Farming and Food Production

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what their top priorities are for farming and food production in this parliamentary session.

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

My Lords, supporting British farmers and boosting the nation’s food security are key priorities. Our reformed SFI offer will open later this month, and our ELM capital grants offer opens next month. We will continue to work with stakeholders through the new Farming and Food Partnership Board, and we will publish our response to the farming profitability review and our 25-year farming road map later this year. That will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but, of course, environmental schemes do not put food on the table. Will she take this opportunity to set out how the Government intend to put the focus back on to food production and farming, particularly to boost the productivity of farms in the uplands and tenanted farms? What specific measures is she intending to take to boost the food security and self-sufficiency so desperately needed at home, and the ability of our farmers to compete internationally away from home?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, profitability is really important, which is why the Batters review was so important. As part of increasing profitability, we are already implementing some of the recommendations from that review. As I said, our full response will be arriving later this year, and we will look at what else we can do. It is really important that we work closely with farmers but also processors, other producers and the horticultural sector. It is really important that we look at what we can do to increase profitability in a number of areas, and also at trade and the ability of our farmers to export, because obviously that makes a big difference. Clearly, the SPS agreement that we are looking at negotiating at the moment will also support that.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that true food security cannot exist without climate resilience? Considering the recent severe weather disruptions to UK crop yields, will the Government’s priorities in this parliamentary Session include a legally binding good food Bill to formalise national self-sufficiency targets alongside nature restoration metrics? If not, why not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that no good food Bill was announced in the King’s Speech this time, and I cannot presume to guess what is going to be in the next King’s Speech. Clearly, resilience to climate change is absolutely critical. From different perspectives, we know that farmers struggle when we have severe flooding and that drought and wildfire risk is also a real problem, so improving resilience for farming to both very dry and very wet weather is an absolute priority for the Government. We have invested a record £2.65 billion in flood defences, for example, and that will include supporting farmers as well. The environmental land management schemes will also allow for grants to look at some of the impacts of climate change.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government consider extending the SFI payments to cover farmers growing leguminous crops—in other words, beans? This fixes nitrogen in the soil and makes the soil more healthy. They cannot get fertilisers at the moment because of the Strait of Hormuz blockage. Also, this is the way we want our diets to go. At the moment, there is not much money in it for farmers to plant these kinds of crops. This would be a massive step towards both combating climate change and improving health.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Anything that can help us to make our farming sector more secure is welcome, particularly when we have seen the impact of the war in the Middle East on fertiliser, for example. I know that the Farming Minister, Angela Eagle, is looking at ways to continue to improve the SFI offer, and I will take the noble Baroness’s suggestions back to her.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge the very real contribution to the farming industry of the upland farmers, not least cefn gwlad in the lovely land of Wales, the Pennine farmers and the many uplands in Scotland and the Cheviots, for example? This community secures, in many ways, the environment of much of Britain, and they face many challenges now, not least climate change. I know how important my noble friend the Minister sees the environment to be. Does she acknowledge that this community across Britain does a great deal to help and should be acknowledged and rewarded?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can absolutely reassure my noble friend that the uplands are very close to my heart. My mother’s family were upland farmers in Wales and I currently live in Cumbria, so I know the issues around upland farming very well. The SFI offer that is coming forward will include seven moorland actions. I know that not all uplands are moorlands, but it will help and payment rates will be increased. I have had very constructive meetings with Dr Hilary Cottam, who is looking at a new approach working very much from the ground up in upland communities and bringing them together. We are looking at pilots first in Dartmoor and then in Cumbria because we know that it is a challenging landscape to farm in, and we want to support the best we can.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the Government announced this 25-year road map for farming in November 2024. That is 18 months ago. The noble Baroness has said it is going to happen this year, so when exactly might we see it in 2026? Will Defra now stand up for British agriculture against Treasury and government attacks when farm closures are at a record level and 51% of our farmers are thinking of simply giving up and leaving? When will the Government realise that supporting farming, our farmers and food is good for Britain? That should be the principal aim of any 25-year farming plan.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Part of the reason we decided to do a 25-year farming plan is to work with farmers and rural communities to ensure that they have some kind of certainty, some sort of security for the future, because there simply has not been enough of that in recent years. We feel that having a long-term approach that is worked up with farmers, the people who are on the ground and who understand that long-term thinking and security, can help to support them as businesses and our food security for the future.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the backbone of food production in rural Wales and in many other areas is small family farms but that one of the banes of their lives is the red tape levels they have to face in undertaking their work? Will the Government please review the red tape pressure that is on such farms in taxation and other matters to lessen this burden and let them get on with what they are best at, which is producing food?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, my mother’s family had a small family farm in Wales. My uncle had to do another job because he could not make sufficient money just from the farm, so I know the tough challenges that hill farms in Wales face. Obviously, it is a devolved matter. I assure the noble Lord that I talked regularly in the past to my colleague and I very much look forward to meeting the new Plaid Cymru Minister. I will continue to work to reduce red tape in whatever way we can for farms.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, bovine TB is one of the most serious challenges facing our cattle farmers in England, so I very much welcome the control strategy announced this morning by the Government, which makes a positive step change in the approach to that control. I have not seen the details yet, but will the Minister confirm that it will enable farmers and vets to use new antibody-based sensitivity tests to indicate which of their animals are infected, no matter what the official TB status is? Will they be able to have easier access to data from Defra and will they have the freedom to manage out infection in their herds? If these changes and others that are mentioned are followed, they should help improve animal health and welfare, reduce the stress on farmers from having to cull their cattle at regular intervals, and provide farmers with some welcome light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks some pertinent questions. I am pleased that earlier today the co-designed Bovine TB Control Strategy for England was published. It has been developed and published through the TB Hub website, which, if noble Lords are interested, I urge them to look at. A steering group of the Bovine TB Partnership has been working on this for some time in order to make sure that we get the next stage of our strategy on tackling bovine TB absolutely right. We are now going to look at the detail of the steering group’s proposals carefully to see where we go next.

The noble Lord asked a number of very specific questions. My understanding is that we are looking at new tests and implementation on working with vets, but, as he asked quite detailed questions about a strategy that has only just been published—I have not yet seen the detail as yet—I will write to him with that information.

Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, magnesium L-threonate monohydrate has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and a safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. This instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium, to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England. The instrument is a routine and technical measure, which will ensure that food supplements regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements.

The regulatory approach taken here is well established. Where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice, and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place. Noble Lords will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards.

Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used. A related statutory instrument already laid under the negative procedure adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established. An SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before the Grand Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and will ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.

Food law is a devolved matter. This instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplements regulations and Northern Ireland applies the existing EU equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor Framework.

It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory. It does not require any business to use this ingredient or change its products. The use of this new optional substance will initially affect only the applicant who requested this authorisation and who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.

Food supplements legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, the substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow this substance to be used in GB as soon as possible.

To conclude, these regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplements regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements, and they continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise for the fourth and final time. I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose. On these Benches, the priority is a fair deal for consumers, which means that all food supplements must meet the highest possible standards of quality and safety. The Food Standards Agency has assessed this form of magnesium as safe and on that basis we do not oppose its authorisation, but we have one or two questions about how the purity criteria will work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI. These draft regulations are a purely technical measure, setting the purity criteria for magnesium L-threonate to be used in food supplements and for its legal sale and use, in compliance with the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. This is a novel food. It was examined by the experts on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which pronounced on its safety and uses. The current levels authorised in the novel foods authorisation are 250 milligrams of magnesium per day, which is roughly equivalent to 3,000 milligrams of magnesium L-threonate per day. This level was established based on health-based guidance values.

The Food Standards Agency consulted on this matter. I understand that concerns were raised during that consultation that the maximum level initially proposed for magnesium L-threonate in food supplements would result in a lower amount of base magnesium compared to the EU’s maximum level of 250 milligrams. This would have risked disadvantaging British businesses that market their products in the EU. The FSA, after consultation with outside organisations, agreed the level that we have before us, which is the same as the EU’s. On this occasion, UK scientists made that decision and it was not foisted upon us by the EU. The future, however, looks rather different.

The assessment of safety is not one set figure but a range, allowing this revision to a higher but still safe level. I commend the work of the independent experts in the ACNFP, whose assessment allowed this product to get approval. They get abuse from ignorant people, who complain that they do contract work for the food industry and therefore must be biased, but I do not want the Government to employ any so-called expert if he or she is not good enough to get contract work from an outside company. These are excellent people and I commend them.

I would like to raise some broader concerns about food regulation. There has been much noise about the Government’s intentions for dynamic alignment with the EU. The sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement involves 18 key agri-food policy areas. The Government want us to believe that this deal will simply ease traffic at our ports, when in fact it requires adopting thousands of EU laws, including future changes to them, over which we will have no say whatever. This includes policies such as those approving or restricting food texturisers, enhancers and processing aids; dictating vitamin dosages, mineral concentrations and ingredient reporting; and authorising emerging food technologies, synthetic alternatives and lab-grown products. Many noble Lords across this House will have views and insights on each of these areas, but they will be denied any say. More broadly, the deal risks sacrificing areas of growth and progress, such as precision breeding and gene-editing, or the development of vaccination programmes for cattle against MTBC, mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.

What assurances can the Minister give that these successes will continue under the SPS agreement? Will she clarify what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure parliamentary oversight of future changes and to protect parliamentary sovereignty over UK law? These are important considerations; they are not relevant to the measure before us, but we will face them in future if the SPS agreement goes ahead. It is important that we have a say and can make recommendations over regulations such as those before us today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, as I said at the beginning, we welcome these regulations.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation and questions in another short and sweet debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the EU and divergence, and the noble Lord just touched on that as well. To clarify, this form of magnesium has been approved as a novel food in the EU, where it can be used in food supplements. There are some minor differences between the EU’s and the Food Standard Agency’s assessments, but they do not create a material difference or any safety concerns. In the FSA’s view, the differences are due to differences in assessment style rather than in the product itself. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the product, as manufactured, will comply with both the EU and GB specifications. That therefore does not give rise to any concerns regarding its trade between GB and the EU.

While we are on the EU, the noble Lord talked mainly about dynamic alignment and the legislation that will come with that, and asked for reassurances in that space. We are still in the middle of negotiations and I cannot go into the detail of them. They are not directly relevant to this statutory instrument, but the noble Lord knows that I am always more than happy to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss these issues with him in detail as we move forward through the EU discussions. We know where we are on that.

Just to finish, the noble Baroness also talked about review periods, safety, and so on within that. Clearly, a lot of these areas are in the FSA’s area, and we in Defra—and, I know, the Department of Health and Social Care—meet regularly with our colleagues in the Food Standards Agency, because it is really important that we uphold standards and work very closely together. I will reference these concerns in our next meeting with the FSA, because the noble Baroness makes very important points that when we are bringing in new legislation around novel foods, we need to ensure that we are confident in their safety for the long term and that consumers are being suitably protected.

Having said all that, I remind noble Lords that this statutory instrument is very much a routine technical measure; it does not place any new burdens on businesses but ensures that use of the substance meets clear, consistent safety and quality standards. I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions and commend this SI to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 58th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26.

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

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 15 April 2026.

This statutory instrument is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—that is, the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. It helps implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction within the remit of marine licensing. The UK must be able to meet all its obligations under the BBNJ agreement before it can ratify it. This statutory instrument will help enable that through amendments to the marine licensing regime.

Before I turn to the detail of the statutory instrument, I want to begin by underlining why it is so important that this Committee supports progressing this legislation. The BBNJ agreement is an implementing agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two-thirds of the ocean that lie beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet and are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species.

Primary legislation was needed in order to implement fully our BBNJ obligations. Accordingly, the BBNJ Bill was introduced last year and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards ratification. We are now taking forward the secondary legislation that is needed for the UK to fully implement the agreement. This instrument is part of that work; it needs to be made before the UK can ratify the agreement and participate fully in the first Conference of the Parties, which we expect to take place in January 2027.

This instrument helps implement the UK’s obligations under part IV of the agreement, which requires environmental impact assessments for activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction that could have a significant impact on the marine environment. Under the agreement, the UK is required to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of any planned activity in these areas are suitably assessed before a decision is taken to authorise the activity. This instrument makes provisions relating to activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction so that environmental impacts can be suitably considered in line with these obligations.

Currently, a small number of activities involving deposits, scuttling and incineration are already licensable in areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, to date, only two marine licences have been issued for such activities since 2011. This instrument extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to types of activity that are already licensable when carried out in UK waters, such as construction or removal activities. Licensable activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction will include those carried out or controlled by UK persons, as well as activities undertaken from British vessels, aircraft, marine structures or floating containers.

This instrument makes a number of amendments to the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011. An exemption is added so that several of the new activities will not require a marine licence where they do not meet the threshold for needing an environmental impact assessment or a screening for an environmental impact assessment, as set out in the BBNJ agreement. This exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full environmental impact assessment. An exemption is also introduced for the removal of specific subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to consistently fall below the BBNJ screening threshold.

Alongside this instrument, I highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence. These are activities that are regulated by the Scottish Government under devolved powers. The Scottish instrument adds new licensable activities to the licensing regime under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and makes other changes to that regime. This ensures that the Scottish licensing framework aligns with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The Scottish order was made in March 2026 and will come into force on the same day as the BBNJ agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom.

To avoid dual regulation, so that a marine licence is not required under both our licensing regime and the Scottish Government’s marine licensing regime for the same activity, this instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities regulated under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This instrument also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This statutory instrument implements the necessary changes to marine licensing to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. We are confident that its provisions will improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this statutory instrument. We support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—BBNJ—agreement and welcome this SI, which enables the United Kingdom to meet its international obligations under the global oceans treaty. We have long campaigned for stronger protection of the marine environment and support international action to conserve biodiversity in areas that until now have been beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

We note that the SI introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk, such as the removal of cables, as described by the Minister. Although we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, we believe that it will be important that these exemptions are kept under regular review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. Although we support the implementation of this treaty and this SI, we remain clear that the Government must ensure that the new licensing exemptions do not in turn become loopholes in the future and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.

We think that some aspects warrant a bit of closer scrutiny, particularly the new exemptions introduced through Articles 39, 40 and 41. Those raise questions about the breadth of the regime. Although we understand in principle the exemption where a screening opinion concludes that an environmental impact assessment is not required, it rests heavily on an assumption of low environmental risk and the current low volume of applications. When I read up on this, I was absolutely mesmerised by the fact that only two licences exist at the moment. It is quite a large statutory instrument for just two operators.

Although only a small number of applications have been received to date, that position may change. There may be a discovery, and I guess the Government are trying to be ahead of the curve of a sudden gold rush, in effect, of dredging for essential minerals in the deep ocean. So I congratulate the Government on this, as it feels a bit ahead of the curve and that is really unusual. That is good. However, I noticed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the UK itself was a little behind the curve in comparison with one or two other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important SI. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction, so it is crucial that we support international co-operation and that we take our own responsibilities and opportunities for action seriously. That is why the previous Conservative Government played a leading role in negotiating the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. In our waters, we have established 296 marine protected areas, and we have established the Blue Belt programme and backed our overseas territories. Indeed, the UK overseas territories are home to an estimated 94% of all known UK biodiversity. We must take that role seriously.

This secondary legislation follows the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act to ensure compliance with the treaty, specifically regarding environmental impact assessments for activities that require a licence and for which the Marine Management Organisation is the licensing authority on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will ensure that potential environmental impacts are assessed before activities are approved in areas under the UK’s control. The Official Opposition therefore welcome the order.

More broadly, however, the Government do not seem to be taking their role seriously. Until recently, they were determined to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and to pay for the privilege, despite concerns about its ability to protect precious marine biodiversity around the Chagos archipelago. The Chagos Islands MPA was designated in 2010 and is home to coral reefs and 76 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species. Sadly, the Government do not take the UK’s international role seriously and were prepared to give this all away for the Chinese shipping empire to pillage every inch of that ocean.

Closer to home, last year the Government decided to grant the EU 12 years of continuous access to UK fishing waters, despite concerns of overfishing and concerns from the UK fishing industry. Indeed, one organisation described the deal as a

“horror show for Scottish fishermen”.

When the Government show a disregard for our sovereign territory, marine life suffers as a result, not to mention the other financial costs to our economy and public finances.

As this instrument passes to help us meet the obligations of the BBNJ agreement in full, I urge the Government to reflect on how they are living up to the UK’s international role in other areas. If we are expected to be responsible for areas beyond our national jurisdiction, it means taking our sovereign territory overseas even more seriously. What assurances can the Minister give that UK fishing waters will not be harmed further in the Government’s planned UK-EU reset? What further steps are the Government taking to protect marine life in and around overseas territories? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I commend and welcome this order.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short but sweet debate. I am pleased that noble Lords fundamentally have supported this statutory instrument, as it is important. We do need to ratify the agreement, so I thank noble Lords for their broad support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about enforcement and resources. The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, including advisory letters and formal enforcement action. We want to apply any enforcement proportionately on risk and evidence. We can place conditions on licences requiring licence holders to keep records, make returns or provide information to the Marine Management Organisation. However, we are also looking at how the MMO can develop intelligent gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address that. Regarding non-compliance, any breach of the licence terms and conditions may lead to that enforcement action being taken. That can include variation, revocation or suspension of the licence, the issuing of an enforcement notice, civil penalties or criminal proceedings—which carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to two years.

On resources, the MMO charges for licence applications on a cost recovery basis. Applications under BBNJ will be charged at the highest band-3 hourly rate. While the MMO applies a cost recovery approach, not all costs are currently recovered through this mechanism. The remainder are covered by grant-in-aid funding. We are looking to move towards fuller cost recovery to get to that place.

The noble Baroness mentioned that there have been only two applications for a licence on an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch, which I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of. She also asked how we could increase resource if we suddenly had more activity. A cost recovery basis should cover it, but we do not anticipate many activities. Our evidence shows that there have been very few so far. We have a few case studies. It is difficult to completely assess the volume, but we do not expect much to come forward.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the lack of a review. I am unaware as to whether there is a process for that, so I shall pick that up and ask for more information.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He mentioned the environment around the Chagos Islands. National security is paramount, but we have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. The UK and Mauritius have both committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in Chagos. This has been welcomed by conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. The UK and Mauritius have been working together to attach great importance on the need to protect marine diversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.

This legislation will help to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and be able to ratify it, while establishing a flexible proportionate approach to regulating licensable marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a crucial step, ensuring that effective measures are in place to protect our environment for the future.

Motion agreed.

Water Companies

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, delivery of strategic water infrastructure is crucial to tackling wider systemic issues. What assessment have the Government made of the benefits of smaller farm reservoir networks alongside large-scale water storage? That is the shortest question of the day, I dare to suggest.

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

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it has to be faced that in the east of England we spend a lot of money pumping fresh water out to sea during the winter and then do not have enough of it for agriculture, industry and homes? Nobody at this moment is looking at the specific issue of how we stop the costs of doing that and enable people in the east of England to have water supplies that at the moment they do not.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point—in fact, he made it to me yesterday. I do not blame him for repeating it, because it is critical for the east of the country. All I can say is that we are looking right across the water industry to see how we can improve it and make it operate effectively for consumers and the environment. I will absolutely reiterate to the department the points he has made.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, water companies have knowingly violated their licence conditions and have more convictions than hardened criminal gangs, yet no executive has been fined and no company forced to relinquish its licence. What will it take for the Government to recognise that privatisation has failed and that water companies ought to be returned to public ownership?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord is very keen on nationalising the water industry. It is important that we use the clean water Bill coming up later this year to make the systemic changes to the water industry that will deliver us an industry that is fit for the future and that people can rely on. That is the big problem—people cannot rely on the water industry at the moment, and we are seeing issues such as those with South East Water and Thames Water more and more frequently.

When looking at nationalisation, we consider the regulated capital value of the water sector to be the closest proximity for the total value of the sector’s debt and equity; it is currently £107 billion. This is usually used as the starting point for estimations. You can then put on a discount—for poor performance, for example—or a premium. At the moment, £82.7 billion is the cost of the outstanding debt of the water companies. We are not looking to renationalise because of the cost and because of the amount of change we are bringing in. We want to crack on. In the case of nationalisation, government would become responsible for that huge amount of money.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the work that she and the department are doing in clearing up the rivers, watercourses and seas, though privatisation and EU regulations have played their part. She will be aware that the Cunliffe review referred to pollution and flooding being addressed up stream and to greater use of sustainable drains. Can she resolve her disagreement with her fellow Ministers in the Ministry of Housing to make sure that we can implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, Defra is very keen to be able to implement SUDS. We know that it makes a huge difference. We know that we need to use sustainable drainage to tackle flooding, particularly given the size of the building programme and the Government’s ambitions in housing, for example. I can only assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to press the department on this.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

We do need more capacity for reservoirs and water storage. Where have the Government and the regulator got to in granting the permits so that work can get under way to make that much-needed provision?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are very keen to press forward with new reservoirs. It is unfortunate that no new reservoirs have been built in almost 40 years. There are a number of reasons for that, and it is one of the reasons why we brought in the Planning and Infrastructure Act: to allow major projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—to be able to move forward more quickly. We are currently working through that process.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday I asked the Minister how long it takes to build a reservoir, but I am not sure I got an answer. I am told by a bit of internet research that it will take roughly 10 years to get through planning and then a further five to 10 years to build a reservoir, by which time I think most Members of this House will be either former Members or late Members. Are those the figures that the Minister is working to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I sincerely hope that I will see that first reservoir built and that I will not be a late Member, and I hope the same for the noble Lord. As I said, part of the reason for the Planning and Infrastructure Act was to tackle that issue of planning. It is not just reservoirs; there are many other important nationally significant infrastructure projects. Look at Hinkley Point C for nuclear, for example, and how many years that has taken. That is why we needed to change the planning system: to be able to move these projects on in good time.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

On these issues, and further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, one thing the Government could do, which would be simple and quick, would be to give farmers and landowners permitted development rights to build small ponds and small reservoirs on their land. That would be beneficial on water and beneficial on biodiversity. It is something the Government could do now. Why will they not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are not telling farmers and landowners that they cannot do that. There are ways in which we can work with farmers and landowners to allow the building of small water-holding areas. I will discuss this further with the Farming Minister, but it is something that we are already looking at.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to reply to my Written Questions about what the Environment Agency in 2021 said was going to be its biggest ever criminal investigation. Five years on, with six charges potentially laid, there has been only one conviction so far. I encourage the Minister to work with her colleagues and fellow Ministers so that, when the water Bill does come through, a lot more power is given to the Secretary of State, as is happening with the Health Bill, so that we can get a move on with making sure that people go to jail when they need to and that we avoid this systemic failure in the first place.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point, not just on the water Bill that is coming forward but more broadly. I get very frustrated when we put in laws that should make a difference and then enforcement does not happen or things take too long. It is a really important point that the noble Baroness makes. Obviously, we will be debating the clean water Bill, and I am sure that enforcement and what we do about criminal behaviour will be part of those discussions.

South East Water: Disruption of Supply

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, climate experts are predicting that a super El Niño this autumn could lead to 2027 being the hottest year on record. We know this today, so what exactly are the Government doing now to prepare the country in advance and avoid the disruption to water supplies as seen last spring? There can be no excuses next year that the Government did not know it was coming.

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

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, working as the chairman of a small water company means that one does know a bit about it. I just want to ask the Minister: when are we going to stop pouring fresh water into the sea during the winter in the east of England and then being so short of water in the east of England that the Essex & Suffolk Water company has announced that it cannot provide water for any new business or extension of an old business until 2036? The Government’s water Statement does not cover this fundamental nonsense. We should be collecting the water and having it so that people can get on with their jobs.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes good points. One problem that we clearly have is that there are parts of the country that have plenty of water and parts that have very little water. Unfortunately, the parts that have very little water tend to be the ones with the highest populations. We have to look at how we are going to manage that long term, because clearly what we are doing at the moment simply is not working and is not the right approach. Again, that is why we want to reform the water industry and shake it up properly. It is critical that the points the noble Lord makes are taken into consideration, because we have to get this right.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The Minister knows that she has my full support in shaking up the water industry, as we have discussed on quite a number of occasions. While it is all very well for us to tell her to hurry up and supply more water, can she tell the House how long it takes to build a reservoir?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a very good question. Obviously, we have not built a new reservoir for more than 30 years. That is one reason why we have reduced domestic capacity, as the noble Lord knows. We need to just get on with this as best we can. We are trying to get a co-ordinated system-wide approach to it. Havant Thicket is the first new reservoir, so we are using that as a live learning opportunity for the Government, regulators and the water companies, because we all need to work together if we are going to do this. A reservoir senior sponsorship group was established by the Water Delivery Taskforce, designed to both identify and resolve any barriers that we have in delivering a new reservoir. There has been talk of reservoirs for years, so we need to work out why it is not happening so that we can crack on and make it happen.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

The South East Water company is something of a joke. If I lived in Tunbridge Wells, I would be “Angry of Tunbridge Wells”. The failures in supply in parts of Kent over the last two or three years have been quite profound. What measures can we take to make sure that the company improves its performance? Is there a case for it being taken into some form of control by the state?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the chair and CEO of South East Water have resigned following calls from Defra Ministers. My colleague Minister Hardy met the company twice at the end of last month and wanted to understand better what it was doing about compensation plans, but also a proper action plan for this summer. South East Water has also been held to account through the Water Delivery Taskforce to scrutinise its infrastructure delivery. Obviously, we are also aware that Ofwat has fined it, but there is no point fining water companies if it does not fundamentally change their behaviour, so we need to go further.

Ofwat is looking at what to do about that. A licence investigation from Ofwat is going on because of South East Water’s repeated supply failures, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate is investigating the company. Ofwat has also opened enforcement action because South East Water is no longer complying with its investment-grade rating, as Moody’s obviously downgraded it. A lot is happening here but, fundamentally, we need to totally reform the water system so that this does not keep happening in the future.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, 84% of proposed UK data centres are in areas already in water stress or projected to be so by 2040, and water bills for households are expected to rise because of the construction of data centres. Does the Minister agree that we should not be building data centres where there is not enough water and that households should not be paying for this construction by tech companies?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is quite a challenge, is it not? How do we get that balance right? It is really challenging: we know in this country that we need more infrastructure, but how do we balance the needs of infrastructure with the water requirements that go along with that? The noble Baroness talked about data companies, but you could say the same for housing and other industries that use a lot of water, because we all do. We are looking at data companies in particular because we need to ensure that we have sufficient water supply without impacting on other areas.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, will my noble friend resist the temptation to build more desalination plants in areas of this country that are pretty wet already? In Cornwall, South West Water is trying to build a desal plant when it could perfectly well look at more reservoirs, rather than wasting power—which is in short supply around there—on pumping water up the hill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not know the detail of the proposals in Cornwall but, as I said, we need to get the balance right. It is really important. As I said in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, we have a problem with populations often being in the driest part of the country, so we need to get a proper overview of this.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, a lot of the regulation relating to water still comes from the European Union. Will the Government look at that in isolation or as part of the water Bill when it is before the House this autumn?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We need to look at it in the round. As the noble Baroness is aware, we are having a lot of discussions with the European Union at the moment, and it is important to learn from other countries and from what works in different places. Some countries are better at saving water than we are in this country, for example. I do not know the detail of where we will end up—negotiations are still ongoing—but we certainly need to take into account the way the European Union approaches water and the legislation that is likely to be with us.

Access to Nature Green Paper

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish an access to nature Green Paper.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of providing access to the outdoors for people’s health and well-being. We are committed to improving responsible access to nature, and this year we launched the first of our nine new national river walks, the Mersey Valley Way in the north-west of England. The Government have committed in their environmental improvement plan to publish an access to nature Green Paper during this Parliament.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. “During this Parliament” is a well-worn phrase which is, sadly, meaningless and I wonder whether she would accept that there is some urgency about this. A recent study has shown that around a third of children get no outdoor playtime during the course of a week. Does she agree that, if we want to get children off their phones, we owe it to them to provide them with more healthful alternatives?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: one of the things that it is really important for us to do as a Government is get children out into nature. We know that, if you get out in nature at a young age, you are more likely to continue to do so during your life, and we know how good it is for people’s health. On children, I can reassure the noble Baroness that we have been working with the Department for Education on a number of measures where we can increase children’s connections with and understanding of nature. We are working to develop a national nature education park, for example, and looking at how we can embed it throughout the school life of children.

There are also other ways. I recently visited Low Gillerthwaite field centre, for example, to see its excellent work. It trains young people in nature conservation and brings children in to see nature. As we develop the Green Paper, which we are absolutely committed to, we are also working on myriad other ways in the meantime to ensure better access for all people, including children.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as declared in the register. Farming for food production and the environment is eminently compatible, but does the Minister agree that with rights come responsibilities, and with the importance of adherence to the Countryside Code and a much greater awareness of it? We want to encourage so many people of all backgrounds and all regions to come and enjoy the glories of the countryside, but there must be responsibility with it. Also, I think that the countryside ticks better with pragmatism rather than ideology. We need to remember that we are relying on the farmland for food and to look after nature and there will be times when it is not advisable to have wider access, for the protection of not only food production but the thing we cherish, which is nature.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord about responsibility. I live in Cumbria, as noble Lords know, where there is damage, litter, the leaving opening of gates and sheep worrying, because people sometimes do not understand when they go to the countryside how to be responsible. I am really keen that we increase access. I do not need increased access to nature, because I have plenty and I enjoy walking. Plenty of people do not. They are the people we want to get out into nature, because we know how good it is for them. At the same time, an education process about responsibility in the countryside is incredibly important.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the current 2p piece has an image on the back of a red squirrel. I wonder, as a serious point, whether the Green Paper could look at the establishment of red squirrel enclosures as one way of getting people access to nature. There are one or two red squirrel enclosures in England that have positive economics; I am not aware of any that have negative economics. The sad thing is that the vast majority of citizens in England have never seen a red squirrel, which is on the 2p bit. This might be a way through. Would it be something that the Green Paper could look at?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to consider a number of things to go in the Green Paper. Anything that encourages people to get out into nature is clearly to be welcomed. In fact, one member of my staff yesterday admitted to me that she had never seen a grey squirrel. Living in Cumbria, that is—

[Noble Lords]

Red squirrel.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that farms are businesses and that there has been a worrying trend of sheep worrying, dog attacks on sheep and wildfires started by the public accessing the countryside? Who will be responsible for ensuring that the Countryside Code is applied, both in the letter and the spirit, to ensure that farm animals are not harmed in this way?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That kind of responsibility needs to be part of the Green Paper. If we encourage people to get out and about, they need to understand responsible behaviour. On the other issues spoken to by the noble Baroness, it is important that we work with farmers and local communities, but also with local authorities. They have responsibility for the maintenance of footpaths, for example, and proper maintenance makes a difference.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has talked a lot about access for children, which is, of course, very important, and she has used the word “walk” quite a lot. Access to nature is equally important for people who do not have the ability to walk: I am thinking in particular of elderly people with mobility issues. It is not just the green spaces themselves but the roads that lead to them, which often do not have something as simple as a dropped kerb. Can the Minister make sure that the Green Paper covers access for people of all ages and all abilities?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises such an important point. What I have not said, of course, is that with the new National River Walk and with other walks that we are doing, such as the Coast to Coast being redesignated as the National Trail, we are improving accessibility. This is in order to ensure that people in wheelchairs, those who are less able and people with pushchairs can get out and about. We are also looking to ensure that we have better cycle routes, better access for horses when people want to ride, and also for canoeing and using the rivers.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, enjoying access to nature, combined with physical activity, is medically proven to result in healthier, more prosperous and happier communities. The Minister mentioned the Environmental Improvement Plan: will she commit to the target within that plan that everyone should have access to green or blue spaces within a 15-minute walk of their home, which is not currently being met but could potentially improve life outcomes for a multitude of people?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Yes.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s attempt to encourage people to go out in green spaces and walk, particularly along rivers. Is she aware that the Thames path is now broken, in that the bridges at both Temple and Henley have been out for a number of years? To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, disabled people who want to walk along the Thames path have to go through very busy roads to do so. Apparently, the Environment Agency receives no money from central government to repair bridges, and is actually relying on private donations to do so. Will the Minister have another look at this? The Thames path is central for so many people who want to enjoy the River Thames, and I declare my interest as a regular runner along it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have only recently been made aware of this and I am currently looking at it. The noble Lord raises an important point. One of the things that we need to be more aware of as a Government is how we maintain what we already have, as well as looking at new access.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Will the Minister not concede that it would be self-defeating if, on the one hand, we were to encourage more people to go out and see our unrivalled countryside while, at the same time, presiding over the largest explosion of overhead power lines, up and down the country, in some of our most vulnerable landscapes? What more can the Government do to ensure that there is better co-ordination for the transmission of overhead power, and that as much of that power as possible goes underground?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Whether or not it goes underground is a matter for each individual project and is something that happens during the consent process. Access to nature is important for many people, and you can find nature in urban environments as well; it does not have to be just for the countryside.

EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as chair of a biotech company.

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

My Lords, as part of the SPS agreement, the EU has accepted that there will need to be a number of areas where we need to retain our own rules. The details of those are subject to negotiation, but we have been clear about the importance of being able to support the use of new and innovative technologies such as novel foods.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer, and I am very encouraged by her response, because in this area I have seen first-hand how we have used our innovation and flexibility to create inward investment and a world-leading industry. Can I take from the noble Baroness’s Answer that we are adopting a similar approach to what Switzerland did, which achieved integration while getting carve-outs in key areas—the so-called Swiss cheese approach—and we plan to do that here as well?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to improve food production within the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are working very closely to encourage farmers to work with us, such as by applying for grants such as the SFI. The noble Baroness, Lady Batters, has done a report on food productivity, which is incredibly important if we are to increase our food security, and we are busy looking at the best way to implement many of her recommendations.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness and the Government well in these crucial SPS negotiations. The farmers have made a perfectly reasonable request that there should be a transitional period before the new arrangements come into place sometime in 2027. Will the Government look favourably on that request?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I say, we talk regularly to farmers and other food producers. We are very aware that there will be impacts in some areas of realignment, and we are certainly looking at discussing transition periods.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

Can the Minister reassure the House that the scientific progress and eminence established in the UK on precision breeding, particularly of crops and animals, and in particular with regard to resistance to disease and environmental stressors, will be safeguarded in the current negotiations?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, we are discussing this area with the EU. One of the approaches that we have around the new technologies, whether you are talking about gene editing or novel foods, is that it is important that we are able to strengthen the UK’s credibility as an innovative regulator, bringing in these new technologies. We are very proud of our scientific community and of the work being done in these areas, and we will continue to support them to the best of our ability.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Under dynamic alignment, will we be able to block a measure which we think is anti-innovation but which the EU asserts is not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will be wanting to take part in the debates on the European partnership Bill when it arrives, and I imagine that that is the time for those discussions.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that what the Government are negotiating on SPS could bring quite substantial benefits to the bureaucratic problems met by trade between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. An important component of the negotiations and one of the reasons why we are looking to agree a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, particularly on agri-foods, is making it easier, cheaper and quicker for British businesses to trade with the EU. In the business meeting that I had in Northern Ireland last week, there was a very positive response from businesses regarding the potential opportunities that will arise from this.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the freedom to break out of the ridiculous EU ban on gene editing was one of the greatest successes of Brexit. We passed the law fully supported by the Labour Party, and the Food Standards Agency has developed all the necessary guidelines. Our industry is geared up and raring to go, with products that will benefit people, animals and the environment. Can the Minister assure us that, whatever else the Prime Minister—whoever that may be—sells out in reintegrating the United Kingdom back into the straitjacket of EU bureaucracy, gene editing will not be sacrificed?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, I am not able to give detailed information around the negotiations because they are ongoing and we do not have outcomes. However, I assure the noble Lord that issues such as gene editing are being discussed.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for visiting Northern Ireland, particularly the Balmoral show and fishermen at Ardglass, County Down, last Friday, at my request. She would have heard quite clearly the importance of fishing, whether in the catching or the processing sector. What steps are the Government taking to improve the supply chain sector in order to underpin our reliance on agriculture and fisheries in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the reasons why I go to Northern Ireland regularly and meet with businesses, farmers and people involved in the fishing industry is to understand exactly what the Government can do to support those industries, and that includes the supply chain. It was a good discussion, and I am aware that my colleague, the Farming Minister, is meeting with fishers, fish producers and processers today. I intend to feed back the information that I got to support strengthening that supply chain as well as those who are at the front end of fishing.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to follow up on the point about precision breeding raised by other noble Lords. I seek clarification from the Minister about precision-bred products that are about to enter the approvals process with the Food Standards Agency. I am thinking, for example, of the vitamin D-enriched tomato developed by Professor Cathie Martin at the John Innes Centre in Norwich, whereby one tomato contains the same amount of vitamin D as two eggs; we know that one in five children in this country suffer from vitamin D deficiency, so that could have significant health benefits. I understand from Professor Martin that this product is being submitted for approval in the near future. Can the Minister confirm that approvals will not be held up because of the SPS negotiations and that the Food Standards Agency will be free to approve the product if it deems it appropriate?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that it is business as usual and that will continue while the negotiations are going on. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I declare an interest, as my wife’s company in Brussels works on the new genomic techniques that have been filed with the European Commission. The Minister might like, in the negotiations, to treat the question of alignment between our precision-breeding regulations and new genomic techniques from the European Commission as an opportunity for the European Commission to align with the United Kingdom or, in this case, with England. Perhaps we should also bring Scotland and Wales on board to our PBO regulations too.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would be very happy to make the suggestion.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, when answering the question asked by my noble friend Lord Redwood, the Minister mentioned sovereignty and Britain being a sovereign nation. Parliament is also sovereign, so can she confirm that, if major changes are brought in, they will not be through SIs, which cannot be properly debated and amended?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, the European partnership Bill will be coming to this House. That will allow plenty of time for debate on these issues.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 March be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 27 April.

Motion agreed.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this SI forward. This is a complex and wide-ranging area. It is about protecting our country’s health as much as it is about animal welfare. It involves scientific authorities, Border Force and police inspections, and compliance checks.

Let me begin by saying that we support efforts to reduce administrative burdens and costs, as well as attempts to simplify the system without undermining it. CITES was designed with membership of the EU in mind. We now have the freedom to amend it to our own needs and tailor the framework to meet specific challenges, using our own expertise at Kew Gardens and the JNCC. I note that the Government consulted on these changes with both conservation groups and businesses, all of which deserve a fair hearing.

I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to a few specific changes on which I would appreciate some assurance from the Minister. This SI enables the Secretary of State to determine which specimens require an import notification, rather than an import permit, for those deemed “low-risk”. We welcome the shift to risk-based controls, but can the Minister outline what criteria will be used and how often the risk categories will be reviewed? Does the import notification still give authorities the same oversight and ability to trace specimens? That could be particularly useful if a specimen is deemed to be a higher health risk at a later stage.

Travelling exhibition certificates from other countries will now be recognised as a result of this legislation. It is absolutely right that we prevent unnecessary duplication, but can the Minister provide further detail on which countries will benefit and how their certification processes differ from ours?

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the enforcement approach and fully addressing my questions in that area, but it is currently not a criminal offence in the UK—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out—to possess or trade wildlife that was illegally sourced in its country of origin. So what steps are the Government taking to track down the original perpetrators of these crimes, as well as to support buyers in identifying and reporting illegal wildlife trading? Can the Minister indicate whether the SPS agreement and other related negotiations with Europe are likely to have any impact on the implementation of these regulations—or, indeed, to overrule any of them?

Finally, we have previously debated the impact of invasive non-native species on our own ecosystem, including the pernicious effect of grey squirrels on successful tree-planting and red squirrel populations. It is critical that no additional burden is created. It would be helpful to have an assurance that, in the extremely unlikely event that an endangered species were to escape into the wild in the UK and breed successfully, aggressive control of that species would be possible in order to prevent it becoming invasive.

I appreciate that this is a complex framework. We agree with the aim to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is clear that an appropriate balance must be found, so I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on the points that have been made.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords both for making some important points about the legislation before us and for contributing to the debate.

As I set out earlier, these regulations are designed to modernise an important regulatory framework so that it works effectively for the UK, supports legitimate trade, and keeps protections firmly focused on the species and risks that matter most. The idea is for them to deliver practical improvements but noble Lords clearly have some concerns, so let me cover some of the issues that have been asked about.

Questions were asked about the new powers, including those for the Secretary of State. The idea is that the regulations will allow the UK to improve its implementation of CITES and the environmental protections it holds.

The new powers are to require the Secretary of State to publish formal lists where import suspensions or additional measures are in place. In some cases, these are already being applied in practice for endangered species: examples are strict controls on rhinos, tigers and bear bile. The powers are tightly defined and will be used only for purposes that are consistent with the CITES convention and the wildlife trade regulations. Any changes to this have to be informed by scientific advice from the UK CITES scientific authorities and are limited to the application of import suspensions or additional measures where there is a clear conservation or welfare justification. I hope that helps with some of the transparency around the Secretary of State’s role.

This is not going to reduce parliamentary scrutiny because the circumstances and conditions under which changes can occur are clearly set out in the legislation, and that legislation is subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. Publishing lists will provide transparency and legal clarity without requiring new regulations each time it is updated. That will enable Parliament and stakeholders to see very clearly what applies at any given time while also allowing the system to respond more quickly to any urgent conservation risks. We recognise the interest in updating wider wildlife legislation, but I make clear that this statutory instrument is specifically focused on the implementation of the UK’s obligations on trade in endangered species.

The issue of environmental and animal welfare protections was raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The crucial and necessary core protections for endangered species and trade will remain unchanged. That includes requirements for higher-risk trade, scientific non-detriment findings and enforcement checks at the border. The proposed reforms are deliberately targeted and evidence led. They have been informed by the consultation that the noble Lord referred to, and by advice from UK scientific authorities. They will focus regulatory effort where conservation risk is highest while removing the duplication of administrative requirements where there is little evidence of conservation benefit. The idea behind a risk-based approach is that it allows us to respond more effectively to changing trade patterns and scientific evidence without lowering those standards or protections. Again, no changes are being made to the welfare assessments that are required as part of the CITES applications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about risks opening up. I will say why the Government have taken this approach, particularly around annex B import permits. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or just duplicate paperwork. These changes do not weaken protections because import permits will remain firmly in place for high-risk species and activities. Core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply. A low-risk list will be developed but it will also be kept under review, based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence, and all annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, while the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight in order that we can respond quickly to any changes in risk.

On enforcement capacity, Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the UK border and the police enforce CITES controls inland. The amendments in this statutory instrument will support their efforts by bringing in civil sanctions and other changes. The idea is to provide a much larger range of tools that can be used so that efforts can be far more targeted to tackle any illegal wildlife trade.

Domestic wildlife crime was mentioned. Birds of prey prosecution is a national wildlife crime priority, and there are strong penalties in place for offences committed against not just birds of prey but other wildlife. Through Defra, we fund the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which helps to prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats and directly assisting law enforcement in its investigations. Defra funding for the NWCU for the financial year 2026-27 is £530,000. In addition to that, we are providing funding to Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture to develop DNA forensic analysis for the police and other organisations.

On illegal wildlife trade, we are fully committed to global efforts to address the drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, including environmental crimes such as illegal wildlife crime. We have an annual allocation in Defra of £150 million a year, which will run from 2026-27 to 2028-29. A significant portion of that will be used to continue to support the biodiversity challenge funds.

I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the SPS agreement, but I hope that it is moving forward and we will be able to give more clarity on that later in the spring or in early summer.

On invasive species controls, I work very hard with the invasive species team—we had a meeting last week. We are determined to increase Defra’s ability to tackle invasive species. In particular, we have a target to stop new invasive species coming in and taking hold in this country. We are working very hard on that.

I hope I have addressed all the issues that were raised and that noble Lords will approve the instrument. I thank noble Lords for their support.

Motion agreed.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 March be approved.

Relevant document: 56th 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, I declare an interest as I am in receipt of delinked payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to delinked payments in England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, it delivers our commitment to phase out these subsidies by the end of the seven-year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers; 2027 will be the last year of delinked payments.

A regret amendment has been tabled expressing concern about the impact on farmers. The Government are committed to supporting our farmers and the vital role that they play. We will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient for the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential so that we can fund our other schemes which help us to achieve this.

Delinked payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability. They do not support the healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water that is needed to produce good food. They do not promote innovation and do not provide good value for money.

The reductions to delinked payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership, with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of farms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with higher reductions to amounts in the higher payment band. We announced the reductions last June to help farmers to plan.

The money released from delinked payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026-27 to 2028-29 through the farming and countryside programme, and up to £400 million from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and peatlands. This includes increasing annual funding for the environmental land management schemes, from £1.8 billion in 2025-26 to more than £2 billion by 2028-29. This means that we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to support them to help restore nature and boost farm productivity. Some 50,000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land are now managed under our environmental land management schemes.

Earlier this year, we announced plans for our new sustainable farming incentive offer, which will ensure that more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements will be introduced to make SFI26 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long-term food security.

Last September, the new Countryside Stewardship higher tier opened for applications to those who have been invited to apply, have received pre-application advice and have completed any preparatory work. Landscape recovery projects that were awarded development funding in rounds 1 and 2 are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course.

The latest round of the environmental land management capital grant offer will open in July this year, backed by £225 million in funding. That is 50% more than was available in 2025. We have also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants for 2026-27. Such grants can help the sector access cutting-edge technology and techniques, such as robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers grow more food. This funding forms part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and trial new technology as part of the UK’s modern industrial strategy.

We will be spending up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice. We are working with Dr Hilary Cottam to develop a place-based approach for upland communities. We have also extended the farming and protected landscapes programme for another three years, until March 2029. We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We have established a farming and food partnership board, which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, building on the recommendations in the Farming Profitability Review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters.

We have also been engaging with farmers and stakeholders on a 25-year farming road map, which will set up the Government’s long-term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead. This Government want farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient, while contributing to food security and nature recovery. The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are very practical questions.

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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