Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Grender and Lord Blencathra

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 294 would prohibit any changes to an environmental delivery plan that would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures designed to protect identified environmental features. In effect, the Secretary of State would be unable to alter an EDP if such an amendment would weaken established environmental protections.

The aim here is to safeguard against the watering down of environmental commitments once they have been set out in an EDP. Years and years of planning history have too often shown that protections established at the outset erode over time, whether under pressure in the name of economic growth, or because of shifts in ministerial priorities or as new developments are proposed nearby. For example, more than a third of England’s rivers remain classified as in poor ecological health, frequently because enforcement and standards around protections weaken as circumstances change. It is therefore vital that commitments to mitigate the negative impacts of development are not easily reversed or diminished.

This amendment is rooted in the environmental non-regression principle. This asserts that environmental law and standards should not go backwards but instead serve as a stable and reliable foundation for ongoing improvement. Once conservation measures are agreed and an EDP is made, the protections and enhancements should be seen as a baseline from which further progress can be made, not as a temporary line which can be negotiated away. Local communities, environment groups and stakeholders need assurance that commitments to, for instance, river restoration or species recovery will not be diluted at a later date. The amendment aligns with the Government’s own Environmental Principles Policy Statement, under which all departments are obliged to prevent, reduce and rectify environmental harm, not simply react to it after the fact.

This amendment enhances long-term investment in environmental improvement. Developers and landowners will know that measures agreed at the outset must be maintained, promoting higher standards of stewardship and accountability. Policymakers will be able to set conservation targets with assurance that they are durable, not fleeting or subject to administrative whim.

This amendment is the chance to break the never-ending cycle of much-promised and not delivered. I note that it is in the same group as several other amendments, which I suspect will have a very fair wind behind them, and I just hope it slips in along with them. It would be excellent if this joined them or if there was any possibility of that. I hope the Minister will consider the merits of this amendment, I look forward to hearing her response and I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 294, submitted by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. I apologise that I was not in the Chamber this morning to participate: I had to attend my Select Committee, especially as it was on a subject that I demanded that we investigate. Way back last June, we fixed the meeting for this morning at my convenience, so I had to be there.

The amendment from the noble Baroness would prohibit the Secretary of State from having the power to amend an EDP in a way that would reduce the measures taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of development. This amendment touches on important points of principle, including environmental conservation and the remit of the Minister’s power. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response.

I will also address the government amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which would require Natural England to consult on the EDP when certain amendments to it are proposed. The circumstances in which the consultation will be necessary are when the proposed amendment would increase the maximum amount of development covered by the EDP, include new places in the development area or add new types of conservation measures not currently included in the EDP. It seems an important principle that amendments which would change an EDP in this way are subject to consultation. I agree entirely. Such consultations should aim to allow for relevant expertise and the voices of a variety of stake- holders to be heard. I look forward to hearing the noble Minister’s response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this grouping includes further amendments that the Government have tabled to address matters raised in advance of Committee. As part of this package, the Government’s Amendment 295B clarifies the consultation requirements when amending an EDP, where the intent had always been to ensure that consultation was taken forward where it was proportionate to do so. This will ensure that, where an EDP makes a significant amendment, measured by its meeting certain criteria, there will now always be a requirement to consult on that amendment, so that the public and expert stakeholders are able to contribute to and comment on the proposals.

Government Amendments 295C, 295D and 295E contain minor legislative fixes and a consequential amendment necessary for the correct operation of the legislation following the substantive government amendments. I hope that the Committee agrees to accept these amendments, and I commend them.

I turn briefly to the non-government amendment, Amendment 294, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, which would make it impossible to amend an EDP when that amendment would in any way reduce or weaken the conservation measures it contains. While I absolutely appreciate the concerns that she has rightly raised, the amendment would substantially restrict Natural England’s flexibility to make crucial amendments to EDPs, which may include reducing both the amount of development and the conservation measures contained in an EDP. For example, we would want to ensure that, if an expected development was not actually going to come forward, an EDP could be amended to reflect this and reduce the scale of conservation measures, in line with the reduction of impact from the development.

I also note that all significant amendments will now need to be consulted on. All EDPs will continue to need to pass the overall improvement test following any amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness agrees to withdraw her amendment.

Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Grender and Lord Blencathra

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, this is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day—a moment to celebrate our farmers and the vital contribution they make to our economy, countryside and food security. I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important statutory instrument with significant implications for producers and consumers who value high food standards.

We welcome this proposal, which, after consultation, seeks to resolve a persistent challenge balancing disease protection with honest and transparent labelling. This amendment rightly removes the 12-week limit for how long poultry can be kept indoors under mandatory housing measures while retaining the free-range label. The change, as I understand it, has the greatest effect on turkey, duck and goose producers, as chickens are generally slaughtered before the time limit expires.

On this day dedicated to British farming, it is fitting to recognise the immense pressures faced by our producers, especially after the impacts of avian influenza, and the need for legislation that is fair and practical. Mass culls, supply-chain issues and uncertainty have taken their toll on our rural communities, and that is why the priority must be a regulatory system that protects producers from circumstances that are often beyond their control, without undermining their hard-won reputations, of which so many of our UK food producers can be rightly proud.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently championed high animal welfare standards. When in government, we introduced the all-out ban on caged hens. Consumers expect clarity and integrity in their food labelling, and the free-range label stands for quality, welfare and trust, and it is important that those values must not be diluted or diminished.

Support for producers should never mean weaker animal welfare or compromised consumer trust, so I urge the Minister to confirm, or respond with reassurances, that the statutory instrument will not do any of the following. First, will she confirm that it will not exclude British free-range eggs or poultry from EU markets due to regulatory divergence, risking essential exports? After the trading challenges of bad post-Brexit deals, this is a pressure that our farming communities cannot continue to bear. Secondly, will she confirm that it will not dilute the high welfare expectations associated with the “free range” label, which our producers and customers depend on?

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the statutory instrument will not lead to confusion or reduce confidence in what “free range” genuinely means—I note the examples from the polling that the Minister used in her introductory remarks—for so many of our consumers who today wish, in increasing numbers, to make ethical choices? Meeting public expectations and reflecting farm realities requires transparency. The reputation of “free range” must remain as a guarantee of higher welfare, not merely a technicality. Also, how will the Government audit compliance, ensure that labelling reflects actual living standards and work with producers and consumer groups to uphold these robust standards?

We support these regulations; we are looking at the small print, but we are very much in support of this statutory instrument when it comes to providing detailed reassurances on animal welfare and consumer confidence. On Back British Farming Day, we stand with our farmers while demanding the highest standards for animals, rural communities and our food security system. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how delighted I am—indeed, the whole Committee will be delighted—that the noble Baroness is still in her place as a Defra Minister. We have continuity Defra, and that needs to be said.

But may I also say how sad I was to see that Daniel Zeichner has been brutally chopped? He was a good Minister doing a good job. He had been shadow Minister since 2020 and was a Minister for a year, and then was chopped for no good reason. One idiotic report in the press said that he had been chopped because of the tax on farmers. I think they got the wrong target there, since the Secretary of State’s replacement was in the Treasury, which imposed the tax. The reports said that the Secretary of State had been “promoted” away from Defra, diminishing its importance. What does Defra do? It is the only the department that looks after our food, farming, fishing and trees, and looks after the quality of our water, rivers, streams and the air we breathe. Yet the media regard that as less important than going to a department that cannot build houses unless it deals with ghastly local government.

I will not waste the Committee’s time by repeating the necessity of this SI. The Official Opposition wholeheartedly support it for the same reasons set out fully by the Minister. So long as avian influenza is a threat to all flocks in the UK, in addition to the devastation among wild birds, the only precaution is to keep poultry inside. That is unfortunate, but there is no other way.

As the Minister explained, that means that free-range poultry would be kept inside as well and lose the designation “free range” if it is kept inside for more than 12 weeks. However, that would not apply to Europe, which operates under different rules at the moment. Thus, without this SI change, English producers would find their poultry meat marketed as “indoor bred” but similar meat from Europe could be labelled “free range”. Clearly, that would be damaging to the UK poultry sector, so this is necessary to maintain a level playing field.

As the Defra Explanatory Note points out, there is very little free-range chicken meat at the moment. At this time of year, the main free-range poultry are turkeys, geese and ducks, and it would be wrong to damage our producers by labelling them “indoor bred” while letting foreign imports be classed as “free range”. For those reasons, we will support the SI.

However, I flag up the same point that I made in the debate on free-range eggs: we cannot go on like this indefinitely. For impeccable reasons, we are misleading consumers, even though I think the products need a label stating that they have been kept inside. I am not sure about that, so perhaps the Minister will clarify in her winding-up speech whether, in relation to products that have been kept inside, there is an explanation for how they comply with “free range”. I repeat that, ever since my time in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1990, I have felt that the definition of “free range” is misleading. Yes, chickens must have access to outdoors for half their lives, but they rarely go out of the little hatch and stay inside most of the time. However, now is not the time or occasion for me to start a war with the British poultry producers.