Plastic Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to secure agreement to a global treaty to counter plastic pollution.

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

My Lords, the UK Government are committed to securing agreement to a global treaty on plastic pollution when the negotiations resume in August 2025. At the UN Ocean Conference in June, the UK joined over 95 signatories of the Nice wake-up call statement to demonstrate support for an ambitious treaty. We are working with other countries, including allies in the High Ambition Coalition, to develop text options to facilitate an agreement.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

In the last 20 years, global plastic production and plastic waste have doubled, despite national and voluntary initiatives, so it is fantastic that the Government have signed up to the Nice declaration. Can I press the Minister to ask exactly what conversations and discussions are being had to ensure that the minority of low-ambition countries and narrow interests do not derail the opportunity for a legally binding, ambitious plastics treaty in Geneva?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a really important question. We are high ambition, but we are working closely with low-ambition countries—some are developed countries, and there are others such as the Gulf states. We made progress previously, and it is important that we continue to do so. We are doing a number of things, particularly Minister Hardy as the leader on this. She is working closely with others to develop a shared position on how we can finance the treaty and take the lead on engaging with the private sector, for example. We are doing some co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design. We are co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic. Minister Hardy co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN Ocean Conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries with different positions and ambition levels to look at how we can move forward. She hosted an interesting round table last week attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, who is the INC chair. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to ensure we get the best possible result out of next month’s conference.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, plastic pollution starts with packaging. Will the Minister therefore join me in commending the British retail sector, which has done so much, particularly recently, to produce packaging of a better environmental nature for recycling and to draw to the attention of all customers who visit retail outlets the benefits of these improvements?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to commend any producer or retailer that wants to reduce the amount of damaging plastic that goes into our environment. The noble Lord is right: a lot of work has been done in recent years by some very forward-looking companies. However, there is still far too much plastic going into our environment. We have to do more to progress this. Others have to come on board, which is why I am really pleased that the UK has been absolutely clear that the treaty should address the full cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, a large amount of British plastic waste is not recycled because it is too complex to sort. What steps are the Government taking to encourage innovative research which will allow for new ways of recycling complex plastics and ensure that more plastic is recycled and less ends up in incinerators?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course, we need to do more to ensure that less plastic ends up in incinerators. Research is not just about what you do with complex plastics but about ensuring that the plastics produced are recyclable in the first place. We should also ensure that that then happens and that they do not get dumped somewhere. The work that Defra is carrying out on the circular economy is really important and will look at exactly these sorts of issues.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government have any plans to restrict the export of plastics through powers under the Environment Act to encourage recycling at home, rather than offshoring the problem?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, we really need to move away from this. Many members of the public, me included, put their plastic into recycling bins in very good faith and expect it to be recycled—I buy things made out of recycled plastic—but we have to look at how we can stop plastic that should be recycled just being offshored and dumped. We have seen too many photographs of the appalling outcomes of that. That is why we want to get this treaty finalised, why we are really determined to move forward and why we are also concentrating on having a genuinely effective circular economy strategy within Defra.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister on the work being done on plastics. One other major threat to marine life is illegal and unauthorised fishing around the world. What steps are being taken by the international community to address that problem?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. I think that anyone who has been to a beach will have seen abandoned fishing gear on the beach, particularly the rope stuff—the blue twine that fishermen use. Rope stuff is the technical term; you can tell that I am not a fisherman. Abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear is one form of plastic that causes the greatest harm to the environment. The UK has been looking at ways that we can use alternatives—alternatives are being explored—so that we do not constantly end up with blue bits of plastic scattered over every single beach that we see in this country.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I want to move the agenda on to microplastics, which are endemic in our water systems, in our bodies and now in our soils. A lot of research is showing that crop fertility—in other words, crop yield—will go down quite dramatically in the next 10 years because of microplastics in the water system. While I do not expect an answer directly, I would love to know what the Government are doing in the way of researching this, working with people such as at the John Innes Centre, which is looking at what on earth we do about this, because it is pretty difficult to get rid of.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely good point. We were probably all quite shocked recently at the figures showing how endemic these tiny pieces of plastic are in our drinking water and, indeed, in ourselves. It is extremely worrying, and it is incredibly important that research is carried out. I know that the John Innes Centre does great work. I am not involved with that, but my colleague Minister Hardy is. I will go back to her, find out exactly what work we are doing and then get back to the noble Baroness, if that is okay.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the UK throws away more plastic per person than every other country in the world except the US, with 81% of that plastic consisting of food and drink packaging from supermarkets. It is evident that effective measures must be taken to reduce this waste, an opinion shared by 74% of the British public. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays to the Government’s proposed deposit return scheme?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, I am very pleased that we have announced that we are doing a deposit return scheme. It is something that was discussed for many years by the previous Government, so I am pleased that we have acted quickly to announce that we are bringing that in. However, it needs to be brought in effectively and to work properly; we are doing it in a way that we think will have the greatest results. It is also part of our bigger picture around the circular economy. It is part of our commitment to reducing plastic, which comes right back to the initial question from the noble Baroness about our support for the treaty, because, although we want our own ambitious plans for reducing plastic waste in this country, this is a global problem, and we have to work globally.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, to return to the plastics treaty, at the last round of talks, fossil fuel interests sent 220 lobbyists. They are known to be the people who are fighting very hard against any targets for putting less plastic into the soils, into the water and into our bodies. What are the Government going to do to block the influence of those fossil fuel interests? Could we not do as the WHO has done with tobacco and ban people with fossil fuel interests, who should have no place in these talks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are trying to move forward on a global scale while bringing people with us. This treaty will have more impact if every country is signed up to it. Because of that, we were very disappointed that we were not able to conclude negotiations last time around. However, behind the scenes, a lot of work has been going on to try to move forward. My understanding is that the countries that the noble Baroness refers to are more concerned about including methods of production in the treaty, and that is something we are looking very hard at resolving. We want to see the ambitious treaty that we and other high ambition countries want to achieve. We are working very closely with middle to low-income countries to get there.

Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and therefore beg to move formally.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I hope my words did not provoke last night. I was reminiscing with Northern Ireland Members about those days in the 1980s and 1990s in the Commons when we used to speak all night on Northern Ireland business and then my late colleague Eric Forth and I pulled the stunt of having a renegade vote. I have a certain admiration for the stunt that colleagues pulled last night, but I see that there is a full Labour House tonight. If you want to know the Official Opposition line, you will find it in yesterday’s Hansard, column 577.

Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, this instrument will help ensure the security of food supply to Northern Ireland and maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland and protect the UK internal market, by providing for a contingency power to introduce “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain if required. It upholds commitments made under the Windsor Framework, reiterated in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, both of which commanded broad support across this House. It facilitates the movement of goods throughout the UK while also protecting the biosecurity of the island of Ireland.

I begin by setting out the background to this policy. The Windsor Framework, which replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol, was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023. A key component of the Windsor Framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It removes the costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol and allows for goods to be moved on the basis of UK food safety standards. To benefit from these arrangements, business operators must label retail goods in scope of the scheme “not for EU”, and these labelling requirements have been introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July—tomorrow. From this date, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland, which is approximately 3% of the entire UK market, certain businesses may decide that the cost of labelling their goods only to move them to Northern Ireland is too great. They may choose not to label, leading to product removal from the Northern Ireland market, known as delisting, if an alternate route to market is not available. This would negatively impact Northern Ireland citizens, since they would not have access to the same range and availability of food goods as the rest of the UK that they rightfully deserve. We do not believe that this is an acceptable outcome.

This brings me to the purpose of the regulations before us. The instrument provides a contingency power by which the Environment Secretary can issue a notice to require that a certain product be marked “not for EU” in order to be sold in Great Britain. Before doing so, the Secretary of State will consider a range of evidence. This includes intelligence from stakeholders and market monitoring data, the latter of which will highlight patterns in the distribution of retail goods throughout the UK internal market and highlight anomalies and changes as they arise.

By extending the labelling requirement for certain products to the much larger GB market, we will take away the incentive for businesses to remove products from Northern Ireland. It will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive to label their goods. This ensures continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and upholds the commitments we made in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper.

In recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter, the Secretary of State will consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers before making a determination. He may also engage the Independent Monitoring Panel, established through the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, for its views.

The timing of this instrument is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must make this legislation now in order to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter product delisting and to have the ability to act should a serious effect on availability look likely.

I will now set out the fundamental elements of these regulations. After making a determination that the supply of a specific retail good will be or is likely to be seriously adversely affected as a result of the “Not for EU” labelling requirement, the Secretary of State must issue a marking notice. This will specify which goods must be labelled in GB and from which date. The notice must also be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, as well as a Written Statement setting out the rationale. We will support compliance by promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses through various fora.

The new labelling obligation falls on the relevant business operator who first places the goods on the market in Great Britain. This is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging. There will be exemptions that will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, which is in line with this Government's commitment to support growth. These regulations will also support our relationship with the European Union.

We and the EU, through our common understanding that was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU SPS agreement. Once finalised, this will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agri-food requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that this may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “Not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.

However, achieving such benefits relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we are clear that we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor Framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in the future. Therefore, this SI is vital to maximise compliance with labelling requirements in the meantime, meeting the expectations of the EU and also encouraging the movement of goods into Northern Ireland.

To conclude, our approach to this statutory instrument is a pragmatic and proportionate response to a genuine risk. This legislation will help protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It will support the continued flow of goods throughout the United Kingdom. It delivers on our commitments under the Windsor Framework agreement and, most importantly, safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying out the regulations in detail. She will not be surprised that she has not convinced me. I hope that the short debate that we have tonight—even though there is not much interest on the Labour Back Benches or even the Conservative Back Benches—will get down in Hansard and people might read why many of us will be opposing these regulations.

One of the critical problems arising from the Northern Ireland protocol was the way in which—apart from the democratic aspect of disenfranchising people in 300 areas of law—it threatened Northern Ireland’s supply chain. This was said by many people, including noble Lords in this House, from the beginning. The Windsor Framework was supposed to fix that, but the regulations before us today come with Explanatory Notes that recognise that the Windsor Framework green lane “Not for EU” labour provisions, which come into effect tomorrow—in just a few hours’ time—threaten Northern Ireland’s supply chain.

Paragraph 5.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“A much greater range of products will be brought into scope of labelling requirements in July 2025, increasing the potential risk of product delisting. Therefore, the government requires a means of intervention to manage this risk and deter businesses from delisting products by providing a credible threat of enforcement”.


That all sounds very good. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the labelling as “madness”. This madness is particularly pronounced in Northern Ireland, which those of us who live there can appreciate much better than those living in Great Britain.

The rationale for the application of “Not for EU” labels was to help protect the integrity of the EU single market, preventing goods produced in Great Britain crossing the border into the Republic of Ireland, the EU territory. The problem is, however, that these labels, which generate huge costs to the UK economy both in terms of packaging and threatening our supply chains, are completely useless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, being here tonight reminded me of some of those wonderful days in the House of Commons in the 1980s and 1990s, when we used to do Northern Ireland business on Wednesday, and it would go on until 10 pm, 11pm, one, two or three in the morning, before Tony Blair changed the hours and we could no longer do it—I was reminiscing about that tonight.

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, a statutory instrument that addresses a complex issue which is the result of the Windsor Framework. The regulations aim to safeguard the continuity of retail goods into Northern Ireland, enabling the Secretary the State to mandate “not for EU” labelling on certain goods sold in Great Britain, but only in response to clear evidence that the supply to Northern Ireland would otherwise be seriously disrupted. Noble Lords have challenged that.

Once again, I find myself having considerable sympathy with many of the points made by my noble friends from Northern Ireland, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a key point that we are now dealing with minutiae and some of the absurdity of these regulations which, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, are a kind of sticking plaster, but the real problem goes back to what was negotiated six or seven years ago, when the then Government caved in to the demands of Varadkar, and we ended up with the Northern Ireland protocol—now the Windsor Framework. The noble Lord described it as one of the worst agreements ever negotiated by any Government. He and his noble friends can say that; I, of course, could not possibly comment.

Given the comparatively small size of Northern Ireland’s retail market, we acknowledge the risk that businesses may consider delisting products rather than incurring added costs of compliance. In this context, the contingency power created by this instrument appears to be a proportionate tool, aimed at protecting supply chains and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It would be utterly unacceptable that goods only for Northern Ireland were labelled, because they would then be delisted. It is slightly less absurd that we try to label them for the whole UK, or certainly for England, but I hope other countries as well. If they are labelled for everybody, there is less chance that we will delist them for Northern Ireland. That is one of the hoops we must go through now we are stuck with the Northern Ireland protocol, or the Windsor Framework.

We do not oppose these regulations, but I seek clarity from the Minister on a number of points, which are essential for ensuring that this policy is both proportionate and effective in practice. As an aside, was there not someone who had a big shed on the border, half in Northern Ireland and half in the Republic of Ireland, and the cattle used to move to and fro between them? Listening to noble Lords from Northern Ireland, I am surprised that someone has not opened a huge supermarket a few yards inside Northern Ireland and encouraged everyone to come up there for their shopping. That is not an official policy, but it seemed to me that it is bound to happen if goods in supermarkets in Northern Ireland are so much cheaper.

First, on the thresholds of evidence, can the Minister outline what specific types of evidence will be required to trigger a notice? Secondly, with regard to the impact on business, while we welcome the exemption for small businesses, what practical support—whether it is financial or advisory—will be offered to those just above the threshold to mitigate undue burdens, particularly for SMEs? It is all very well being exempt at 50, but if you have 51 or 60 employees, then you are caught by it and the burden could be astronomical.

Secondly, they have been quoted already, but I read the concerns raised by industry and they should be carefully considered. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Machin, described the current requirements of “not for EU” labelling as “bureaucratic madness”. He highlighted the potential for added costs, confusion for consumers and disruption to supply chains. He also said that more than 1,000 M&S products will now require labelling for Northern Ireland and a further 400 will be subject to red lane checks. Such feedback underlines the importance of ensuring that any new burdens placed on retailers—especially those operating across the UK’s internal market—are genuinely proportionate and that government support is made available where needed. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell me why Mr Machin has got it wrong.

Thirdly, on enforcement and consistency, given that enforcement will fall to local authorities across England, Wales and Scotland, what steps will be taken to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the rules across the devolved nations?

Fourthly, on public understanding, do the Government have plans for a co-ordinated public communications strategy to ensure that consumers both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland understand what the “not for EU” label signifies—that it does not reflect on the quality or safety of the goods in question—because that could be misconstrued?

Fifthly and finally, on future adaptability, as UK-EU trade dynamics continue to evolve, how will these regulations be reviewed—and, if necessary, revised—to reflect changes in market conditions or the operation of the Windsor Framework? Can the Minister confirm how soon Parliament will be updated following such a review?

As all noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness have pointed out, while these regulations are technical in nature, they are far from trivial in effect. I understand the points made by noble Lords opposite, that, in their opinion, they affect the fundamental sovereignty of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The issues they seek to address go to the heart of supply chain integrity, consumer protection and the delicate balance of the UK’s internal market.

We welcome continued dialogue on the implementation of these powers and look forward to the Minister’s reassurances on the points raised.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think my feet have gone to sleep—it is very cold on the Front Bench.

I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this evening’s debate with such passion and energy. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for considering my welfare so carefully.

Obviously, much of what has been said today goes wider than the scope of the debate’s title, as other wider concerns have been raised. I want to draw noble Lords’ attention back to the need for this legislation to protect the supply of retail goods to Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, the legislation delivers on a key commitment of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. As colleagues know, this is what provided the basis for the return of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will do my best to address the points raised by noble Lords. It is late; if I miss anything out, I will go to Hansard and respond further in writing.

The delisting of goods and the impact on business was a very strong theme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, rightly expressed her concerns about the potential delisting of products into Northern Ireland and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, talked about the impacts on business. Of course, I am aware of the comments that came recently from Marks & Spencer. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are engaging comprehensively with businesses right across the United Kingdom to understand their state of readiness for 1 July. I also take this opportunity to say that we very much recognise the efforts and commitment of businesses that serve Northern Ireland.

It is also our strong expectation that the long lead-in time to prepare for the phasing in through the announcement of these changes last October—although the legislation has not been with us until today—and the ongoing support being provided by government to adapt will deter businesses from removing goods from sale in Northern Ireland. However, in the event this appears likely, the Government will not hesitate to act by introducing labelling in Great Britain to prevent this.

The noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked whether the SI applied only to GB goods. To confirm, all products of that type need to be labelled to be placed on the market in GB, no matter their origin, whether they are made in GB or imported from elsewhere. This is to help ensure that Northern Ireland has the same range as the rest of the UK.

I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that this is a power of last resort. My officials continue to work closely with businesses across the United Kingdom to encourage them to move their goods to Northern Ireland. Obviously, if the evidence proves that we need to take action, we will not hesitate to intervene.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned Article 16. We are concerned that triggering Article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, both now and in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about the impact of the policy on economic growth and inflation. The policy, as intended, is expected to have a negligible impact on economic growth and inflation. It has been specifically designed to minimise any negative impacts, such as price ranges or changes in availability, through the targeting of the legislation to balance achieving the policy objective with minimising economic impacts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her very comprehensive responses, but could she just say something about the issue raised by a number of us about the ridiculousness of protecting the EU’s internal market with the “Not for EU” labels? Hundreds of people are coming over every weekend buying “Not for EU” labelled goods in Northern Ireland and taking them into the Republic. It is a nonsense.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are currently in discussions regarding an SPS agreement in order, I hope, to be able to remove many of the requirements, if discussions meet our ambitions. But the EU has made it quite clear that we are expected to meet our obligations under the Windsor Framework until the outcomes are known. At the moment, we do not know what those outcomes are and this falls under those obligations.

As I was saying, I would really like to say that I am committed to common sense whenever possible; I think a lot of people are. I find the regular meetings with our Northern Ireland colleagues extremely useful. Although I make it clear that we believe this instrument is making an important contribution to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union, which we are very deeply committed to as a Government, we need to continue to try to move together forward constructively. The EU reset is going to make big changes, and it is important that those of us who have an interest in Northern Ireland understand the implications for Northern Ireland and that we can work together as we move forward. I know we will never agree on everything, but that is an important—

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

The Minister mentioned the meetings she has had and intends to have with the Northern Ireland Peers. On the meetings that she has had, can she list issues where she has changed her mind, having listened to what the Northern Ireland Peers have said? I would like to hear that, and that would maybe encourage us a little.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would say—it is the same with anyone I have meetings and discussions with—that I always listen, and listening to people has an impact on how you respond and how things are often pulled together or drafted. To make a list of where one has changed your mind is a different thing altogether.

Finally, I beg to move.

Food Allergens

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent reports of a restaurant serving a meal containing nuts to a severely allergic customer in Stoke-on-Trent, what plans they have to promote information on allergens in England and Wales.

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

My Lords, the Food Standards Agency works with businesses and consumers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to improve allergen management and information, including offering free training and running awareness campaigns. It has recently published new guidance to help people with allergies eat out safely. The guidance sets out how businesses can provide clear allergen information, encourage communication about allergens between staff and consumers, and ensure that a consumer with allergies receives the right meal.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

Too many food-allergic customers are still being put at risk when eating out or ordering food from an online platform. New research by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation has found that more than a quarter—26%—of young adults have had, or know someone who has had, an allergic reaction to takeaway food. I understand that the Food Standards Agency has produced much-welcomed guidelines asking businesses to ensure they provide written and verbal allergen information to customers, but they are just guidelines. I therefore ask my noble friend: do the Government agree with me and the FSA that its new guidelines should be mandatory? Will she meet me and Natasha’s foundation, for which I am a parliamentary ambassador, to discuss this and its new research into the issues faced by those with food allergies when using food delivery apps?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I applaud my noble friend for her dedication and passionate advocacy on this issue. As she said, we published the best practice guidance in March this year and, as noble Lords will appreciate, any new guidance requires time to embed and be adopted by businesses. We hope to carry out an evaluation one year after the implementation of the guidance to assess both its uptake and its impact, and to better inform Ministers on the need for any potential legislation. This means that our evaluation work is likely to begin in spring 2026, and the gap between the launch and when the impact of the guidance can be meaningfully assessed ensures that our evaluation is based on a representative and reliable picture of how the guidance is actually working in practice. This will be very helpful in our understanding of the need for and any potential impact of any future legislative options. We very much welcome the opportunity to meet and to review the new research, which we have not yet had sight of. It would be invaluable to examine these findings alongside the FSA’s research in this area.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, although the guidelines are very welcome, and I applaud the Food Standards Agency’s work in this area, does the Minister share my concern about whether local authorities have the resources to do the necessary work to visit the establishments concerned to ensure that the guidelines are being applied? I think most restaurants in my area ask whether you are allergic. Does she also share my concern about the increasing amount of passing off of one food substance as another? We had the horsemeat scandal some 12 years ago, and we do not want to see a repeat of that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we absolutely do not want to see a repeat of that. As she says, local authorities enforce allergen rules, typically via trading standards and environmental health officers. The number of trading standards officers has dropped, although staffing rose slightly in 2023, so we are looking at how we can improve that. The FSA has backed a level 6 trading standards apprenticeship, for example, and is training over 100 new officers in one year. The FSA will continue to monitor that, and will continue to support training guidance and the food law code of practice with local authorities.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

If the FSA has pushed for compulsory written allergen information on menus, as it appears to have, is this not too long a wait for the Government to carry out an assessment? Also, will the Minister give us some sense of how it is possible to help smaller establishments in particular to access decent staff training in order to fulfil some of the requirements of having compulsory written information?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course, the law states that you have to state allergens. In the guidance, the preference is that that should be written first, verbal secondary. We will assess how that is working, as I just said. Regarding smaller businesses, the guidance has been designed with business to ensure that it is fit for purpose no matter what size your business is, because it is really important that every business can implement this effectively. The FSA has also created free tools, such as allergen icons, signage templates and a matrix, which are all available on its website. They are designed to be both flexible and low cost, because we need to ensure that all businesses, no matter their size, have proper access to the information and can ensure that customers and consumers understand what is being sold in that business.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, one in three people lives with allergic disease, which affects so many aspects of everyday living, not just in accessing healthcare but in ensuring a safe education and employment environment and, as this Question shows, better understanding in the hospitality industry. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this requires cross-departmental action and that the appointment of an allergy tsar could be a way to achieve that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that this requires cross-departmental work. My taking this Question today from Defra, when a lot of people assumed that it would be a health question, demonstrates that there is cross-departmental work between labelling and health issues. Regarding the allergy tsar, the Department for Health and Social Care continues to discuss this, and how allergy support and care can be improved, with NHS England and shareholders. There is an Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, which the DHSC jointly chairs, that brings stakeholders together to inform policy-making and identify any priorities in improving outcomes with people. I spoke to my noble friend Lady Merron from the DHSC about this earlier and I understand there will be a response in due course on whether an allergy tsar is the appropriate way forward.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the House will know that the previous Government passed Natasha’s law on pre-packaged food. Also, detailed ingredient listing has been in place since 2021. Does the Minister accept the concerns of Anaphylaxis UK and Allergy UK that the excessive use of precautionary allergy listing might be depriving customers of safe food?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The critical thing is the last thing that the noble Lord said: safe food. It is important that we work with industry, across government and with the different campaign groups. Natasha’s law was a very important piece of legislation. We know that Owen’s law is proposed as well. We have heard about the health tsar. We know that there are other incidents, such as the recent one in Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that we move forward together to ensure that any legislation or guidance that comes forward improves things and makes people feel safe when they go out to eat.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Is it not the case that retailers, particularly the smaller ones, would be more likely to take guidance seriously if there was a mandatory requirement to list the food hygiene scores on the premises? Why is England the only one of the four countries where this is not mandatory? It does not cost a penny in public funds. They already have the labels; they ought to be required to promote them. Those who are not doing so now would then take other guidance more seriously.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a serious question. We need to ensure that the information is readily available and clear. We spent some time pulling the guidance together to address a lot of the issues that he raised while ensuring that it was accessible and flexible to businesses to ensure that they had the facilities to implement it in a way that was effective for their business. I hear the points that he made and will take them back to the department when we review the efficacy of the guidance that we have produced.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of studies showing that exposure to trace amounts of potential allergens builds resilience? I think specifically of the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy study, which tracked a number of children who were thought to be vulnerable because they had intolerances to other things, eczema or other indicators. Only 3% of those exposed to trace amounts of peanuts in infancy developed the intolerance, as opposed to 17% of those who were completely denied them. We in the public eye must be careful not to send out a message in the aftermath of cases such the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, refers to that we should clear our shelves of all potential allergens. That may be behind the increase in the number of cases that we have seen over the past 20 years.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, there has been an increase in hospitalisation, which is why this is such an important issue. I think the noble Lord was referring to Palforzia, where people take a tiny trace of the allergen every morning and slowly build it up in order to have a resilience to it. It is an incredibly interesting piece of research. I saw a programme on it and was fascinated at this new approach to tackling allergy. However, any new treatments must go through NICE to be approved for the NHS. We need to make sure that they work for everybody because this is a very sensitive, complex area.

Wild Camping

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to extending the right to wild camping beyond Dartmoor to other National Parks.

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

My Lords, I am delighted that last month’s Supreme Court judgment upheld the public’s right to continue to wild camp on Dartmoor—one of our country’s most beloved landscapes, with its iconic moorlands. The Government continue to recognise the importance of providing access to the outdoors. We will increase access to nature for all, including in our national parks, and work to ensure that this is safe and appropriate, leaving a legacy for generations to come.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I am glad she recognises how courageous the Dartmoor National Park Authority was in defending the public’s right to wild camp or backpack camp on Dartmoor. She will know that it took years of good practice, developing a camping code and maps of where camping took place, and working with landowners and stakeholders to arrive at a very happy solution for both the public and just about all the landowners. Will the Government build on this good practice to make good on their promise to extend countryside access? Will they use Dartmoor’s experience to enable other national park authorities and national landscapes to offer what is a truly magical experience of camping out under the stars and being awakened by larks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I wonder what kind of larks the noble Baroness envisions; she makes wild camping sound very exciting. She asks a very important question. The Government currently have no plans to extend wild camping as a guarantee in other national parks. Every national park is different, so it is important that each one can decide for itself what is appropriate in its area. Wild camping may be illegal, but in some national parks it is allowed where appropriate. For example, in the Lake District, which I know best, people are allowed to camp above the highest wall and stay for one night; they have to make sure that they leave no mess. That works very well. In addition, as we discuss this, we need to be very clear about what we mean when we discuss “wild camping” and “illegal camping”.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, in considering this matter, would the Government kindly remember that the lack of understanding of the meaning of, and rights under, wild camping is likely to be comparable to the lack of understanding of the meaning of national park? When I represented the southern part of the Lake District in another place for 33 years I lost count of the number of complaints I got about visitors who thought that national parks meant that they could set up their tent and cook their breakfast in anybody’s garden that they happened to pass.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This is exactly the point I was making about the difference between wild camping and illegal camping. I walked my dog at Ennerdale Water this weekend, and there were clear signs saying, “No camping, no fires”. Yet, as I walked along the lake, there were two tents. This is a real problem because these people often do not respect the environment that they are in. It is important that, while we encourage camping in the right areas and wild camping where it is appropriate, we also ensure that does not cause any damage to the environment or problems for landowners.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, as someone who enjoys larking around Dartmoor as much as possible, I can attest to the fact that it is a very finely balanced ecosystem. We will all be aware of the excellent work being done by the Prince of Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall in trying to regenerate some of the upland areas of the moor. Although I fully support responsible wild camping, unfortunately the same cannot be said for irresponsible wild camping. That was a particular problem in many national parks and lochsides across the country during Covid. Does the Minister agree that the Government must do everything they can to ensure that legislation and advice, such as that given by the Dartmoor National Park Authority on how to behave on the moor, is rigorously adhered to?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, it is a real problem. The noble Lord mentioned Covid, and the amount of rubbish left behind by illegal campers then was shocking. People abandoned their tents and all their rubbish. Who does the clean up? It is the National Trust, the national parks and the general public. He is absolutely right that this is not acceptable. However, at the same time, we have to recognise that some people camp very responsibly, in the right places and in the right way—and Dartmouth is an excellent example of that. As we develop our access strategy and promote the Countryside Code, which is also important, we will take all this into account.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have strong views on wild camping; like the Minister, I am content with it as long as it does not damage the environment, the landscape, private property or farmers’ fields, and every national park has the right to decide about it locally. However, I have very strong views on people lighting fires in the countryside, whether they are camping, picnicking or just visiting. Fires in national nature reserves and moorland do enormous damage, such as destroying one-third of the magnificent Thursley Common nature reserve in 2020. They do not happen spontaneously because of global warming; in every case, people have caused the fires by discarding cigarettes or disposable barbecues. Accessing the countryside is one thing but no one has a God-given right to set fire to it with barbecues. Will the Minister give full support to all national parks, national nature reserves and Natural England by encouraging organisations and landowners to ban the use of disposable barbecues in the countryside?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. I mentioned walking my dog at Ennerdale Water, where there are signs saying, “No fires”. Yet, I regularly walk along the lake and see clear evidence of people lighting fires and even chopping down saplings to try to light those fires. We need better understanding around responsibility in the countryside.

Local authorities currently have powers to ban the use of sky lanterns or disposable barbecues if they so wish. Existing powers in legislation can be used to regulate the lighting of fires in national parks and protected national landscapes. We also have the “respect, protect and enjoy” code around wild camping, which would include fires. With the dry summers we are seeing, it is becoming much more of an issue. The irresponsible use of disposable barbecues is particularly worrying; we know that we have had fires in the countryside because of them.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given Labour’s manifesto commitments to improve responsible access to nature and enhance community rights to green space, can the Minister clarify what specific changes we can expect in the law and whether the rumours of a Green Paper are true? If they are not, can the Minister tell us why the opportunity of the Planning and Infra- structure Bill has not been used to deliver on those promises in order to overcome some of the persistent barriers for people in accessing the outdoors?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are extremely keen to increase access to nature; I am particularly keen to improve access for those who are the most disadvantaged in their ability to access it, whether that is through distance, culture or whatever. We are doing a lot of work. I have an excellent team working on the access policy at the moment. We are working extremely hard to come up with good access policies, including the national river walks, the new national forests and the other work that we are doing, in order to deliver on that promise.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, would it be important in these circumstances to arrest people for loitering with intent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think that that would be a matter for the police and the Home Office.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales. Last year, mountain rescue services in England and Wales were called out to an incident every single day; in Scotland, they were called out more than 1,000 times during the year. Can we—pardon the pun—proceed with caution on any scope to widen public access in our national parks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says. I have friends in mountain rescue. I bumped into one of them at the weekend; they had been particularly busy. The important thing is that the people who call out mountain rescue are often completely and utterly ill equipped for what they are doing. That seems the biggest problem. Mountain rescue is there to help people who get into trouble. If you have fallen and broken your ankle or there is a particular problem, that is absolutely what it is there for, in the same way as any other emergency service. To be blunt, the people who try to climb mountains in flip-flops and without proper maps—we have had this in Cumbria, believe it or not—are the ones who really need our attention, shall we say.

Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for introducing this Motion and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today with such passion and energy. I have, as ever, listened very carefully to all the concerns that have been raised, but I want to draw the attention of noble Lords back to the very positive impact that this legislation has.

Protecting our biosecurity is of paramount importance to address the climate and biodiversity crisis. This instrument introduces and amends protective measures against high-risk plant pests in Great Britain, as identified by our risk and horizon scanning process. As a result, this instrument protects biosecurity and supports trade in the UK. As part of these technical changes, this instrument recategorises certain plants and plant products, again following the completion of the risk assessments, as committed to under the Border Target Operating Model. This is part of an ongoing technical review of plant products subject to plant health import requirements and maintains the GB plant health regime as risk-based and proportionate. This instrument also amends certain official control measures to exclude large plants, plant products and other objects from the requirement for unloading in an area with a roof. This provision enables the implementation of appropriate biosecurity standards in those cases.

I emphasise that this instrument does not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom or treat Northern Ireland as a third country. Indeed, several of the measures in the instrument actually ensure that Great Britain is applying measures already in place in Northern Ireland. I am sure that noble Lords will not be surprised when I remind the House that the island of Ireland has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. Under this regime, Northern Ireland implements official controls and additional protections in response to pest risks to maintain its biosecurity as part of the island of Ireland.

This instrument also upholds the Government’s policy of unfettered market access in relation to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Indeed, the Windsor Framework underscores Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. The UK Government want to see the Windsor Framework’s benefits realised for the benefits of businesses and people in Northern Ireland, and right across the UK, in a manner that meets our international obligations, so I am pleased to state that the devolved Governments gave their consent for these regulations to extend across Great Britain. The UK Government and all devolved Governments will continue to work closely together on plant health issues via the UK plant health provisional common framework.

Noble Lords may be interested to note that I had a meeting only this morning with representatives from all devolved Governments—with Ministers—to discuss the BTOM in the context of the SPS agreement. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in support of his Motion, and to other contributors in today’s debate, and have been struck by our shared commitment to protect UK biosecurity.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for supporting the SI this evening. In respect of the late hour, I will address the noble Lord’s points that relate directly to the legislation which is in front of this evening. I will go through Hansard and any questions that I have not answered I will answer in writing— for example, on the fees, for which I do not have the details with me.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked why the SI applied only to GB. As I said, the island of Ireland has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. The important thing that these regulations are doing is amending the GB-specific phytosanitary legislation to ensure that the biosecurity risks posed to the United Kingdom are addressed. These are already covered in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work closely with Northern Ireland on plant health issues. Northern Ireland will continue to play a full and comprehensive role in technical and policy decisions via the UK plant health provision or common framework.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to the Explanatory Memorandum and third countries. To reassure him, this SI applies phytosanitary controls to European Union and rest of the world goods when entering Great Britain. That is the third country mentioned in the EM. A number of noble Lords mentioned the SPS agreement, asking what was in it and what checks would remain. The agreement will cover SPS standards and controls and wider agri-food rules related to food labelling, organics, key marketing standards and compositional standards, as well as pesticides. This is regarding checks, specifically. This will further bring down costs for UK businesses by removing the majority of regulatory trade barriers to agri-food trade, hopefully helping with the trade drop that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referenced earlier.

We want to get the best deal for British businesses and British people. There is a very limited scope of application to the agreement. We are making commitments to regulate consistently only where that commitment removes a barrier to trade. The EU cannot unilaterally dictate the regulations which the UK must implement. The UK will have to agree and then implement any new rules. It is not like when we were a member state and EU law could flow into the UK even if we had voted against it. We are not returning to those arrangements. This is about regulating in the same way in some limited areas where the UK will also have a role in shaping the relevant laws as they are designed. Again, with regard to the SBS agreement, I have been asked for some specifics, but, because detailed negotiations are ongoing, I cannot provide that information at the moment. But it will come to the House in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked why the SPS border has to be in the Irish Sea. The Windsor Framework recognises Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and therefore prevents the hard border on the island of Ireland. There is a need to maintain the biosecurity of the island of Ireland. Some pests that could pose a risk to Northern Ireland, such as protected zone pests, are present in Great Britain. Therefore, it is appropriate to have procedures in place to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

To be honest, I am not going to take any interventions; it has gone 11 pm.

On plant health threats, the UK Plant Health Service, as I mentioned earlier, has Defra, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, DAERA and the Forestry Commission as part of it. So it is properly considered and looked at. The noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Roborough, talked about the removal of border checks putting biosecurity at risk, looking in particular at the rising pest risk in the EU. The agreement will explicitly allow for the UK to take action to protect biosecurity. This will mean that the UK has access to EU databases and other systems to help us do this. This is a big benefit. The common understanding is that the UK should be able to take targeted action to protect its biosecurity in public health, in the same way as member states can in the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned FMD protection for Northern Ireland. As he said, Northern Ireland is protected under the biosecurity regime of the EU. Northern Ireland implements official controls and additional protections in response to risk, such as measures related to pest-free areas, traceability and additional notification requirements for the highest- risk goods in order to maintain the island of Ireland’s biosecurity.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about Popillia japonica. The noble Baroness rightly said that the reason these pests are mentioned in this SI is that the new requirements are already in place in Northern Ireland, so this is bringing the rest of GB into alignment with Northern Ireland; that is what the SI does.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have said I am not taking any interventions.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

The Minister has not replied to a single point I made. If the bug does not exist in Ireland, why are we inspecting goods coming from Ireland?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There are plenty of bugs that do not exist in our other countries and are far away that still have the propensity to come here or could possibly arrive here. Therefore, we need to be absolutely vigilant regarding any new potential pests and diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the devastating consequences if we do not do that, so we absolutely need to be doing this.

I just have a couple of points and then I am going to wind up, because it is getting late. I will go to Hansard and write on any outstanding points. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the trade and co-operation agreement and that its review is due next year. I will take that back to the department and speak about the noble Lord’s concerns on this, because he made a very sensible and relevant point. I completely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, regarding compromise. It is an extremely important point to make and, if we are to move forward, compromise is going to be critical.

In conclusion, I emphasise that this instrument is a routine update that ensures that risk-based and proportionate biosecurity controls are in operation in Great Britain. Northern Ireland continues to be able to respond to pest risks specifically for Northern Ireland where needed, and will continue to play a full and comprehensive role in technical and policy decisions affecting the UK as a whole.

I remind noble Lords that I meet regularly with DAERA and the Northern Ireland Ministers and their team. Also, I understand that we have a regular meeting of our Northern Ireland Peers this Wednesday, so I am sure that we can pick up many of these issues and continue further at that meeting.

Finally, it is very late. It has gone 11 pm, so I thank all the staff who have stayed and supported us in the House at this late hour.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister, the Front-Benchers, noble Lords who stayed late and, indeed, the staff who have kept the Chamber running this evening. This has been an important debate and I will not prolong the discussion.

I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Lilley that not all the detailed questions were answered—perhaps understandably— in the round-up. I hope the Minister will look through Hansard and, in particular, at the three specific questions I asked, in addition to others.

I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who expressed support for the points I made this evening. I even thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, although I suspect his frustration at Brexit might have led him not to pay full attention to everything I said. Indeed, I think we even agreed on one point, which is that an SPS agreement will not cover every barrier that currently exists on SPS.

In winding up, I will react in particular to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made. He is absolutely reasonable in saying that one could have different degrees of dissatisfaction with the Windsor Framework arrangements while still thinking that any solution might be imperfect. That is true, and we do have different if often very strong degrees of dissatisfaction.

My concern would be whether it is a stable ending point, not merely an unsatisfactory one. We have heard, and the concerns expressed show, that it probably is not stable. The reality is that having part of your country governed by another entity is not stable. In the end, there are only two stable points: one is to extend the anomaly to the rest of the country—that seems to be the approach that the Government plan to take in the reset—and the other is to remove the anomaly where it exists, which is in Northern Ireland. I hope that is the direction that will be taken.

The issues have been fully aired tonight, if not exactly resolved, and I will not seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Thames Water

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, these Benches attempted to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to protect consumers from bearing any costs associated with a special administration regime, but this was rejected by this Government. Will the Minister commit today that consumers will not be made to pay any SAR-related costs, and that under no circumstances will the Government take responsibility for repaying the rumoured £20 billion of Thames Water debt? I should also declare an interest that one of my daughters works at a firm named in the press as a bondholder.

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

My Lords, the Government do not have any intention for consumers to pay towards this. We do not see that consumer bills need to go up to cover these debts. It is not for consumers to pay for the mistakes and poor behaviour of the water companies. In response to the second question, within the regime, we will look at it in detail, but it is, again, not our intention for the water companies to basically get away with it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we are already paying more for our water because Thames Water has put up our bills. I declare an interest as a Thames Water bill-payer. How much higher are our bills going to go before the Government actually accept that they have to put public ownership before private profit?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the reasons that bills are going up—not just for Thames Water customers but for other consumers—is the lack of investment for years and years by the water companies in infrastructure, which is why we have so many problems with pollution, for example. While it is not something that the Government want to see continue—we do not want to see consumer bills going up unnecessarily—it is important that, with the PR24 settlement that was made, that money goes directly into investment, which is why we are stopping dividends and unnecessary bonuses being paid.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the creditors who have heaped billions in debt on to the company should now pay to sort this mess out, possibly through a well-planned administration process and a swift exit, after which the company should be mutually owned by the 16 million customers? Do the Government now have plans ready and in place for Thames Water to be brought into special administration? What plans do the Government have for a new operating model for water companies to work for the public benefit?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Any future operating model will be part of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review that is currently taking place—I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that the interim report is out. That will be part of the work being carried out by Sir Jon and others.

The big issue is that fundamentally this a private company. It for the company to solve the issues of financial resilience. It is not for us to tell a private company how to manage its finances. That is really important. But, having said that, we have to be prepared for all eventualities across regulated industries and Thames Water has clearly had some pretty serious problems. If it comes to a SAR, creditors cannot ask the debt to be repaid during that special administration regime. If it did come to that, there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR and that would take away the creditors’ ability to enforce any debt repayments.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Government are dithering about the future of Thames Water, its debt has increased by £3 billion, it is spending £200 million a year on its business advisers and one-third of a customer’s bill basically covers the interest payments. Is it not time that the Government recognise that privatisation has failed and that the only way of giving the water industry firm footing is through public ownership?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said previously, the Government are not going to be renationalising the water companies. The Government are not dithering. This is a private company that has some serious debt problems. It is not for the Government to tell a private company how to manage its finances. If it comes to it, we are prepared to ensure that customers continue to receive high-quality water through their taps, because that is what is really important, and that the systems stay in place.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the interim Cunliffe report was very clear that part of the problem is the short-termism of regulation and the high volatility in returns not being conducive to long-term, low-risk, low-return investors. Will the Government accept whatever the commission proposes in its final report and bring a Bill before this House so we can review the situation in the long term?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, the report we have in front of us is an interim one, so we are currently looking at it and considering the recommendations. Further work will then be done and as a Government we will then look at those recommendations and work with Sir Jon Cunliffe on how best to move things forward. Clearly, there are some serious structural issues in the way things have been managed and we need to take this very seriously if we are going to sort out the mess that many water companies have found themselves in. That may well result in a further water Bill in the future.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

What lessons are the Government learning from the water sector experience for other regulated industries? As the Minister said, there have been decades of underinvestment. The 1990s European law should have been implemented, and successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, failed to apply the law on proper treatment of sewage. What lessons from poor regulation ought to be applied in other so-called regulated industries?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the other regulated industries are watching what is happening in the water industry with great interest. It is important that where our industries are regulated, they are regulated properly, appropriately and for the benefit of the country and consumers. It will be interesting to see the outcomes of the Cunliffe report, particularly regarding Ofwat, the Environment Agency and some of the people who have been responsible for the hands-on regulation. We have some important and interesting decisions to make as we go forward.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that—as many people have said already—the root of the problem at Thames is the level of debt? The fact is that, many years ago, Ofwat allowed Thames Water to increase the level of its own debt beyond any reasonableness. The public have been let down as much by the regulator as by the water companies. I very much hope that the Minister will agree that we need to change the type of regulation that the water companies have to live by.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Duke makes an extremely important point. The Cunliffe report is pretty damning on how the regulators have overseen what has happened. Clearly, it has not been good that water companies, particularly Thames, have been allowed to get into so much debt. We will absolutely be considering these matters very seriously.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a London MP for 22 years, and I can say with some conviction that Thames Water was one of the worst and most contemptible organisations I have ever dealt with—and that is up against some pretty stiff competition. Can we scotch this myth that has been put out by Thames Water for years that it has not been paying dividends? It has been paying what are, in effect, dividends to the parent company. Technically they may not be dividends but, in effect, they are. When Thames Water makes these claims, we should call it out for what it is doing: telling lies to the British public.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is really important that we have clarity and honesty from our water companies, because there are so many problems. If we are genuinely going to sort this out, we need to have a proper understanding, and there should not be little tricks and ways of paying money—whether through dividends or otherwise—that circumvent what we would consider to be best behaviour.

Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government’s first duty is to protect our national security and keep our country safe. Defra recognises that the drinking water supply is a potential target for hostile actors. It works with water companies and partners across government to understand and monitor threats to water supply and to consider responses as appropriate to protect the security of our water system.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. As she knows, yesterday’s strategic defence review talked a lot about hostile actors sabotaging critical infrastructure. I wonder whether my noble friend’s department is being a tad complacent in talking simply about monitoring the threat rather than looking at what practical arrangements can be made. For example, how do we deal with a drone which is flown over a reservoir and deposits something in there? The panic effects of that being known to have happened and not necessarily knowing what the substance is would be enormous. Is my noble friend able to tell us what further steps are going to be taken to address this, perhaps with a little more urgency given yesterday’s defence review?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I refer my noble friend to a lot of the cross-government work that is taking place regarding security and state threats. Tackling the diverse range of state threats—not just drones but many other threats—requires a cross-government and cross-society response. We need to draw on the skills, the resources and the remits of different departments and operational partners. In Defra, we work closely to look at the threats and the appropriate levels of response, specifically drawing on expert advice from the National Protective Security Authority, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Home Office, as well as carrying out threat assessment with policing partners.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I apologise to the House and to the Minister that in my earlier question, I did not declare my farming interests as set out in the register, and I do so now.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the Minister undertake an urgent review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the relevant legislation for safety in the event of a possible breach of a reservoir? There is a lack of competent panel engineers, as they are called, to undertake this work. I think the noble Lord who asked the original Question would accept that we are too reliant on large reservoirs. Will the Minister also review the de minimis rule in the 1975 Act to see whether we could build smaller reservoirs in a greater number of places?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware of the Government’s pledge to build nine new reservoirs, and we are currently fast-tracking two of those, one in East Anglia and one in Lincolnshire. As we look at the future of reservoirs in this country, it is clear that the Reservoirs Act is a few years old now and it makes absolute sense to consider whether it is fit for the future. I will certainly take that back and discuss it with the department.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put his finger on a really worrying thing about our infrastructure. For about 15 years, I have been worried about the water supply: the large and small reservoirs, the pipes that connect them and, of course, the water treatment plants. I worry that there is sometimes confusion between the Home Office, Defra and others about who is looking after security. One simple question the Minister may want to ask is what the police response rate to alarms is, because it can be a testing of the system as well as a false alarm, or a proper alarm about people entering certain premises or doing something to the water. It needs to be higher in the priorities than it presently appears.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that we discuss these matters with the Home Office. As I said, much of what we need to do is across government—one thing that we have been trying hard to do in Defra and other departments since we came into government is to work better across government; that is an important point to make. The noble Lord asked an interesting question about police responses, which I am happy to mention next time I have a meeting with the Home Office to see whether I can get a better understanding about that.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given Thames Water’s inability to secure private investment with its £20 billion debt burden, can the Minister confirm that, should it have to go into special administration, contingency plans include ring-fenced funding for critical security upgrades at its reservoirs? Specifically, will the Government commit to independent audits of cyber defences and physical protections during any transitional period, which has been highlighted as a period of vulnerability that might be exploited by hostile actors?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The main point is that our water supply absolutely has to be secure. We have to know that we are doing everything we can to protect it from hostile actors, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend mentioned. That is why the cross- departmental work is so important. On Thames Water, I assume the noble Baroness refers to the fact that the preferred bidder has now pulled out. Thames Water has assured us that there are other potential bidders. We need to look at the current situation and, clearly, any investment needs to include security. The PR24 investment that has been made includes a substantial sum for improving security as well as infrastructure. It is important to make the point that it is part of our ongoing discussions with water companies.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, our country has frequently been at war or under threat in our history, and our water infrastructure is always one of our vulnerabilities. Can the Minister inform the House whether there has ever been an attempt or a plan uncovered to contaminate our water supply, and what lessons have been learned if so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I asked about that earlier today, because it is important that we understand it. My understanding is that there has not been such an incident, but that does not mean that we should be complacent. We know that our water and energy infrastructure are both potentially vulnerable to hostile attacks.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, if I could correct my noble friend, because she is probably not aware of it, in 2008 there was an attempt by eight al-Qaeda operatives to poison north London water supplies. I am pleased to say that our agencies worked brilliantly to stop it happening. As a result, in the Home Office we put in hand a whole series of work on police response times, indicators of where the outflows from reservoirs went and new barriers. Where has all that work gone? These things somehow seem to disappear. There should be some reports, and hopefully someone did something about it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is extremely interesting and very helpful of my noble friend. I will certainly look into it, because it is an important point. Clearly, the department did such an excellent job when there was a potential attack that it has never been picked up. However, if he would ever like to take over the Defra brief, I would be very happy to swap with him.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, we know from the Covid incident that we lacked experience of simulations of such incidents and were therefore not well prepared. When did we last simulate a situation where our water is contaminated and what did we learn from it? If we have not done so recently, is it time to think of doing it soon?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. I do not know when we last simulated such a thing, but there was the issue quite recently in Devon, where there was accidental water contamination. There was quite a rapid response to that, including, importantly, communication to consumers and to the public. One thing we are looking at now is how we learn from that accidental contamination, because contamination does not have to come just from hostile actors.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Will the Government consider increasing their investment in desalination plants to ensure the provision of safe drinking water in the event of a national crisis?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, safe drinking water has to be an absolute priority, and I am sure the department would consider all options.

Farmers: Competitiveness

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.

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

My Lords, the Government are supporting farmers with a new deal to boost growth and strengthen food security. We will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals and back British produce. A multitude of factors influence agricultural competitiveness, and international comparisons are challenging due to factors such as differences in the structures of agricultural sectors in different countries. Defra and devolved administration officials meet routinely to share insights regarding our respective agricultural policies.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, farmers in Scotland and the EU enjoy area-based payments of around €280 per hectare, with minimal environmental obligations, while farmers in the US are reported to receive subsidies worth $30 billion. Our own farmers receive de minimis area-based payments and no further access to SFIs while planning for inheritance tax. What will this Government do to ensure that our farmers can compete on a level playing field in their trade agreements while also restoring nature in line with the obligations of the Environment Act?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have pledged £5 billion towards farming over the next few years, which will be spent through our environmental land management schemes. We are currently working to reform SFI to allow us to align it with our work on the land use framework and the 25-year farming road map. That is designed to protect the most productive land and boost food security while at the same time delivering for nature. We have published the update of a £30 million boost to HLS that recognises and rewards the vital role played by farmers in restoring habitats. We are also looking at how we can work with the farming sector in order to target those who would most benefit from future payment systems.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the Opposition seem to be obsessed with millionaire farmers? Is it not about time that they worried more about families in poverty? They call for more resources for farmers, but have they indicated where that resource is going to come from? They used to accuse us of having a money tree, but I think they have found an orchard.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises some interesting questions. It is clearly important that we target our resources and funding on those who are most in need. That is one of the reasons why the delinked payments are reduced the most for those who have the most and the least for those who need more time to make the changes.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, in that context can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of the main factors identified by Professor Julia Aglionby behind the cause of upland farmers’ incomes falling to half the minimum wage by 2027? They include the phasing out of the basic payment scheme, the recent negligible rise in HLS, insufficient financial reward from new environmental land management schemes and barriers to scheme transition, which is being done at a much slower pace in all the other devolved nations.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I should probably declare an interest here as I know Julia extremely well and meet her to discuss exactly these issues. Julia does an awful lot of work on uplands and common land, and it is important that we are able to support the farmers, particularly in uplands, who have a much more challenging environment to farm in. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at reforming the SFI to target those who need it most. Previous schemes have not always benefited those, such as in the uplands, who need the most support.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Can the Minister confirm that in New Zealand, which is probably the pioneer of subsidy-free farming, there is no inheritance tax?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am afraid I have to admit to the noble Lord that I know nothing about New Zealand’s inheritance tax law, but I am more than happy to look into it.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests in asking this question. Does the Minister accept that it would be helpful for farmers in England, Wales and Scotland if all the supermarkets in the UK were required to show the flags of the countries of origin of meat that they sell in their supermarkets, particularly in view of the possible threats coming from imports from the USA?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there was a consultation on labelling fairly recently, which we are looking at. There are certain issues. What do we want on our labels? Country of origin is clearly something the public are particularly interested in. Also, what are the standards and the methods of production? There is a lot of interest in what labelling could include. We also need to be careful to ensure that the labelling that exists currently, and any future labelling brought in, is honest, because sometimes things that look British are not necessarily so.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Is the Minister aware that since the start of 2024 the level of sheepmeat imports is up by 59%? During the same period, the number of sheep in the UK is down by 40%. Why are the Government not doing more to help sheep farmers and upland areas?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned in response to the noble Baroness, it is important that when we reform our SFI we look at how we can support upland farmers more. It is also about getting the right balance between levels of grazing and environmental support. I will give a quick shout-out for Cumbrian sheep. Herdwick sheep are extremely important to our landscapes in Cumbria. I think it is important that our supermarkets and our butchers support locally bred meats as well.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, to correct the record—I live partly in a village with very small farms—it is not just rich people who have farms. What are the Government doing to support food production in this country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have a number of plans to support food production, partly through the farming road map, which we are developing. We have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to lead Defra’s farming profitability review, which will look at things like this. We are also looking at government procurement and buying British produce, which will support British farmers. There are a number of activities that we are currently doing.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, within the senior Defra team—and, sadly, I include all the Defra Ministers—we do not have a single farmer or land manager. If we did, they would explain that the last Budget and recent policy changes have created a lose-lose outcome for British farmers and the British public. Is Defra monitoring the number of farms going out of business, the increase in food prices the public are having to pay and the inevitable decline of our home-grown food security?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I take issue with the idea that our home-grown food security is declining. The data we have does not support that. Regarding the senior Defra team, including Ministers, not having any farming experience, although I spend far too much time in London these days and not enough time in Cumbria, I am actually a registered farmer on our smallholding, so that is not quite true.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that competitiveness should include not just price but environmental costs? Given that our farmers can produce meat and dairy products from our sheep and cattle with substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions than the global and even European averages, should we not be buying British, trying to minimise imports and exporting as much as we can to protect our farming industry and benefit the planet?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some important points. Interestingly, since Brexit our exports have gone down by 21%. We are very hopeful that the new agreement we are working on with the EU at the moment will enable our farmers to export more, help our agri-food trade be cheaper and easier, and help us align more with the EU. On costs, environmental costs clearly have to be taken into account as well. It can also save farmers money if they buy into the different innovative options available at the moment. For example, grants are available to reduce pesticide use. There are lots of opportunities through the different environmental schemes for farmers to become more productive and more competitive.

Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 May.

Motion agreed.