmly in place but are enhanced where the evidence supports doing so.

Let me now outline some of the key changes. First, for some low-risk species, the current system goes further than it needs to. Export permits issued by the exporting country confirm sustainability. Import permits issued by the UK authorities add a further layer of due diligence. For the most threatened species, that extra layer of scrutiny is absolutely right and will remain. However, for lower-risk species, these regulations will allow a lighter-touch import notification instead, meaning that we will keep oversight and traceability while cutting out unnecessary duplication and delay for legitimate businesses. Low-risk species will be identified based on the best available scientific evidence; examples of this could include some species of artificially propagated plants from highly compliant destinations. These will also be kept under close review if risks or trade patterns change.

Secondly, the regulations streamline our Article 10 certificate system, which supports how we control domestic trade in the most vulnerable species. Many UK businesses legally breed CITES-listed species or produce derived goods for export. At present, that can mean the need for an Article 10 certificate and a separate export permit. In clearly defined cases, to be outlined in guidance, these regulations will allow an export or re-export permit to serve as an Article 10 certificate for a limited six-month period; this will reduce duplication while, at the same time, keeping any necessary safeguards in place.

In addition, the regulations will introduce a targeted exemption from Article 10 controls for three low-risk Mediterranean tortoise species when traded domestically. These species are widely and legally captive bred and are not found in the wild in the UK. The existing controls were designed to protect wild populations elsewhere in Europe but, in a Great Britain-only context, they now deliver limited additional conservation benefits. Importantly, all import and export controls will remain fully in place, ensuring continued protection against illegal or unsustainable trade.

Thirdly, the regulations will deliver practical improvements for touring orchestras and travelling exhibitions. By recognising certificates issued by other countries and allowing agents to apply on behalf of performers, they will remove unnecessary duplication and support cultural exchange without weakening important conservation controls.

Fourthly, the regulations set out clear criteria for the temporary designation of ports of entry for CITES specimens—for example, to support urgent conservation or animal welfare cases. These provisions cannot be used for commercial trade and apply only where the necessary expertise and safeguards for effective checks are in place.

We estimate that these changes, as well as the other proposed amendments in the regulations, will reduce the number of permits issued by up to 30% each year; that is in the region of 20,000 fewer permits being issued every year. This will generate significant savings for businesses and the regulator, contributing to the Prime Minister’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulation by 25%.

The regulations will also strengthen enforcement for cases of non-compliance by extending the use of civil sanctions. We will apply civil sanctions to six additional existing offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations and the Customs and Excise Management Act. These offences include using, obtaining, trading or transporting CITES specimens without valid permits or using false, altered or misused documentation. This fills a gap between issuing a warning letter and a criminal prosecution, allowing regulators to respond proportionately while maintaining a strong deterrent. Criminal sanctions will continue to be used where they are deemed proportionate to the infraction. Statutory guidance will be published prior to the civil sanctions being brought into force, ensuring that their application is both consistent and fair.

In conclusion, these regulations will strengthen our implementation of international obligations, uphold high standards of species protection and animal welfare, and ensure that regulation is targeted where it is most needed. The Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders to support effective implementation and ongoing compliance. Taken together, they strike the right balance between rigorous protection and practical delivery, safeguarding nature while allowing legitimate and responsible activity to proceed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose as we race towards the end of this Session. Everyone should be able to enjoy our natural environment. We have a duty to ensure that future generations inherit a world defined by biodiversity, not decline. It is important, therefore, that we look beyond administrative modernisation to its practical impact on the protection of endangered species. The United Kingdom has the potential to demonstrate great leadership in conservation, but that leadership depends on maintaining our strong, credible and enforceable standards. We on these Benches have consistently argued for a fair deal for the environment, including a commitment that trade and imports should not undercut our very high standards of animal welfare and environmental protections.

Against that backdrop, I have some concerns about the direction taken in these regulations. First, there is a shift towards ministerial discretion. The regulations provide for additional measures and restrictions to be set out through guidance, rather than being clearly defined in legislation. Although flexibility may have its place, the use of guidance in areas of environmental protection raises issues around transparency, consistency and accountability. Clear, statutory rules provide certainty for enforcement bodies, businesses and the public. If greater reliance is to be placed on this guidance, we must have reassurance that it will not weaken oversight or reduce clarity in practice.

Secondly, on the simplification of permit and certificate requirements, efficient systems are important—no one would wish to impose unnecessary administrative burdens, and we welcome the progress on that—but simplification cannot create unintended opportunities for exploitation. Changes affecting so-called low-risk movements, including for certain Annex B specimens, for example, require careful scrutiny. Even limited relaxations in documentation can, if not properly designed and monitored, create openings for the illegal wildlife trade, whether in exotic pets, hunting trophies or wildlife-derived products such as fur.

Thirdly, the regulations do not address a long-standing concern raised by conservation organisations: the absence of a clear domestic offence covering the trade in wildlife that has been illegally sourced in its country of origin. Without such a provision, there remains a risk that the UK could be used, however unintentionally, as a market for products that have contributed to environmental harm elsewhere. If the Government are serious about tackling biodiversity loss globally, this is an issue that needs attention.

More broadly, it is important that any changes to this framework do not result in the UK falling behind comparable international standards. Our approach should be to maintain and, where possible, strengthen protections. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, how will the Government ensure that the increased use of guidance provides the same level of transparency and legal certainty as provisions set out in legislation? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the risk that simplified permit requirements for Annex B specimens, as I explained earlier, could be exploited; and what safeguards will be in place to prevent abuse? Thirdly, will the Government either reconsider the case for introducing a domestic offence, covering the trade in wildlife illegally sourced aboard, or commit to reviewing this issue within a defined timeframe? These are not small, technical matters—they go to the heart of whether this framework will operate as an effective tool for conservation.

Finally, although I recognise the intention to streamline the system, I look forward to us being reassured that these changes will maintain robust protection, support enforcement and uphold the UK’s reputation as a responsible actor in global wildlife conservation.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, listening to this debate, it becomes apparent just how diverse our nation’s agriculture is. For every remark by one speaker, there is probably someone who knows about agriculture in a different part of the country, in a different sector, where it is not directly relevant. But the message that comes across—and I declare my interests in agriculture in Cumbria, which the Minister knows about—has the same effect: what ought to be a profitable activity, providing public goods, which is not merely food but a whole range of other things, becomes unsustainable quite simply because it does not pay. It does not matter how you look at this; at the end of the year, if income and expenditure do not balance, then that enterprise cannot survive for all that long.

I think that government has an important role to play in every advanced western society. The Government provide a framework around which farming, agriculture and land use functions, not least because the consequences of what is done are so important in widely varying ways to other parts of the economy. What worries me about the debates on agriculture in this country is that, if agriculture is not sustainable and if the businesses, be they big or small, become unsustainable and cannot survive on their own commercial terms, either because they cannot generate enough revenue from husbandry or other land use activities that they carry out, or, equally important, because of the incidence of tax that they will have to pay—it is no good thinking that an inheritance tax is a kind of one-off thing; the reality is that you have to put aside money year on year in order to build up a reserve or, alternatively, borrow money which then has to be paid off over a long period to pay off the debt that is owed to the state—we will continue in a world where many of those who are operating in a smaller way in the agricultural sector are on standards of living below those promised to the employed sector by the minimum wage.

That is not the basis for a long-term, sustainable, rural, agricultural food sector. I believe that we will end up, if we are not careful, in those kinds of circumstances, because the analysis that is necessary behind working out what the policy needs to be is not the kind of thing that is simply learned in an economics course or an agricultural economics course at a university. It depends on an understanding of the realities of what carrying out this business entails. My concern about the context of the debate this evening is that policy is not being made with sufficient understanding and recognition of the realities of what is underlying this whole part of the economy. If you do that, it will not work. Already in agriculture, the rate of return that people expect is probably 2% or 3%. Who in the commercial world—I have chaired some commercial companies—will invest getting the rates of return that you get from agriculture?

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It was fine; they are good words. But good words are not enough here. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who normally sits across the Chamber, said on a number of occasions, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. The litmus test for agricultural policy, like every other policy, is: is it engendering a sector of the economy that is working in the public interest? I am deeply concerned that the way in which it is being approached by the present Administration is not going to bring that about.

Finally, as somebody who is also about to leave, I would like to add my sentiments to what a number of others have said about the way in which the whole infrastructure of the House has supported my work here. I make a particular reference to the nurse, whose name I never knew, who identified that I got sepsis and sent me straightaway to hospital.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Sorry, I was so fascinated—I was pondering the thought.

I thank the Minister for setting out with such clarity this statutory instrument and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing forward his regret amendment, which has created an opportunity for a much broader-ranging and, I think we can agree, interesting debate. It has been an absolute privilege to be here for the last speeches by, for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Inglewood. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on various issues—sometimes we did not agree on one or two of them, it must be said—and with my colleague on the Conduct Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is a fairly typical in-the-background public service to protect the reputation of this place, for which he should be thanked and we should be enormously grateful. It is fitting that we have heard from so many experts, particularly on this area.

On the regulations before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long-term foundation in our view for supporting agriculture. We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform cannot mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. In a way, the question before us tonight is not whether the change is needed but whether this stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those most affected; we have heard evidence that it is not.

The first concern is the pace and scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change, yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available. For businesses operating on tight margins, that creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long-term planning. A transition, as we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining the very resilience it is expected and hoped to build.

Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going. I appreciate that the Minister set out some of this in her opening remarks, but the NFU—I thank it for its briefing—has made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes. It says that there remains a lack of clarity, and in some cases confidence, about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.

Thirdly, there is the impact on different types of farm. Smaller and family-run farms are often less able to absorb sudden changes in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support will become unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. We have heard already about the economic consequences of that.

There is the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. We believe the shift away from direct payment is justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focused system, but that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers participating fully in new schemes, we risk weakening farm viability and environmental progress at the same time. The position of these Benches is therefore balanced; we support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support, but we share the concerns of this Chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.

I have three brief questions but, as we are nearly at the end of the Session, if the Minister wishes to answer in writing, I would be more than happy to receive that. First, what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms being pushed into financial difficulty? Secondly, can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? Thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? I particularly refer the Minister to paragraph 78 of the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that we ask her

“about the financial impact of the transition to the new support schemes, especially on small farmers”.

These are very practical questions.

In closing, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. It has been an absolute honour working with him on opposite Benches. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal Motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue—I reminisced more fondly than he did. Having these kinds of amendments and ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is critical for the issues we have heard about this evening, so I thank him for raising this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of broad concerns have been raised that I will do my best to address now. For any outstanding specific questions, we will look at Hansard and ensure that we write to noble Lords with more detailed responses.

The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way to support our farmers, protect food security or restore nature. We should continue to invest in the environmental land management schemes and the range of grants and other support for farmers which deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity.

Concerns were raised about farm profitability and the impacts on farmers of the phasing out of direct payments. I will go over some of this. We recently published our 2025 farming and countryside programme evaluation report, which sets out an assessment of the impacts of the first three years of phasing out direct payments. It includes a detailed look at the key transition channels for the sector, which include rents, diversification income, income from agri-environment schemes and productivity improvements.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Flood Prevention and Drought Resilience

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: it is important that we recognise the role that farmers, land managers and landowners have in supporting the Government’s ambitions on flood and drought resilience, and that this should be delivered through any way that is practical and possible, while at the same time looking at continuing to support farm profitability.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government consider adopting the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management’s recommendation requiring large corporates to disclose climate-related and nature-related risks in their supply chains, and to align that with the UK’s sustainability disclosure requirements, using the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures? Will they also use that transparency to direct more private investment into flood prevention and drought resilience on farms?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes some really good points. The Government are keen to look at how we can encourage more private funding and support for much of the work that needs to be done, whether that is in the climate sector or in nature restoration. I completely take on board the points she has made.

Plastic Pollution Reduction

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that eight out of 10 of the top councils for recycling in England are led by the Liberal Democrats? Would it surprise her to learn that Green-led councils are not even in the top 20? Mid Suffolk, the Greens’ only majority council, comes in at 162, and when they controlled Brighton, it was one of the worst in the country.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am quite shocked to hear that the Greens are not as good as we would have expected them to be. I am sure the noble Baroness opposite may have something further to say on that.

Farming Road Map

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend has covered all the different areas that the farming road map is intended to address. Its whole purpose is as a long-term strategy: it is not quick fixes and it is not reactive. It will address many of the issues that she talked about. I cannot pre-empt what it will say ahead of publication, but we are certainly looking to address those matters. The fertiliser market is clearly global. While we do not have an immediate risk to UK supply, we know that the market price in the UK is strongly influenced and impacted by international prices. The situation in the Middle East is concerning and we are monitoring it closely.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government ensure, as urged by the National Trust, that the Farming and Food Partnership Board includes at least one environmental landowner or NGO, so that the road map, when published, will have been shaped by a wide range of stakeholders in farming policy and will deliver for people, food and the environment together?

Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious issue that we need to move on as soon as we can. We have proposed that we will do this by the end of the year. The big issue is the sheer number of responses that were received; it is taking a long time to go through them. Also, the proposed by-laws are very substantial. We are absolutely determined to get it right. It is better to take the right amount of time to come out with the right decisions that will genuinely make the differences that we need to see in our marine environments.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Is the Minister confident that the Government can justify calling these marine protected areas when bottom trawling is still permitted in 90% of them, resulting in 20,000 hours of suspected bottom trawl fishing last year? An outright ban would mean that there is no need to monitor that. We are still waiting for the much-promised ban that was promised in the general election. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are all asking, “When, when, when?”

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are working with the Marine Management Organisation on this, because we need to get it right. We had a huge number of responses. There is also ongoing research at the moment that needs to be taken into account. The way we are looking at this is that each marine protected area is set up to protect specific species or habitats. Regulators look carefully at what those are and how different types of fishing affect those different habitats and species. It is quite complex, so it is important that any decisions we make will make the biggest difference they can.