Agriculture: Mental Health Pressures

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford for securing this debate and for coming over to Defra to discuss these issues more broadly earlier this week. I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss what is a really important topic.

As the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords have rightly said, farmers are facing challenges and pressures on multiple fronts—financial, economic, regulatory and environmental. Anyone who lives in a rural community, as I do, cannot fail to be aware of the problems that farming has been facing. In recent years, there has also been a growing awareness of the importance of mental health support in the farming sector. We are fully committed to safeguarding the mental health of people in our agricultural and farming communities. We are working closely with the sector to understand the pressures and to ensure that our farmers are supported as best they can be. The Government recently announced £343 million for up to 159 new NHS mental health centres. They will be opening across England from this autumn, bringing crucial support directly into neighbourhoods.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked a really important question about better data and evidence about mental health issues. He may be interested to know that the suicide prevention strategy for England sets out an ambition to commission and conduct research on data linkage projects. That includes how to support Defra to look at agricultural workers to understand the unique challenges and to respond appropriately.

We have also been looking at how people across England can benefit from faster and better mental health support. There have been 8,500 additional mental health workers recruited since the end of June 2024—that meets a key government target which we had set—but also, if we focus specifically on agriculture, we are tripling the previous funding that was available for farmer welfare, mental health and well-being support. That comes through the new farmer welfare grant of £1.5 million, which was available over three years and builds on the success of the previous grant, with the funding supporting targeted interventions to strengthen personal and business resilience in the agriculture sector.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford mentioned the grants, the fact that they are only temporary and that charities need certainty to plan beyond that. As part of the farmer welfare grant, we were particularly interested in receiving applications which could prove longevity. We have been engaging with the sector and understand that some organisations plan to use funding to launch initiatives which can become self-sustaining when the grant period ends. We are interested in looking at how we can do more work on that, because the grant applications closed last week, and we will look at all those outcomes shortly.

In addition, we continue to fund the Farming Community Network, which provides bTB-affected farmers and their families with a national free-to-access business and pastoral advice service. In his introduction, the right reverend Prelate talked about the importance of prevention, while the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about the need for practical solutions. I think it really important that instead of us talking about “We’re doing this, we’re doing that and we’re doing the other; we are putting a sticking plaster on here”, we really need to understand the root causes of the stress, anxiety and poor mental health that farmers are suffering from so that they do not reach crisis point. We have to focus on that and there are a number of ways we have started to do it.

One of them is to make the supply chain fairer so that farmers are protected in contracts with supermarkets. Fair dealing rules, as the noble Earl opposite will know, have already been introduced for dairy and pigs. We are now looking to do the same for eggs, combinable crops and fresh produce sectors because, as we have heard strongly today, farmers need certainty. It is also one of the reasons why we published the farming road map: so that farmers have a clear direction towards a future for farming, underpinned by the four priorities of profitability, productivity, sustainability and resilience. We have to build in resilience because of the changing climate challenges and the global conflicts that farmers are facing through climate change.

Supporting British farmers and boosting the nation’s security are key priorities for the Government, because the most resilient farms are profitable precisely because they are able to work with the environment. That is why we are backing this shift towards lower-input and more sustainable farming systems.

One thing that came across strongly, though, was the issue around isolation and loneliness. We know that accessibility of mental health services is more challenging in rural communities, and that poorer accessibility can further undermine the well-being of those who need that mental health support, so we have included tackling loneliness and isolation as an objective for the farmer welfare grant. Also, the farming collaboration fund will enable local farmers to come together not just to share costs and reduce risks but, importantly, to socialise and meet their peers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, talked about fallen stock. We have met to discuss fallen stock recently and will be working with the fallen stock sector to understand current pressures and look at how we can support farmers who are struggling with their stock, particularly regarding bluetongue.

It is also important to remind noble Lords that we published in June our response to the independent Farming Profitability Review, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters—that review was mentioned. We are implementing a number of her recommendations to take proper action to grow profitability.

We know how hard this summer has been for farmers: dry conditions have clearly placed huge pressures on farming businesses. We have had reduced grass growth, lower forage availability and lower crop yields. We know that farmers have been feeding what should have been the autumn and even the winter food early; this adds pressure as we go through the year. I was pleased that the Prime Minister announced the £65 million package of support in August to support farmers affected by those conditions and to look at how we can further build resilience.

We are also looking to invest £2.4 billion over the next two years to improve flood resilience, and we have a new Floods Resilience Taskforce. We have been concentrating on drought, but we know that we are likely to have a stormy and potentially very wet winter, so we need to look at support ahead of time. There have been real issues for farmers around wildfires, too, which have been much worse this year than last, and can have a devastating impact on farms and farming. This is a national security issue. Defra funding embeds proportionate wildfire risk assessment and mitigation within land management activity, but we are trying to better understand as a Government the impact of this year’s fires. This involves not just what we must do to better support recovery but also building greater resilience for the future.

In July, we published the Future of Rural England Report. The report sets out key recommendations for government action to help rural communities unlock their full potential. These recommendations were informed by the work of the Rural Taskforce, which is a group of external rural stakeholders and departments right across Whitehall that have been convened to identify how government can support rural businesses and communities to tackle rural disadvantage, and also to unlock the potential of the rural economy. At Defra we are looking at that report and working out how we can best implement those recommendations, many of which will help to unlock some of the support mechanisms we need for farmers and others living in rural communities.

I am about to run out of time, I am afraid, but I want to close by thanking all those who have made a contribution. This is an important issue and we must take it extremely seriously. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford for bringing us together again, and I thank everyone who has contributed. I hope that we can continue to work together to improve both mental health support and prevention.

Climate Change: Food Supply Resilience

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of climate-related extreme weather for the resilience of the UK’s food supply.

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom Food Security Report of 2024 suggests that rising temperatures will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events, which do of course represent significant risks to UK food security. So we are investing in resilience by spending £200 million up to 2030 through the Farming Innovation Programme, and £65 million to support farmers, given recent drought conditions, including an extra £50 million for sustainable farming incentive agreements for short-term and long-term resilience to our changing climate.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the National Audit Office is concerned about our food security: 2026 is on track to be our worst harvest, and our five worst harvests have all been since 2020. A major El Niño event will make matters worse. Add in global conflict, and we have a recipe for food inflation and possible shortages. A freedom of information request reported in the Guardian found that just 20 of Defra’s 6,613 staff are working on climate adaptation. Is safeguarding our food security receiving adequate consideration?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

In looking at where staff work, it is important to take into account that many staff work across different briefs in the organisation. While people may not be specifically working on something, there are implications across other parts of the department which are also involved in that work. Food security is a critical part of the work Defra does. We are looking at ways to increase resilience in the face of the increased effects of climate change.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the NFU says that there is an urgent need—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the NFU has declared an urgent need for on-farm reservoirs. The Minister has stated frequently that she is in favour of on-farm reservoirs. However, there is an inconsistency in the guidance and planning for permitted development rights. Will she urgently speak to her colleagues in the housing department to ensure that the planning guidance permits on-farm reservoirs to store the water for when it is needed by farmers and horticultural growers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness says, I am extremely supportive of on-farm reservoirs. They are very important, which is why we have announced funding of up to £15 million through Defra to build on-farm reservoirs as part of the drought package. We have also offered two rounds of water management grants so far. That has provided £8.8 million of funding towards management, including for the construction of reservoirs. We are speaking to MHCLG about a number of issues where we need to improve planning and make it more reactive to requirements.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, to adapt to future climate and weather, we must develop new genetic varieties of the crops we grow. Gene editing will be a powerful tool to enable this. When I recently visited the Wellesbourne research station, I saw field trials of gene-edited soya plants that will be suitable to grow in the UK. Corteva, the company running these trials, is passionate about the fact that our legislation is more permissive and proportionate, and particularly beneficial for research and development. When negotiations to finalise the SPS agreement are reached, can we be assured that we will protect the advantages we have compared with the EU system?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that I cannot comment on the negotiations, which are taking place ahead of the summit, but we hope to have a date finalised soon. But I can assure the noble Lord that we understand the importance of this. It has been critical to the work we have been doing to have that flexibility. We are discussing very seriously with the EU how we can protect what we are doing in this area.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I remind the House that I am a small organic farmer. The Minister must understand that in the farming community as a whole, there is a real feeling of abandonment. She can say what the Government are doing, but there is a real feeling that there is no commitment. The new Secretary of State has begun well in trying to build this up, but can she explain to the rest of the Government that farming matters and is crucial for the future, particularly when farmers have to face these terrible weather effects? In the last five years there have been the worst harvests ever, two because they were burnt out and one because it was flooded out. Can she help the rest of the Government to talk about agriculture and the countryside in a way that sounds as if they are committed?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the noble Lord thinks the new Secretary of State has made a good start: I agree. It is very encouraging that the new Prime Minister has also been talking about farming, rural businesses and rural communities in a very positive way, understanding that we need to better ensure that rural communities are properly represented across government. Defra takes this very seriously, and we will continue to work with other departments to stress that point.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is essential for domestic food production that we have a healthy population of pollinators, yet our pollinators have declined since the 1980s by a quarter, particularly certain bee species and hoverflies. What are the Government doing about that issue as it applies to the sustainable farming incentive and biodiversity net gain? We must solve this problem for the future.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the things the Government are doing is working to promote more sustainable farming, because sustainable farming will turn this around and make the difference. We must support our pollinators by looking at how we farm and what we spray on our farms. That is why I am very pleased to have recently been given the pesticides brief, and I will be working to see what we can do in that space.

Also, we have threats from non-native invasive species—the yellow-legged hornet is causing all sorts of problems. We are working very hard to tackle that as well, because there are threats from all sides, as the noble Lord says.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, at the moment there is little we can do to mitigate climate change and severe weather events, which this year are likely seriously to deplete our UK food production, both for arable crops and livestock. In these circumstances, does the Minister agree that the policy proposal in the Land Use Framework, published in March, to take 9%—a tenth—of our agricultural land out of food production is inconsistent with the Government’s avowed commitment to food security?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is also important to point out that in the Land Use Framework, the Government did make a clear long-term commitment to maintain overall food production in England by increasing farm profitability and productivity, and to develop particular sector plans, which is what farming was asking for. Through those sector plans, we can better underpin our food security and drive economic growth. We have a number of things in place to support that ambition. We are going to start with horticulture and poultry on the sector plans. We have set up, as the Batters review recommended, a farming and food partnership board. We are also looking at agricultural land classification data to protect our most important agricultural land.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister for persisting with questions today despite her awful throat braxy.

Two weeks ago, the National Audit Office published a highly critical report on Defra’s lack of preparedness for food shortages, the failure to test the emergency plans in place, and the lack of the legal powers and specific asset tracking to maintain food supplies during a deep emergency. A key recommendation was that Defra must work more closely with farmers and food businesses to ensure that the food supply is maintained. To work more closely with farmers, will the Government call off the Treasury attacks on farmers, farming and the countryside that are driving farmers to quit in record numbers? No farmers means no food, no security and no countryside that we love.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentions the National Audit Office report, which shows that risks to food supplies are becoming much more complex. That is why we are working with farmers, producers and the drinks industry to strengthen our food security. We are looking at the findings and recommendations and will be discussing them with the Treasury.

Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 June be approved.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, in 2023, the European Union replaced its 2006 batteries directive with a new batteries regulation. This updated placing on the market requirements, covering design specifications for batteries and requirements relating to information and labelling. These requirements, designed to support the environmental and safety performance of batteries, relate to carbon footprint, performance and durability, recycled content, and removability and replaceability of batteries from devices.

The new EU regulation has also introduced specific safety requirements for stationary battery energy storage systems and updates the information requirements to include state of health and expected lifetime. Finally, the EU regulation also introduces the digital battery passport and supply chain due diligence policies for larger organisations. Previous requirements relating to the restriction of certain substances in batteries are carried forward.

I welcome the collaborative approach taken in the development of this instrument, which has drawn constructively on expertise from industry and government departments. The enforcement provisions set out in this SI meaningfully strengthen the application of the EU batteries regulation in Northern Ireland, where it has been law since its publication in 2023. By improving compliance in key areas such as battery safety, hazardous substances and environmental performance, it is reasonable to expect positive environmental outcomes through reduced risk of unsafe or environmentally harmful batteries being placed on the market.

I am also reassured by the de minimis assessment undertaken in respect of this instrument. Given that the associated costs are minimal and that the instrument introduces no contentious or disproportionate impacts, this approach seems to be both reasonable and appropriate.

Of course, it is right that this House scrutinises delegated legislation carefully. I am satisfied this instrument falls within the scope of the parent Act and represents an appropriate use of powers. It is for these reasons that I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is important to clarify what the instrument does and does not do. It does not introduce new policy nor impose any significant new regulatory burdens on businesses. It ensures the obligations that are already in force in Northern Ireland can be properly enforced. Without these regulations, we would have rules on the statute book but no effective means to uphold them; that is not a position that the Government consider acceptable.

I will try to answer as many questions as I can—unfortunately, I do not have very long. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, talked about internal UK divergence as a result of this SI. As I said, different requirements now apply for batteries placed on the Northern Ireland market compared with those placed on the GB market as a result of the direct application of the EU Batteries Regulation in Northern Ireland. However, the majority of batteries will be manufactured to meet the Northern Ireland and EU requirements, whether they are physically placed on the market in mainland Europe, Northern Ireland or Great Britain. This SI will provide clarity, certainty and enforceability, and equip enforcement authorities with the powers they need to ensure that batteries placed on the Northern Ireland market meet the required standards.

There have been a number of questions around divergence, impacts on business and enforcement. On divergence, I reassure the House that, in practice, the impact will be minimal because the reality is that most manufacturers already design their products to meet EU standards wherever they are sold. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, asked about enforcement and costs in the de minimis assessment covering the enforcement regime. They were extremely low, with an equivalent annual direct cost to businesses of under £8,000. That is across all Northern Ireland businesses that were affected, not each—so that £8,000 is right across the piece.

The noble Lords, Lord Elliott and Lord Redwood, also asked about impact assessments and costs. The related calculated costs from the SI are minimal. A small, one-off familiarisation cost—around two hours per business—totalling £35,017 across all the affected businesses is estimated as they become aware of the SI and its enforcement provisions. Some 776 businesses that place batteries on to the Northern Ireland market are estimated to be in scope.

There will also be some small additional costs for monitoring and enforcement activities for compliant businesses that are placing batteries on the Northern Ireland market, to enable regulator activity, such as audits or inquiries. They have been calculated to total £33,822 over the 10-year appraisal period. Ongoing costs of approximately £330,000 per annum are also expected to be incurred by Defra to fund market surveillance and enforcement activity undertaken by the OPSS. These include inspections, investigations and audit, which do not fall on businesses as costs and are not included in the equivalent annual net direct costs to businesses. There is no direct impact on households, so the equivalent annual net direct cost to households is therefore assessed as £0.

The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, also asked about offences. Some 182 batteries industry stakeholders and other stakeholders were sent the proposed offences and penalties and invited to provide feedback in January this year. Out of the 182 stakeholders, only one responded: a trade body operating in Northern Ireland. It agreed with the rationale behind the penalty group and did not comment on other aspects of the SI. The very low response rate to those communications indicated that stakeholders are content with the approach taken and that concerns related to this SI are low.

On enforcement, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, which enforced the previous placing on the market regulations, will be appointed by the Secretary of the State to enforce the new placing on the market requirements of the EU’s 2023 batteries regulation in Northern Ireland. To facilitate it, this SI amends the Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 to provide for the powers of enforcement under those regulations to apply to the enforcement of these regulations and to the EU batteries regulation requirements.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked some specific questions about the competitiveness of Northern Ireland businesses and the impact on the internal market, and about whether the proposed alignment in the consultation will form part of the Government’s wider aims for dynamic alignment. I thank him for those questions. We think that the practical effect will be limited. As I mentioned, the majority of batteries were manufactured to meet the Northern Ireland and EU requirements, whether they are physically placed on the market in Europe, Northern Ireland or Great Britain. Batteries meeting the Northern Ireland and EU requirements can also be placed on the market in Great Britain. As I noted earlier, the instrument does not introduce any new requirements or amend any existing ones; it is just to ensure that placing on the market requirements that are already in force or due to come into force are enforceable in Northern Ireland. We are satisfied the SI goes no further than is necessary to implement those provisions reflecting that position.

On the question on alignment, we intend to consult later this autumn on the aligned regime across the whole of the UK that is consistent with the EU batteries regulation. We think that is the right thing to do. As I mentioned, it has to be for the whole of the UK and to protect the whole of the UK’s internal market. We have engaged extensively with businesses and others over a long period on the approach to batteries; for placing on the market matters, the industry has been clear that it wants to see this common set of standards.

For waste and producer responsibility matters, the pace of battery technology development and change means that market and waste burden is very different now to when the current UK regulations were made, and there are a number of acknowledged difficulties with the operation of the existing approach. We hope that the consultation, with that UK-wide approach, will go a long way to address those issues, but it is important that the consultation should not be seen as a general approach to regulatory alignment. Rather, it reflects the specific circumstances of the batteries sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, asked about the penalties regime and why the instrument has taken over three years since the batteries regulation was published in July 2023. The EU batteries regulation introduces significant new and evolving requirements, and it is important that any regime respects Northern Ireland’s dual market position. We feel that we have moved as quickly as we were able to bring forward this instrument on the placing on the market elements. As I previously set out, the UK-wide consultation we are going to do this autumn on waste and producer responsibility provisions will propose consistency, which we know is what business wants.

On conformity—I am terribly sorry, I cannot remember who asked me this—the UKNI marking is a common requirement for regulatory regimes included in the Windsor Framework that require conformity assessment if assessment is conducted by a UK assessment body. If a product has been conformity assessed by a UK conformity assessment body, as opposed to an EU conformity assessment body, then it must be accompanied with the CE plus UKNI marking and can be placed only on the Northern Ireland market.

I am going to wrap up because I want to give the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, time to respond. It is important to note that all this has been done with close engagement across government and industry, and we have not had concerns raised by stakeholders. The instrument is practical, proportionate and necessary. I thank all noble Lords again; anything I have not covered, I will pick up from Hansard.

UK Water Companies: Chinese Financial Influence

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of China’s financial influence over UK water companies.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important issue. It is critical that those who own and invest in our water companies are good custodians of these nationally important businesses. The reforms that we are putting in place will transform our water system to ensure that it delivers for customers and the environment, but also that it attracts investors who are committed to securing the long-term performance of our water companies.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but that is for the future. The Times has revealed that emails on financial records obtained from the London office of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, the world’s largest bank, show that the Chinese bank issued nearly £1.26 billion in loans and borrowing options to UK water and energy companies up to July 2024. Furthermore, there were examples of concerns raised in the London office about internal due diligence being overruled by bank staff in Beijing, as well as concerns about money laundering when the bank moved £960 million for Huawei back from the UK into China following the arrest of one of its top officials. As a result of its investment in our strategic industries, there are deep concerns that this poses a financial security risk, especially since the ICBC has continued to accept business from Russian and Belarusian clients. What will the Government do about this potential security threat?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government take all security threats extremely seriously. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that the water industry will be included in the National Security and Investment Act’s mandatory notification scheme. That will require water companies and certain infrastructure delivery providers to notify government of certain proposed acquisitions. These notifications from companies will ensure that government can undertake a robust assessment of any national security risks. It will operate alongside powers that allow government to call in certain acquisitions. If necessary, we can then intervene with various remedies. These could include legally binding conditions or, in rare cases, blocking or unwinding a transaction.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the National Security and Investment Act 2021 allows the Government to scrutinise and intervene on certain acquisitions made by companies, including businesses which and investors who could harm our national security. The Act covers 17 sensitive areas in the economy, but although there was much discussion when the Bill was before your Lordships’ House about including critical infrastructure, it was not included in those 17 areas. I thank the noble Lord for bringing this issue up. With what we know today, is it not time to add services such as water to the list so that the Act can be used in full to scrutinise who controls our critical water supply?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I just mentioned, the water sector is in the National Security and Investment Act. That is mainly because of the essential services that it provides for public health and the economy. There are 17 existing sectors in that mandatory notification scheme, including civil nuclear, energy and transport. We are assessing whether proposed acquisitions pose a national security risk. However, the noble Lord makes an important point, so I am happy that we consider the water industry when we review the terms of that Act.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, this PNQ refers to UK water companies. My noble friend will be aware that Scottish Water is publicly owned, so the Chinese can have no such influence. Is that not the way forward?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend will be aware that we published the water White Paper earlier this year. We are looking, in that White Paper and in the legislation that we will bring forward, at what ownership looks like and at the best way to secure our water industry for the future. Clearly, who owns our water industry and who has influence over it is a key part of that decision-making.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, once upon a time we owned the water industry: local authorities used to run water services very well up to 1974. Will my noble friend look, alongside security issues and the White Paper work that has been undertaken, at how these bodies can be made more publicly accountable locally?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. We have to ensure that not just water companies but any industry that is critical to our national infrastructure and our national security is fully accountable. We absolutely must look at that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the question of ownership is not the only security question that we should consider. There are reports that Iranians carried out a cyber attack on dozens of water plants in the United States at the same time as they attacked an electricity generator in this country. I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. What assurance does my noble friend the Minister have that the security of the physical arrangements is sufficient to deal with those sorts of cyber attacks? Incidentally, the Chinese are also very capable of such attacks; it is not just the Iranians.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the issues the Government have to face is the increasing threat from cyber attacks. The previous Question was around AI. We have to understand what the potential for such attacks is, and for drone attacks. We are seeing drones being used much more, if we look at the attacks Russia is making on Ukraine. We have had meetings in COBRA about national security because, as a country, we have to look at how we get together proper, resilient plans that include cyber attacks, for example.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister look carefully at the ownership of other water companies—Thames Water is obviously very much in the spotlight? Is she mindful of the contribution, over a number of years, that privatised water companies have made to the UK’s pension funds? Were these to be nationalised, what would the impact be on pensions funds?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Pension funds are an incredibly important part of how our investment works. One of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised with me is: what do we consider to be good investment in this country? Actually, good investment is from businesses that and investors who are committed to the industry they are investing in. That includes the pension funds.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify what she said about whether the National Security and Investment Act covered the water sector? I was not an expert on it, I have to admit, but I have looked online at the 17 types of notifiable acquisitions and water does not seem to be there. There seems to be some indication that the Government are considering adding it. Could she clarify, for the benefit of the House, exactly what the status is of the water industry under the National Security and Investment Act notifiable acquisitions?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that one of the recent announcements we have made is that the water industry will be subject to the National Security and Investment Act, which was brought in in 2021.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, 90% of England’s water industry is foreign owned, including by the Chinese state. The result has been low investment, high bills, raw sewage in rivers, over 1,200 criminal convictions, and harms to nature, health and national security. Everyone knows that public control of the water industry has failed to deliver and that the only way forward is public ownership. Why are the Government in denial?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not think that the Government are in denial. Through the White Paper and the Bill that we will bring forward, the Government will look at the best form of ownership for water companies, but it is also really important that we get the right kind of investment. The water industry requires over £200 billion in new investment before 2050 and we have to remember that capital markets are global. If we artificially restrict the kind of investment that we want to see, we will reduce competition and increase costs for customers. It is incredibly important that we get this right, while closing doors to investment that compromises our national security.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, given the very big capital requirements that the Minister has rightly identified, and the need to pay compensation to existing shareholders if the Government wanted to buy it out, is it not the case that the country cannot afford nationalisation of the water industry?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have expressed concerns previously in your Lordships’ House about the costs of nationalisation, which is why we are looking at the best way forward when we bring forward the new water legislation. I really look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say about how we move forward.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, being unaware of the specific confidential financial arrangements of the UK water companies with the Bank of China, but given the high level of public anxiety over water companies’ performance and competence, can my noble friend the Minister give a full assurance that progress on water provision, waste management and adherence to environmental health will nevertheless be upheld in that most critical part of the UK’s national infrastructure?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Yes, I can give my noble friend that assurance but, to deliver all this, we need to make sure that we encourage the right kind of investment into the infrastructure. That is one reason why the water industry is going to be included in the National Security and Investment Act mandatory notification scheme: to ensure that we have that assurance, as well as having information about delivery providers and the options to intervene, where necessary, if we are not happy with the transactions that are going forward.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I know the Minister agrees with me that one of the reasons why the water industry got into such a mess was because it was so poorly regulated. A lot of the issues, such as overlaying debt, are simply a result of the regulator not being up to the job. I underline that the new regulator that we are promised—it will be called a super-regulator, apparently —really needs financially acute people who understand this sort of financial engineering. This need not have happened. We could have had a privatised water sector that was properly regulated. We did not; it was badly regulated and it got away with murder.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord hits the nail on the head regarding regulation. We know that it is not who owns the water company—whether it is nationalised or private—that decides how effective and efficient it is, and how well it works. It is how it is actually run and the financial nous that underpins it that does not allow it to get into debt and use leverage systems in a way that is not sustainable. That is what has caused so many problems. I completely agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been notable, since he took office, how clear the Prime Minister has been in his commitment to reforming the water sector, which he described as “a leaking monument” to a system that prioritises private companies over the public interest. When might we expect to see real change come forward to make this sector work for people and places again?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We made some changes very quickly as soon as we came into government with the Water (Special Measures) Act, which I know this House welcomed. As I mentioned, the White Paper has been published. We are working on the Bill that we will be bringing forward, and we will want to make the changes as quickly as possible. As my noble friend points out, this is a prime ministerial and government priority.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, when we consider that China, with its long-term strategic endeavour to undermine our economy, owns critical national infrastructure such as water and our manufacturing industry—this has been evidenced in the motor manufacturing industry—could we utilise pension funds, whether homegrown or international, to invest specifically in the water industry?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I suggest, given the huge challenge the water industry faces and the huge amount of investment that we need, that the Government will be open to looking at any suggestions on how we can plug that gap, as there is so much work to do.

Microplastic Filters (Washing Machines) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. There is clearly strength of feeling in the concerns around microplastics and the increasing problems that we are starting to see that they are causing. These are important perspectives and the Government absolutely recognise the legitimacy of the concerns that underpin them, so I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for bringing forward this Bill and for clearly laying out the concerns about microfibres, particularly in clothing and textiles.

The Government recognise the benefits of minimising pollutants at source. To tackle the issue of microplastic pollution in our waterways, we have already taken some action. We have banned wet wipes containing plastic, and that was built on a previous ban on microbeads in products. Those actions have marked a major step forward.

Particular issues around wastewater were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, talked about microplastics entering the sewerage system. We as a Government are committed to taking a systematic approach to tackling issues with drainage and wastewater, and that includes a real focus on tackling the root causes of sewage pollution. In England, wastewater treatment works remove up to 99% of microplastics, but we want to ensure that legislation, regulatory mechanisms and funding streams support the delivery of solutions.

The Government also recognise the importance of building a strong evidence base to understand pollutant sources, impacts and of course the most effective interventions to protect human health and the environment. In 2025, Defra finalised a research project on microplastics. The project assessed the impacts of intentionally added microplastics on the environment and human health. Defra is currently considering the results of this important analysis in order to inform our next steps. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade leads on requirements relating to washing machine product standards, so we work closely together across the departments to understand the cost impacts of applying these filters. That needs to be balanced against the environmental harm that is caused.

Evidence that was presented to Defra in 2020 indicated variable performances of filters in trapping microplastics, as well as a range of costs associated with installing them in or outside new machines. However, I would very much welcome new evidence to assess the current state of filter technology. Recommendations have been made to industry to conduct a public willingness to pay survey, considering the cost of living challenges that we are currently undergoing, and to investigate and assess the suitability, feasibility, management, disposal and costs of recycling washing machine filters and the microplastics that are captured by those filters.

Before introducing any new legislation, we need to ensure that the evidence is robust and fully reviewed. For example, it must be clear that the product has a significant environmental impact and that any new requirements would not entail excessive costs or impact on product functionality. Filters may well form part of the solution, but there are uncertainties around performance, as well as cost, maintenance and disposal of captured fibres. We will consider product design, producer responsibility and end-of-pipe controls together, rather than imposing added costs on consumers before effectiveness has been established. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, referenced the need for further understanding and evidence.

Having said that, we welcome the APPG’s second report and thank Alberto Costa, the Women’s Institute and the Global Plastics Policy Centre for their work. The report provides a helpful contribution to the evidence and policy debate and reflects the increasing public concern about the presence of microplastics in water, soil, air and the wider environment, which was clearly laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

We would like to acknowledge that we recognise the report’s five priority areas: a co-ordinated policy framework; action on major sources; stronger producer responsibility; improved protections for wastewater, sewage sludge and soils; and better monitoring and evidence. Of course, the recommendations cut across different policy areas and departments, so we will ensure that we come together where needed to properly consider them. Engagement with parliamentarians, industry, academia and civil society is invaluable in informing this work, and I very much welcome the continued dialogue on this important issue.

None of this, of course, diminishes the urgency of the challenge, as we have heard very clearly this afternoon. The Government are clear-eyed about the growing concern on the issue of microplastics, and we are acting through engagement with stakeholders and supporting research, including on the potential role of technologies such as microfibre filters, as we have discussed today. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made some important points regarding the education of the public in this matter. Again, we need to have as much information as we can, so we very much welcome a commitment from industry to develop and implement standardised tests to provide unequivocal performance data on washing machine filters.

In closing, I once again thank the noble Lord for bringing the Bill forward and for stimulating an important and thoughtful, although short, debate. While I share the ambition that motivates the Bill, for the reasons stated, the Government cannot support it. But I want to assure the noble Lord that government will continue to focus on exploring opportunities to improve our understanding of the sources of microplastics and the risks they pose and ensuring that the most effective interventions are in place to protect human health and the environment. I commend the House for the quality of today’s debate.

Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 June be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

For Back-Bench contributions, the limit is three minutes. There is no gap and we are very tight for time, so if people stick within the three minutes, everybody will be grateful and we will be able to hear from the Minister later.

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

My Lords, this instrument extends to Northern Ireland only and is being brought through Westminster, working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or DAERA. The Government note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, which raises concerns about the implementation of EU-derived plant health and seed legislation in Northern Ireland without public consultation and about the broader implications of the Windsor Framework.

This is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation and plant health enforcement provisions, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and fulfilment of our Windsor Framework obligations. As noble Lords will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, limited parts of European Union law falling under Annex 2 to the framework continue to apply in Northern Ireland. These include the movement of goods, agri-food standards, and animal and plant health. It is important to note that this instrument makes no changes to the Windsor Framework. The instrument will amend existing Northern Ireland plant health legislation, introducing changes to six Northern Ireland statutory rules. The instrument will also update Northern Ireland legislation in line with EU legislative changes which are directly applicable in Northern Ireland. The majority of these changes update obsolete and outdated references in respect of Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states following the UK’s exit from the EU.

I will now outline the changes being made by this instrument. Three of the pieces of marketing legislation being amended are: first, the Marketing of Vegetable Plant Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995; secondly, the Marketing of Ornamental Plant Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999; and thirdly, the Marketing of Fruit, Plant and Propagating Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017. These set out conditions relating to plant varieties, documentation requirements, and plant health and quality for an array of fruit, vegetables and propagating materials. They protect buyers and growers by outlining compulsory standards for products.

Also being amended are the Forest Reproductive Material Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002, which implement rules for marketing forest seeds, plants and cuttings, ensuring that material is from approved sustainable sources and is identifiable from seed to the final user, protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity traders and growers.

The fifth piece of legislation being amended is the Seed Potatoes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. As you will possibly be aware, seed potatoes are one of the notable good news stories resulting from the introduction of the Windsor Framework. The Windsor Framework permitted the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and their growing on, which had been prohibited during EU exit.

The final piece of domestic legislation for Northern Ireland that this instrument will amend is the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. This is a central piece in setting out the overarching rules and requirements for plant health. These amendments are primarily technical in nature to update references and terms that are related to Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU.

The amendments will also update domestic legislation to include EU biosecurity legislative changes that are already applicable and implemented, including some relating to disease control. A number of the pests and diseases covered in these technical updates pose similar risks to us here in Great Britain, and controls have already been introduced in legislation here. This instrument ensures that similar control measures to protect against these pests and diseases that are already in place in Northern Ireland will be fully enforceable.

The instrument moves beyond the existing ability of rejecting consignments and provides for full enforcement of non-compliance, including pursuing penalties and prosecution where necessary. While no formal public consultation was undertaken for the instrument, we have worked closely with stakeholders through webinars, publication of guidance, roundtables and the Horticultural Working Group as well as one-to-one meetings, particularly on the implementation of the Windsor Framework. From these ongoing stakeholder engagement mechanisms and the technical nature of this instrument, we determined that a consultation was not required.

In conclusion, I emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in this instrument update the Northern Ireland statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor Framework. The instrument does not impede Northern Ireland’s constitutional position or grant any additional powers to the European Union, nor does it introduce any additional impositions for stakeholders. So, by approving it, we reaffirm our solid commitment to protect our agrifood, forestry and horticultural sectors and deliver on our international obligations. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their contributions to the debate today and for the valuable points made in respect of the instrument. I will rattle through—I do not have very long, I am afraid—because a broad range of issues has been covered during the debate, some clearly beyond the scope of the instrument but important none the less. I will do my best to cover the issues raised in the time I have.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, talked about Northern Ireland’s status, as did other noble Lords. This is a technical amendment. I get the point that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just made, but this is not about making Northern Ireland a member state or changing Northern Ireland’s status; it is about protecting the unique opportunity that we have secured for Northern Ireland. What we have done is ensure that Northern Ireland operators maintain seamless access to the EU single market while at the same time firmly remaining within the UK’s internal market.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the constitution and the Windsor Framework. As I said at the beginning, this does not change the Windsor Framework. I appreciate the strength of feeling around constitutional issues, but I assure noble Lords that this instrument respects Northern Ireland’s position and integral place within the United Kingdom. It is UK-made, UK-scrutinised and operates within the scope of the UK’s international commitments. Introducing and applying domestic legislation to Northern Ireland upholds the UK Government’s commitment to implementing the Windsor Framework, which, as we have heard, is a clear improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol and is the best workable solution we have.

Some noble Lords suggested, or at least implied, that the United Kingdom is being governed by the European Union. This is not the case. Northern Ireland, as I said, is fully part of the UK internal market. It has unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to GB, and EU law applies only in limited, defined areas necessary to preserve island of Ireland biosecurity and Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market. The framework enables Northern Ireland’s unique dual market access, supporting its agri-food sector and its rural economy. There are no constitutional changes made by this instrument; it simply provides for full enforcement of biosecurity controls at domestic level.

Some noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, for example—talked about enforcement. DAERA and GB competent authorities work closely to achieve compliance with biosecurity controls and minimise any disruption or delay on trade. However, DAERA must also be able to ensure it has adequate means of taking appropriate action on the small number of operators that may not comply with plant health requirements, in order to ensure a level playing field for those following the rules. The amendments included in this instrument will ensure that DAERA has the powers to maintain a legal regime that can be effectively enforced, so that penalties can be imposed for non-compliance that puts Northern Ireland’s biosecurity at risk. However, it is DAERA’s intention to maintain a proportionate approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned the positive impacts of the Windsor Framework. I mentioned seed potatoes in my speech, but I would like to give another example. Goods moved under the Northern Ireland plant health label scheme, which was introduced as part of the Windsor Framework, increased from 1,708 in 2024 to 4,090 in 2025. This is extremely positive and clearly demonstrates that goods are moving across the United Kingdom and that the flow of trade is good.

I was asked why there was not an impact assessment. A full impact assessment was not prepared as it is not required under the Better Regulation Framework, and this will not impact on businesses and stakeholders; in fact it provides DAERA with more effective enforcement against non-compliant operators. There was a lot of discussion around the lack of public consultation. The main reason is that there is no statutory duty to consult, because this makes consequential changes relating to plant health legislation that already applies in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework.

I have talked about the engagement with stakeholders leading to the development of the instrument. I mentioned the UK horticultural working group. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, said that we had not spoken to any farmers, but that group includes the UFU—the Ulster Farmers Union—and the Horticultural Trades Association. I would also like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that we talked to the EU during our discussions about Northern Ireland and the concerns that are raised and the particular ways in which we have to manage Northern Ireland trade. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, may be interested to know that I met a number of farmers today who are very supportive of our SPS negotiations because they see the benefits to trade.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, talked about the necessity of the SI at opposite ends of the scales. The legislation gives DAERA the necessary powers. That is why we need it: we need to protect Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and high plant health status. My noble friend Baroness Ritchie asked about the Murphy report. The Government accepted all the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, in his independent review of the Windsor Framework. Among other measures, we will sharpen and improve our engagement with a range of stakeholders across different sectors and businesses that implement the Windsor Framework. We will also continue our work to smooth the flow of goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland, including the future SPS agreement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned divergence, and I completely appreciate her points in respect of regulatory divergence, and concerns that this could complicate trade. However, the Government’s view is that the Windsor Framework promotes a careful and pragmatic balance between maintaining Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market and safeguarding its place within the UK internal market. It reduces unnecessary checks on goods, which is why many businesses support this approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, may be interested to know that DAERA officials in Northern Ireland actually drafted the legislation, and have worked to ensure that the instrument is drafted with what is necessary and proportionate for Northern Ireland at its core. That approach reflects the fact that the Windsor Framework obligations arise from an agreement reached by the UK Government and ultimately fall to the UK Government to uphold. It is not appropriate to leave them solely to the Northern Ireland Executive to discharge, which is why we work on direction and control with DAERA.

I return to the specifics of the statutory instrument at hand today. It serves only to update Northern Ireland’s plant health legislation, ensuring that it is clear, operable and accurate. This gives not only clarity to DAERA in the vital roles it delivers in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity, but clarity and stability to Northern Ireland’s stakeholders, ensuring that all parties play their part in doing what is necessary to maintain plant health in Northern Ireland. Making the requirements clear and correct in this instrument will ensure that there are no legislative gaps and no room for confusion in dealing with a complex plant health environment. It thus contributes to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s trade and economic success in the agri-food, horticulture, forestry and woodland sectors. It also, as I have said, ensures that the United Kingdom meets its international obligations under the Windsor Framework, serving to ensure that the high biosecurity standards that Northern Ireland is privileged to observe are continued.

I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, time to respond, so I will finish there. I will write on the details of the consultation, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, because there is quite a lot there.

Rural Businesses: Taxation

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government keep all taxes under review, with decisions being for the Chancellor at fiscal events. We recognise the vital contribution of rural communities and businesses to the UK economy and the need for policies that actually work for rural areas. Support available includes rural rate relief, small business rates relief, a high VAT registration threshold and the small profits corporation tax rate. We are also supporting farmers through reduced red diesel duty rates until the end of this year, and through measures to promote sustainable farming and food production.

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords, the family farm tax is both hated and feared. It taxes a business asset as if it is personal wealth. I know that the Minister was not consulted—nor was her department—before the tax was put in place. Will she reassure the House, which I know appreciates all that she does for us, that she will personally make representations to this Chancellor before this Budget, as those of us who care about the countryside and the NFU are currently doing, to make sure that this hated tax can be removed?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble and learned Baroness is aware that, absolutely, I support the importance of farming to the rural economy and the importance of the work that farmers do through food security to the wider economy of the country. She will also be aware that we have discussed this matter on a number of occasions and that the Treasury has made it quite clear that it is not intending to revisit the issue of inheritance tax. I am aware that the Prime Minister was asked about this during the by-election in Makerfield. However, as I said in my original Answer, the Government always keep taxes under review. I will ensure that the new Chancellor is aware of the strength of feeling on this matter.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that rural businesses are hit disproportionately by the increases in petrol and diesel prices that we have seen over recent months? These add to their costs: of inputs, of getting goods to the market and of those working in rural areas travelling to work. Is there any way that the amount of taxation that is raised on petrol and diesel can somehow be frozen rather than added to every time there is an increase in international prices? This hits rural areas.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As someone who lives in a rural area and has to travel long distances to get anywhere, I completely appreciate the noble Lord’s point. We have rural fuel duty relief and are looking at the costs of that. We need to look at how we can best support rural communities and rural businesses as a whole rather than just picking at little issues. It is the cost of the whole that makes the difference and there are other ways in which rural businesses and communities are being supported financially.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Even before the summer drought, failures of agricultural businesses had risen by 450% under the pressures of the energy costs that we have just heard described, with higher taxes and subsidy changes also playing a major part. Do the Government recognise that many people will be very concerned that today’s announcements by the Chancellor had so little focus on action in the rural UK? Will the Government now put themselves behind the proposed good food Bill that is being demanded by the industry to support domestic producers and provide us with greater food security?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

In Defra we have been working an enormous amount with farmers and other relevant stakeholders around food security. That includes biosecurity. It looks at how farmers can be supported through veterinary services and how we manage drought and climate change going forward. It is about not just drought but flooding. We have potential heavy rainfalls coming this winter. If we are to continue to support good, sustainable food production in this country, it is important that we work cross-departmentally, including with the Treasury, to ensure that we have the best possible support for farmers.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that over the last few weeks the Opposition have been calling for more public spending at the same time as calling for lower taxes? Have they all joined the “Liz trust” of economics?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point about how you cannot have something for nothing. If we are to have the public services that people want in this country, we have to look very carefully at how we intend to pay for them.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I regret having to ask this question following the noble Lord, Lord Watts. One thing that needs to be taken extremely seriously with the inheritance tax issue is that it is stifling investment. I thought that the party opposite and the Government were supporters of growth. This is the perverse consequence of this imposition. I ask the Minister to act on behalf of Defra with the Treasury and the Government. This is acting as a contrary-to-growth tax.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I hear very clearly what the noble Lord has said. As I said to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis, I will make sure that the new Chancellor understands the strength of feeling in this House about the inheritance tax.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear the Minister talk about the whole burden on rural dwellers and farmers. In that regard, can she say how her department is looking to minimise the burden on farmers, not just the tax burden but the regulatory burden, and in particular for those farmers in Northern Ireland, given the differential regulations that occur there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very aware of the kinds of regulations that the noble Baroness is talking about, which is also why, when I visit Northern Ireland, I always make sure to meet the Ulster Farmers Union, for example, because there are slightly different perspectives and it is important that we understand those differentials. For me, the most important thing is to listen to farmers and not make assumptions about what works and what does not. Tomorrow, for example, I am holding a meeting with farmers specifically on bluetongue, because I want to know what is causing their difficulties most of all, what will actually make the difference and what we need to do so that we do not end up with so many problems next year as well. I am keen to work in a very proactive way to provide the best support we can.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, every day I become more convinced that it is business not government that creates growth. Farming and family businesses in rural areas are under tremendous pressure from a series of high taxes, including IHT. Will the Minister, or her colleague, the Chancellor, meet US economist Arthur Laffer during his visit this week to discuss how the perverse effect of such high taxation might be minimised and government revenues even increased by cutting taxes?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think the gentleman that the noble Baroness suggests I meet might be rather disappointed if he met me. I am not sure that I would fully comprehend all the very important points that I am sure he would be making, but I imagine that it would be an opportune moment for him to meet someone from the Treasury.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

The original Question from my noble and learned friend Lady Prentis concerned the selling of a farm, so that raises issues of probate as well. When the Minister is discussing these fiscal matters with the new Chancellor, will she also raise the blatant unfairness of the 7.75% charged by the Government on late payment during probate, compared with the 2.75% repayment ceiling when the Government owe the taxpayer money?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

If you are looking at issues to do with probate, that is not just to do with family farms. That is a much broader issue. I am sure that Treasury officials will be listening very carefully to this debate and will take that into account.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, there is some speculation in the press that farmland might be included in the calculation of the value of a home when it comes to the mansion tax. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether or not that is true because, clearly, if it is, an awful lot of modest farmhouses would then be included in the mansion tax, and that tax at the highest rate is quite a lot for a farm.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware personally of any such speculation, I am afraid, so I am not able to provide any further information to the noble Earl.

Summer Drought: Future Supply Disruption

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this year’s drought follows exceptionally dry weather, record-breaking heatwaves and sustained high demand for water. Climate change presents increased risk of more frequent dry summers, and we take drought preparedness very seriously. In response, we have increased engagement with the water sector and key stakeholders, including through hosting more frequent National Drought Group meetings. Our response to the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s drought preparedness inquiry also demonstrates our commitment to improving drought preparedness for the country.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. She referred to this summer’s drought, but that followed a particularly wet winter, with southern England seeing 58% more rain than usual. Despite that, most regions have still faced hosepipe bans and other significant restrictions this summer. It is clear that we have insufficient reservoir capacity. What can the Government and water companies do to ensure that we build the necessary additional reservoir capacity now and not at some point in the distant future?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure noble Lords are aware that the Government have pledged to build nine new large reservoirs to ensure sufficient water supply for the future. At the same time, we need to protect and enhance the environment and we are looking at how best to do that. We changed some of the planning rules to enable this to happen more quickly. At the moment, we are looking at how we co-ordinate the delivery programme. We have the Water Delivery Taskforce, which is bringing together officials from Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England and other government departments as necessary to make sure that we have a good, co-ordinated delivery plan. The current timelines are that the reservoirs would come into service from 2035 and in 2031 Havant Thicket would become the first large water supply reservoir completed in 30 years.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the response to the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s Surviving Drought report to which the Minister referred, but she will be aware of the impact on farming, the horticultural sector and the fruit and vegetable sector that this year’s drought has caused. There is a very strong case for small on-farm reservoirs, and this needs to be dealt with urgently. We cannot wait another 10 years for these major reservoirs, for which there is a need, to be built. Please will she authorise her department to proceed with these small, much-needed on-farm reservoirs?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have said previously to noble Lords that enabling farmers to hold more water and manage water better on their land is something that the Government are very keen to see and enable. We are also very aware of the huge problems that drought causes farming. We have been looking at how we can support farmers facing lower crop yields, for example. There are also increased feed costs and irrigation issues. I have held meetings with the poultry sector, for example, specifically on the problems of heat stress on poultry. It is something we are very keen to resolve because this will be a long-term problem.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister think it sends the right signal that failing water companies which are currently losing 3 billion litres a day in leakage can find £75 million for an ad campaign to tell households to use less water, while government support for farmers hit by this summer’s drought was £65 million? Can she tell us whether that farmer support package will be in any way increased?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are currently working with farmers to look at what support they need, not just in this area but in other areas because farmers are under pressure in many different areas. I agree with the noble Baroness about the issues around the water companies, which is why I hope to be bringing the new water Bill to this House shortly.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can I suggest to the Minister that in addition to what has been suggested there should be a campaign to encourage people who have any sort of land to start saving water on it? For instance, I am thinking of whether I can put down a borehole—I have only 16 acres. Things such as that might be helpful if the Government could push people to see what they could do to save water themselves.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One important thing we need to be doing is not necessarily asking people to drop boreholes on their land but water saving more broadly. It is something we could definitely improve on as a country. The Government are keen for water companies to look at how they encourage more water saving across all their customers.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, in the past few weeks the Prime Minister has been talking about public control of water companies. What we have had since privatisation has been a disaster. Yesterday he actually mentioned public ownership. Does that mean renationalisation in other words? By the way, Havant Thicket is a disaster and I would be very happy to meet the Minister to explain exactly why and bring some campaigners as well. I save water in water butts.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness. She may be better off meeting the Water Minister, to be honest, but I am always happy to meet her. She raises important points, but we have to get this right. On public ownership, my understanding is that that same report stressed that public ownership was not the same as nationalisation. I need to understand better what the different options are.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is obvious that we need more investment in reservoirs but the easier, cheaper and quicker improvement is to restore natural water storage through rewetting, riparian tree planting, de-canalising rivers and, as my noble friend mentioned, creating on-farm water storage. What are the Government doing through ELMS and freeing water companies to invest to incentivise these improvements in resilience? I refer the House to my registered interest as a farmer and landowner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Within Defra we have a number of programmes to do with rewetting, tree planting and supporting farmers—we have talked about reservoirs for farmers—but also holding water better. We can look at balancing ponds, for example, which the Government have been supporting through the different river trusts. There is a lot of work going on there. The important thing is to make sure that it is co-ordinated and happening in the right place.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

Over the last few days, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, has indicated that the world is facing an exceptional El Niño impact that will have a direct effect on food production and food security, notwithstanding on communities. I urge my noble friend the Minister to have immediate conversations with her ministerial colleagues in Defra and other departments to see how the UK could be battle ready to deal with this phenomenon that could impact on all our lives, particularly in our farming communities.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We must all be aware of the reports about the excessive El Niño we are experiencing at the moment. I am sure that this winter is going to be very difficult for many parts of the world. In this country, the National Drought Group is meeting weekly. We have the working group on flooding as well. We are looking at long-term water resources management plans to ensure sustainable water supply. The Environment Agency is reviewing all the plans in this area because we need to make sure that long term we are prepared for drought, flooding and storms, all of which cause serious disruption to water supplies, electricity supplies and so on. There is co-ordinated work across government so that when we have these serious concerns about existing and future weather, we are better prepared than we have been before.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, reducing consumption and leakage is expected to meet more than 65% of England’s projected water shortfall. Will the Government make executive bonuses and dividends, and future bill increases, conditional on companies meeting binding water leakage reduction targets and preventing supply interruptions?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Water companies already have leakage targets, which they are expected to meet. I say from a personal point of view that United Utilities seems to be going like the clappers at the moment—virtually every road around our village is shut as it beavers away mending leaks. Perhaps the issues around water shortages this summer have focused water companies’ minds a bit more on the need to ramp up that work.

Data Centres: Water Resources

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of new data centres on water resources.

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

My Lords, a recent report by the Water Research Centre concluded that existing data centres in England account for just 0.2% of current non-household demand. However, the Government recognise that the expected increase in data centre development could place additional demand on water supplies. Therefore, we are engaging closely with regulators and industry to help us better understand data centre water use and to explore ways to minimise this impact.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

I thank the Minister. She will no doubt be aware that the majority of planned data centres are in areas of water stress or even severe stress. Currently, plans that are put forward do not have to say what the consumption of water will be. The Environment Agency wants more data in order to plan better. Does she not think it should be a matter for planning to know how much water will be consumed by any proposed data centre—because it is very variable—so that we can plan properly?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Proper information about the actual water use of data centres is clearly very important. We are taking action to support the data centre sector in England on this. Part of what we are doing is working across government to determine how we can increase water efficiency, to reduce the data centre water demand in the first place. We are also looking at not just the available evidence but the emerging evidence that is coming through on water use in data centres. One way to get that is to work with Ofwat’s Smart Water Metering Delivery Group, which will look at rolling out smart meters in the non-household market. That will help us better understand what the standards and delivery expectations are and how much water is being used. That work is due to be completed over the next 12 months.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that individual data centres can use as much water as thousands of homes yet it is still so ironic that these data centres do not appear able to provide transparent data about their own usage of water? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that new data centres put their own capabilities and machine-learning know-how to good use to tell us and provide us with that information?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I mentioned the Water Delivery Taskforce in response to the previous question. The whole point of that is to bring together government, industry and regulators to improve that evidence. We want to look at how best we can get that information from data use centres. It is early days with this at the moment, but we are very aware that we need to get this information if we are to look at the best use of our water resources. This year has clearly demonstrated that we need to look at this, and not just at data centres. Golf courses use an enormous amount more water than data centres, for example, so it is about looking at that bigger picture as well.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

The proposed data centre at Thurrock in Essex will concrete over habitat for bees, butterflies, plants and birds. It will consume up to 3 million litres of water a day in an area routinely subject to hosepipe bans. It will consume 2.65 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year and generate 570,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. Which of the consequences has a low priority for the Government?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government have a number of priorities. One is that we need to make sure that we underpin the digital services on which we all rely every day—your phones, your banking system, healthcare, business systems—and we need data centres to be able to do that. Also, we have a conundrum here. I am being asked about water use. Water-cooling methods use less electricity. So, again, what are we focusing on? What are the priorities? We need to encourage data centres to become more efficient and more effective. That is our priority.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what assessment Defra has made of the current regulatory framework and whether it will provide enough protection for the environment from the cumulative demand of data centres on water resources?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, the planning system is key to this. The very large data centres need to go through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—programme of planning, which also looks at full consultation. So there is a lot of interest; a lot of considerations are fully taken into account on the particularly large data centres. Clearly, like any major infrastructure, it will have an impact in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we get the balance right.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I am reliably informed that data can be sent through fibre-optic cables at the speed of light. Can the Minister tell us why we are putting, and planning to put, most of our data centres in the south and east of the United Kingdom when the vast majority of our water resources, and, indeed, most of our energy resources, are in the north and west of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can certainly confirm that the north-west, where I live, has been particularly damp this year, unlike the rest of the country. I think that looks to the bigger question: how are we going to look at our water infrastructure over the coming decades? There are parts of the country, like where I live, that do not have water shortages, where there is still rain, and other parts where there is nothing. It is important that we consider as a country how best to use our water resources more broadly. Where do we need to build reservoirs? How do we support farmers in holding water, for example? The water usage question is a bigger part of that, as is the question of where we build our different infrastructure.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, our uniquely high electricity prices, created by ideological energy policies, already make the UK an uncompetitive location for data centres. Developers need to navigate a tangle of many of Defra’s 34 arm’s-length bodies—of which the Minister has mentioned two—planning authorities and water companies to create cost-effective solutions to cooling without endangering our scarce water resources. What is the Minister doing to reduce this complexity, in particular through the implementation of the Cunliffe commission report? I disclose an interest as an unpaid adviser to a data centre developer.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

More broadly, regarding the complexity and the number of different organisations, the Cunliffe report has made recommendations that Defra is not just looking at but working on, because we realise that we have to be more efficient and effective, as does the whole of government. As I mentioned, water-cooling systems use less electricity, so again we have this balance to make on those resources. We are looking at standards of efficiencies right across; specifically on water, there will be the opportunity to debate this more broadly when we get the water Bill in front of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

If I understand correctly, the Government are looking at the possibility of recirculating some of the coolant water. If that is the case, is there a possibility of using it for district heating purposes? Can the Minister give an assurance that any heat dissipated will be allowed only if it does not adversely affect the biodiversity of that vicinity?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some good points about that kind of system which would clearly need to be taken into consideration. At the moment, as far as I am aware, no final decision has been made around that, but we are working with the water companies and the data centres to look at how we can get the most effective use of systems, whether that is through air cooling or through water cooling, and if it is water cooling, whether we can use rainwater systems, for example, to increase efficiencies.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

In May this House’s Environment and Climate Change Committee asked the Government to publish a prioritisation plan for emergency drought this autumn. The Government only partially accepted this, saying that any approach will be developed with critical national infrastructure sectors and not published in full. Can the Minister say when Parliament will be told how households, food production and data centres would be ranked if it came to it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not able to give the noble Baroness that information today, but the department is taking the issue of drought very seriously, as it has done with floods previously. We need to understand what the impacts of both floods and drought are in this changing environment, and many of the issues she has talked about will be part of those discussions.

Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 May be approved.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July.

Motion agreed.