Farming Road Map

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish the 25-year Farming Roadmap.

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

My Lords, the farming road map will set the course for farming in England up to 2050. It is focused on making farming and food production more profitable and sustainable, and it will set out how farming will evolve in response to changing markets, technologies and environmental pressures. It will highlight how the Government will support that transition, so it is crucial that we get it right. We expect to publish the road map later this year.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. The land use framework sets out a strategic vision for how land can deliver for food, climate and nature. In that respect, will the farming road map set out a clear, multi-year funding trajectory and timetable for the implementation of ELM schemes beyond the current announcements? How will the road map support farmers to adapt to climate impacts while maintaining resilient domestic food production, notwithstanding the impact of the war in Iran on fertilisers and other matters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It has been important in developing a number of strategies, not just the farming road map, to have regular contact and input with stakeholders—and not just talking to stakeholders but listening to what they are saying to us. We are not going to make the kind of progress that we want to if we do not bring with us stakeholders such as those that the noble Baroness talked about. This is ongoing work and the noble Baroness is right to raise the importance of working closely with stakeholders.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. Farmers in the UK have now adjusted very well to post-Brexit freedoms. Can the Minister confirm that, if HMG introduced legislation allowing single market rules to be adopted across the UK, it would be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny and a proper vote, and not brought in by SI?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Discussions with the EU are ongoing, so I cannot say whether they will include some of the issues that the noble Lord talked about. I am sure he is aware that the Government are intending to introduce legislation to enable the EU reset to go ahead, once we have finished negotiations. There will be opportunity to debate that.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Cumbria. Both Defra and the RPA have now confirmed that there is no current mechanism available for common land to enter the sustainable farming incentive or the Countryside Stewardship higher tier for the year 2026. Is that not a more important priority for the Government and for agriculture—what might happen in the next 25 weeks—than looking way ahead to the next 25 years?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As a fellow Cumbrian, I absolutely understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by the noble Lord about common land, which is an important part of our farmed landscape. The department recognises the vital role that it plays in supporting wildlife, cultural heritage and rural economies. It is important. I recognise the frustration caused by the fact that commons groups cannot at this stage apply for an SFI agreement. I have been told that that is for technical reasons, but I am aware that the Rural Payments Agency is actively working on a solution. I hope to provide an update about when commons groups will be able to apply.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, will the road map deal with the scandal of billionaire farmers who are getting millions of pounds in subsidy despite the fact that they pay no tax in Britain at all?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend will be delighted to be aware that the next round of the SFI is very much targeted at the smaller farmer.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the overwhelming majority of our farm output is sold at prices determined by international markets, which are out of government control. This Government have layered on cost for our farmers, and all businesses, through reduced inheritance tax relief, increased employer NICs and minimum wages, and now through the carbon border adjustment mechanism later this year. What are this Government doing to improve the long-term resilience and competitiveness of farmers, and indeed all British businesses, by reducing government-imposed costs? I refer the House to my interests as a farmer and an investor in British businesses.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the things we are actively working on at the moment is how to implement many of the recommendations that the farming profitability review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, suggested. We have brought some things in, and it is really important that we look at her clear, independent advice. I do not think anyone in this House would deny that she has substantial expert experience. She has made 57 recommendations; we are looking at how we can work through them, because the whole point behind her report and its recommendations is to improve farm profitability.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, the current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has highlighted our dependence on imported fertiliser, among other things. What measures are His Majesty’s Government taking to encourage and support our farmers and our farming industry to develop a sustainable circular nitrogen economy?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The war in Iran has highlighted a number of areas where there is cause for concern in the long term. Clearly, there has been a lot of concern around the availability of fertiliser. As I mentioned earlier, it is a global market. While we do not see that there is an immediate risk in UK supply, we are looking at this very seriously. For example, Defra has asked the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board to increase the frequency of its fertiliser price reporting; that is now being published weekly to support farmers in their decision-making. We have also issued a fertiliser survey, aimed at farmers and land managers, so that we can build a better picture and get a better understanding of any direct impacts. We want to work closely with industry and farmers on how we move forward with this.

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Somerset and the Cotswolds. More importantly, how many civil servants are actually working on this and what on earth are they doing? Are we back in analysis paralysis? This is not the first delay we have seen because the Government “want to get it right”. What are they doing?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assume the noble Lord is referring to the publication of the farming road map. I have said that it will be published by the end of this year. Civil servants are working extremely hard on this.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, eight years ago, when we were dealing with the Agriculture Bill following Brexit, we were promised that there would be a period of consistency for farming while ELMS and SFI bedded in. Since then, we have had the land use strategy, the change in IHT rules, biodiversity net gain and the nature restoration fund—we have a constantly changing stream of strategies. Farming requires continuity, consistency and dependability. When will we see that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Earl on the need for consistency. There has been an enormous churn in government over the last eight years, which has not helped at all. That is why we want to provide a 25-year farming road map.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a tenant farmer. Far from there being billionaire farmers, there are a huge number of tenant farmers in the UK who pay commercial rent to farm. They are worried about fertiliser prices and input prices just as much as any other farmer. Will the Minister confirm that the vital role of the agricultural tenanted sector will be highlighted and supported in the farming road map when it is published?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The tenant farming sector is critical to our rural economy. I can confirm that.

Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards banning bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas.

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

My Lords, the consultation on the latest round of proposed by-laws to introduce restrictions on bottom trawling in 41 marine protected areas resulted in a very large number of responses being received. The Marine Management Organisation is now carefully considering those responses and reviewing the evidence. When all of that has been considered in full, the decisions will be made. Our environmental improvement plan commits us to finish putting MPA fisheries by-laws in place by the end of this year.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that response. She will know that bottom trawling is a hugely destructive fishing practice that causes widespread, severe and often irreversible environmental damage to our marine ecosystems. I would like to push the Minister a bit more on the response to the consultation; it has been over six months since it closed. Bottom trawling is taking place in our waters every day. It depletes fish populations and habitats, undermining the healthy seas that our fisheries and coastal communities rely on for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that time is of the essence, and can she say any more on when the consultation response will be published?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I take great comfort from the Minister’s words. This is a hugely complex issue, as we know. On a previous Question in this area, I spoke very much in favour of total banning, but subsequently there have been representations to me about the valuable source of food in this time of the importance of resilience, the targeting of special species that are valuable for the industry, the lower carbon footprint and the economic contribution to the very knocked-back local fishing communities. I very much appreciate the effort that the department is putting into it. I stress that there may be solutions in paying attention to the gear that is used—there are a lot of regulations that can be further enhanced—and regulating the quantity of catch.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some really important and sensible points. The reason we are doing it site-specific and tailored is to ensure that we limit fishing only where genuinely necessary and avoid placing restrictions on activities that do not damage the seabed. Sometimes, management measures will involve a ban across the whole site, but it is important that we get that balance. That is what we are looking to do.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said about the disastrous effects of this practice and the fact that it is now six months since the consultation ended, will the Minister take into account the fact that one of the main campaigners against this awful practice has been Sir David Attenborough? It is his 100th birthday on 8 May. Perhaps the Minister will agree that we could congratulate him by announcing the implementation of this ban for his birthday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to congratulate David Attenborough, whether we bring in a ban or not. He has been an extraordinary champion for our environment over many years, and I am sure we all wish him a very happy 100th birthday. I watched his film on bottom trawling. It was an extremely important piece of footage.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this Government’s agreement with the EU last year surrendered around 40% of UK fishing rights to our European neighbours for the next 12 years. Just 10 EU vessels account for 25% of all bottom trawling in UK waters, with little by British vessels. Under this agreement, is the Minister able to end this damaging EU exploitation of our waters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I am not able to divulge any of the detail of the current negotiations on the EU reset. Those of us who are involved in that reset process are extremely aware of the sensitivities around fishing, the type of fishing and the fishing gear being used, as the noble Lord mentioned earlier.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s approach will align with their 30 by 30 commitments and nature recovery goals? How will the Government measure that delivery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the reasons for bringing in this proposal to extend the protections to 41 more areas is entirely to support our ambition of delivering on 30 by 30. As I have said before, it is much more complex to deliver that in a marine environment, which is why it is so important that we get it absolutely right. I do not have the further detail the noble Baroness mentioned, but I am sure we can pick that up another time.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I would like to ask why No. 10 is so eco-stupid, but that would be very rude of me, so instead I ask the Minister, because I know she feels strongly on these issues, to please explain to No. 10 or whoever produces these policies that we need nature and that bottom trawling destroys a complete ecosystem that is irrecoverable for decades, so it actually militates against any sort of food stocks for the future?

[A noble Lord]

She has already said that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Perhaps my noble friend would like to answer the question. I know the noble Baroness feels passionately about this. I am very glad that she decided not to be rude about No. 10. We all know the importance of the marine environment and the damage that bottom trawling does, which is why we need to take our time and get this right.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her response about the protection of the fishing industry. In that regard, will she talk to the Isle of Man fisheries and the Northern Ireland Minister for fisheries about the spatial squeeze that is going on in the Irish Sea and the fact that Northern Ireland vessels with foreign crew on skilled worker visas and transit visas are excluded from Isle of Man waters? It is important that a meeting takes place to ensure that the fishing industry, with all the issues that have already been demonstrated, particularly along the east coast of Northern Ireland, is protected and can play a pivotal role in the local economy.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure my noble friend that Ministers meet regularly across government and with devolved Governments on how to ensure that we have a thriving, sustainable fishing industry right across the UK. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently met representatives from the Northern Ireland fishing industry and has discussed issues, including those raised by my noble friend. I assure her that skilled worker visas have never been accepted by the Isle of Man and non-UK nationals have always been required to hold the appropriate permission to work on land or in Isle of Man waters. I have recently met the Minister from the Isle of Man, and we have agreed to have regular meetings going forward. This is something I can raise with her at our next meeting.

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April.

Motion agreed.

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 55th 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, these regulations were laid before the House on 26 February.

This Government are committed to delivering the clean power mission, which is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, lowering household energy bills and driving long term economic growth. Crucially, clean power is one of the most important tools we have to tackle climate change. This statutory instrument represents an important milestone in the Government’s delivery of the clean power mission. It is not only about accelerating offshore wind; it is also a real opportunity to deliver meaningful, lasting gains for nature. This SI reflects this Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand and that, with the right approach, they absolutely can.

I will begin by setting out the issue that this SI will address. When compensating for impacts to protected sites, developers must follow the mitigation hierarchy; that means they must first avoid, and then minimise and mitigate, impacts on protected sites. Once those steps have been taken, developers are required to compensate for unavoidable impacts, normally with measures that benefit the impacted feature affected. As our offshore wind capacity grows, securing compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features is becoming increasingly difficult. This challenge has become one of the main reasons for delays in consenting decisions.

This statutory instrument tackles that issue by widening the range of suitable compensatory measures for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available to compensate for the impacts of offshore wind, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. These will benefit ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. In doing so, this statutory instrument will not only remove one of the main obstacles to timely consenting but open up new opportunities to enhance and invest in nature.

So, rather than limiting compensatory measures to a single feature, developers could support broader initiatives, such as programmes to strengthen sea-bird populations. Through innovative approaches such as these, the statutory instrument demonstrates this Government’s commitment to ensuring that nature and economic growth can be achieved in unison.

Defra’s offshore wind environmental improvement package has been designed to strike exactly that balance. It brings forward measures that simplify the consenting process, supporting faster, more efficient decision-making, while continuing to protect our marine environment and meet the UK’s domestic and international commitments. This package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach to environmental compensation for offshore wind. This has been demonstrated through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the launch of the marine recovery fund.

This statutory instrument is another essential part of that package. Building on its existing successes, it will increase flexibility to further accelerate the deployment of offshore wind, while continuing to protect and enhance our marine environment. Today, by approving this statutory instrument, I believe we have the opportunity to deliver an approach for environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind that facilitates our transition to clean power and delivers for nature.

Before I turn to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its thorough examination of this statutory instrument. The committee’s report raised concerns regarding the laying of the statutory instrument without publishing the accompanying draft guidance. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the policy intent has been set out transparently through the material already provided. I was pleased that the committee welcomed the publication of a policy note alongside this instrument, providing helpful context and information.

This statutory instrument has been laid ahead of the accompanying guidance, to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can proceed without delay, while we take the necessary time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard. The guidance will support implementation once it is published on 21 May. This date will coincide with the statutory instrument coming into force, ensuring that all stakeholders have clear, comprehensive guidance in place from the first day.

The guidance will provide technical and practical support to developers and relevant public bodies, including consenting authorities. We have shared the draft widely with stakeholders and the devolved Governments to ensure that it is robust, aligned across the UK and, importantly, fully fit for purpose when published. I believe that the published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.

I now turn to the details of the legislation. This statutory instrument will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of practical environmental compensatory measures, as I said in my introduction. Without action to expand the compensatory measures that are currently available, the UK’s ability to unlock its offshore wind potential will be constrained.

The territorial application of this statutory instrument is the UK. It has effect in relation to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and for certain offshore wind functions in Welsh and Northern Ireland inshore waters.

We are amending the existing regulations to introduce a new bespoke compensation duty for offshore wind. This will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network.

Environmental safeguards sit at the heart of our new approach. The environmental safeguards will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature. As part of this, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. This requires developers to select compensatory measures in line with the hierarchy and to prioritise those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. This hierarchy is a central pillar of the environmental safeguards underpinning these reforms.

Another key safeguard is the role of statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider this expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.

As part of these reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is that this will bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact: for example, by targeting actions that contribute directly to improving the ecological resilience and long-term health of multiple marine protected areas.

All this work will feed into a wider review that assesses the impact of our statutory instrument on offshore wind developments and the environment. This review will be published by April 2031, with further reports following at intervals of no more than five years.

I recognise that there may be concerns about the reforms amending the current regulatory approach, so I want to be absolutely clear that this Government are firmly committed to delivering on our climate and nature ambitions. This statutory instrument implements necessary and timely change to the environmental compensation requirements for the offshore wind sector. We are confident that its provisions will uphold strong environmental protections, enable substantial and sustainable growth in offshore wind and ensure that nature and clean energy continue to progress side by side. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the statutory instrument. There is no doubt that climate change is an existential threat that demands urgent and transformative action. The soaring temperatures, floods and rising sea levels that we see are not distant warnings but present realities affecting millions.

We, the Liberal Democrats, have long championed recognition of the climate emergency and the need for a fair deal for our environment, central to which is a clean energy revolution. We are committed to an industrial strategy with tackling climate change at its core, and to a goal of generating 90% of the UK’s electricity from renewables by 2030. Offshore wind is vital to achieving that, and removing unnecessary barriers is overdue. We also recognise the Government’s ambition of reaching 43 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, which is essential for our net-zero goals and energy security.

But this transition must go hand in hand with the protection of our precious wildlife. We cannot solve the climate crisis by exacerbating the nature crisis. Our view is clear: we must double the size of the protected area network and the abundance of species by 2050. Britain’s seas currently face serious strains. Recent sea-bird statistics show continuing declines and, tragically, 10 of the UK’s breeding sea-bird species are now red-listed. Without effective compensation, the expansion of offshore wind risks pushing vulnerable species even closer to the edge.

We support the aim of the pragmatic tier system for environmental compensation in this statutory instrument. However, we share the concerns of organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts about the inclusion of tier 3 and strongly suggest that this is revisited and perhaps revised. I thank the Wildlife Trusts for their briefing on this matter.

Under these regulations, tier 1 and tier 2 measures provide direct or closely related ecological benefits to the affected species or habitat. We are concerned that tier 3 is different. It would allow measures that give broader benefits across a wider marine protected area network without a direct link to the species or site damaged. I look forward to being corrected on this by the Minister if I have got it wrong. That risks weakening the principle of ecological coherence. For example—I would be very happy to hear a response to this specific example—harm to a kittiwake colony should not be compensated through unrelated education projects that do nothing to restore the lost birds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the draft conservation of habitats and species regulations today and I share many of the concerns laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Before I begin, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests as an owner and developer of onshore wind energy infrastructure.

We on these Benches recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. This month’s updated assessment and good environmental status of the UK marine strategy shows that cetaceans, birds, fish, benthic habitats, food webs, contaminants and marine litter have not met good environmental status. Another six categories have been partially met or are uncertain; only two categories have seen GES met. The update highlights the mixed picture for marine ecosystems, with high pressure on our seas, which are getting warmer, more acidic and oxygen depleted. This is not an encouraging picture and highlights why legislation, such as that we are considering today, needs to be given detailed scrutiny.

These regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of these developments is determined and delivered. The compensation, rather than necessarily focusing on the features directly affected, could target similar features, potentially elsewhere in the UK’s MPA network. My first concern with the SI, which, as others have mentioned, has already been highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, is that it leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. The Government have conceded that they are taking a novel approach, but this is no justification for asking the House to approve a framework without being clear how it will operate in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of these reforms, and it simply is not clear why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with this legislative process. Instead, the guidance will be published only once the SI has come into force on 21 May. This is not good practice.

My second concern is that this approach allows for a similar approach to that taken under the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which the House spent so much time on earlier this year, which allows environmental damage through development with the conscience salved by payment to a general fund, although, at least in this case, I am grateful that the compensation hierarchy is protected from the outset. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, I am also grateful to the Wildlife Trusts for their briefing on this. It is the third tier of compensation where the main issue lies, potentially allowing for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. Can the Minister reassure us that tier 3 would not be permitted in these circumstances and that it would not be allowed to become the default setting as a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy? It would also be helpful to receive reassurance that the compensation funds raised through this legislation would be applied only to damage being caused by the offshore wind industry rather than becoming a general pot that could be used in other industries.

It has been left to the future guidance to set out the hierarchy of compensation measures, determining which are the most beneficial to the MPA network. How will the condition of this network be better monitored in order to understand which measures are the most beneficial? As has been pointed out by Wildlife and Countryside Link, many assessments are over six years old, and many features are not assessed at all. Further, any agreements reached with developers must be deliverable and viable so as not to deter investment.

Building on the recommendation of RenewableUK, how will the forthcoming guidance balance the timing requirements involved in implementing compensation measures with the project’s construction schedules, for example? Can the Minister confirm that the guidance will be kept under review to respond to concerns as they arise, while giving certainty in what is already a complex policy environment? Is it likely that the guidance will address the concerns I have raised? Which agency will be responsible for implementing this legislation and who will cover its costs?

It is hoped that the establishment of marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet MRFs are not mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is also important to note that MRFs are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of MRFs will be and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?

Our concerns about this SI are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, we on these Benches support the development of affordable, home-grown energy sources; that is why we oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North Sea. Indeed, amid a web of subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. As the Minister laid out earlier, I know that she shares these aims.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I am conscious that I have asked quite a few questions so, if she feels the need to write, that is of course welcome.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will try to be brief because we have some votes coming up fairly soon. I will write to noble Lords on anything I have not covered; I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and comments.

We are trying to strike the right balance in establishing a new approach to environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind. We need to accelerate our shift towards renewable energy, but we also need to ensure that we still have positive outcomes for the environment—in particular, the marine environment. What has come across today is that both Ministers and noble Lords understand the importance of getting that balance right.

We have covered a lot of ground so I will do my best to cover some bits quite quickly. On the publishing of the guidance, as I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on our approach of laying the guidance in draft for the moment then laying it in full after we have debated it. It is critical that we deliver this statutory instrument. We have been fully transparent about the policy intent that underpins both the SI and the guidance. As I said, the response to the consultation and the published policy clearly set out what the guidance is going to cover. We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders to discuss the guidance content; we have also collaborated closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have proper alignment.

As I said, the guidance will apply in English waters to Wales and Northern Ireland waters, which is why the work that we have done with the devolved Administrations has been so important. The guidance will outline the wider compensatory measures and will explain how a developer could demonstrate that any proposed compensatory measures would provide ecological benefits to the UK’s marine protected area network. It will also explain that this will be achieved in different ways for each tier of the compensation hierarchy, which will give more information on that. The guidance will also cover the requirement for all wider compensatory measures to be taken from the library of strategic measures, and it will lay out an expectation for wider compensatory measures to be delivered through the marine recovery fund, because that is the best way to have a proper, co-ordinated approach.

I come to the point about ensuring that the compensatory measures do not lead to a deterioration. The Division is on so I will have to come back—I am very sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just finishing talking about questions on guidance. On the last point on that, whether the guidance would be reviewed, I can confirm that it will be reviewed and updated as part of the review process, and that is included in the statutory instrument.

I was asked as well how we were going to ensure that the wider compensatory measures introduced by the SI do not lead to the deterioration of specific species, populations and habitat types. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, referred in particular to sea-birds. We have carefully considered how to avoid this, because the last thing we want to see is deterioration in affected species and habitats. All the wider compensatory measures will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and will use expert advice and the best available scientific evidence to ensure that they are ecologically robust. That approach aims to mitigate declines in specific habitats or particular populations.

In addition, the proposed public compensation register, as well as the review that I just mentioned, will help to ensure that we can monitor the environmental impacts of the wider compensatory measures on specific habitats and species. We will keep a really close eye, because there is no point bringing something in if it is not going to do what we want it to do. I reassure noble Lords that we will ensure that the new approach to offshore wind is implemented in a way that continues to abide by our domestic and international commitments.

I was also asked about the timing of compensatory measures. On timing, the guidance will cover that compensatory measures should be in place and functional by the time damage to a protected site begins. The guidance will also outline the circumstances in which the adverse effect may occur before the measure is in place and functional—but the whole point is to have it in place when that starts, so that it is up and running.

A number of other environmental safeguards accompany the statutory instrument, and I shall put them on record too. In England and Wales, wider compensatory measures will need to be drawn from the library of strategic compensation measures, which contains measures approved by the Defra Secretary of State or by Welsh Ministers for some projects. In Scotland, the measures do not need to be taken from the library. We are also in discussion with the Northern Ireland Executive as to whether they wish to approve the measures in the library.

Statutory nature conservation bodies will, of course, continue to advise on the ecological effectiveness, feasibility and viability of any proposed compensatory measures, and all compensatory measures, as I have just said, will be monitored to ensure that they deliver their expected outcomes. If we think that they are not going to function as expected, adaptive management will usually be required to adjust or replace the measure.

The SI also includes a requirement for the review. The point of the review is to assess the statutory instrument as a whole and assess the compensation hierarchy and guidance against any objectives. That will include assessing the impact on the environment and on offshore wind consenting. The mandatory review will ensure continued scrutiny and accountability. As I say, we will be keeping a close eye on it.

We are also exploring the development of a public compensation register. The idea around that is that it will collate information on environmental compensatory measures right across the UK marine protected area network, in order to improve transparency and highlight any further opportunities that could be brought in.

I was also asked about the use of funds and the uptake of the marine recovery fund, which is critical, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said. It is already established and has received applications, and we are pretty confident that developers will use it. As I mentioned earlier, we have done a lot of work with stakeholders to ensure that what we bring in will be fit for purpose. I clarify that the funding comes from developers and can be used only for offshore wind compensation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, asked what is meant by “reasonably proportionate” and whether the definition will keep the existing levels of environmental protections. The guidance will set out the considerations for determining whether the benefit of a compensatory measure or the package of measures is reasonably proportionate to the adverse impacts. In broad terms, what we are saying is that delivering compensatory measures with benefits that are reasonably proportionate to the impacts of the protected site will require a consideration of the magnitude of the impact of the plan or project in comparison with the quality and anticipated ecological benefit of the compensatory measure. I hope that helps to clarify.

The compensatory measure would not need to exactly match the impact, but there would need to be a credible evidence-based assessment of the level of ecological benefit to be provided in order to compensate for any impact. Consenting authorities will be required to assess what is reasonably proportionate on a case-by-case basis. They will rely on expert advice, including the advice of statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to provide advice on all the different compensatory measures.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned tiers. Developers will have to demonstrate through a robust evidence-based case that no other feasible ecologically effective tier 1 measure is available or that any wider measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. The consenting authority, having considered advice from the statutory nature conservation bodies, will make the final decision. In making that final decision, it must be absolutely satisfied that any justification for moving through the hierarchy is absolutely sound. These safeguards will ensure that the compensatory measure cannot be bypassed if it is available and remains the most ecologically beneficial option.

I hope that I have covered everything—I will check Hansard and, if not, I will come back to noble Lords; having had two votes in the middle of this, I am starting to lose track. Turning back to the statutory instrument, the legislation is to provide a more flexible, pragmatic approach to securing environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind and to unlock these new strategic opportunities to drive nature recovery.

It is important that we are prepared to make bold and carefully considered changes because we need to make sure that our marine protected areas and the wider marine environment can recover and thrive alongside any expansion of clean energy infrastructure. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we seem to be in an increasingly unstable world, so it is important that we have secure, sustainable, renewable energy that is homegrown. This statutory instrument is a critical component on the UK’s path to becoming a clean energy superpower, while at the same time ensuring that we protect our marine environment, which is absolutely integral to our approach. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Trail-hunting

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer the House to my interests as a landowner in Norfolk, over which trail-hunting has always taken place legally This includes the Nar Valley Bloodhounds, who come and play “hunt the host”.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to enacting a ban on trail-hunting, in line with our manifesto commitment, and will shortly be launching a consultation to seek views on how to deliver an effective, enforceable ban. The responses to that consultation will be used to inform our assessment of the potential impact of a ban on trail-hunting on the rural economy.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response and I hope that the consultation will be a fair one. The Hunting Act was the result of 700 hours of debate, and it was what hunting opponents wanted. Hunts adapted and adopted trail-hunting, which is what supporters of the ban said that they should do. A recent socioeconomic survey stated that hunting contributes £100 million to the rural economy each year. A Countryside Alliance survey found that 97% of hunting participants believe the activity to benefit their physical and mental health. A ban on trail-hunting therefore runs contrary to the Government’s missions to promote economic growth and improve health outcomes. Surely further legislation targeting trail-hunting—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the consultation has been designed to be open-handed and fair, so that all concerns, from both sides of the argument, can be heard and fully taken into account as we move forward to design the legislation. As I said, this is a manifesto commitment. It is important to point out that we believe that rural areas offer significant potential for growth and are central to our economy. There are many businesses that we can support within the rural communities to continue to bring forward greater productivity—rural productivity is less than urban productivity. We are doing our utmost to support the rural economy in many areas. One of the key areas in which we can do so is by improving our transport links.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, my family, on our farm, has not allowed fox-hunting across that land for well over 40 years. However, as a student, I occasionally used to run cross-country with a piece of rope and a scented rag, and was pursued by hounds. I can assure the House that no animals were harmed in that process—I was left exhilarated but rather breathless. On an equally serious point, does the Minister agree that a higher priority should be to resource the police to deal with the rapidly rising tide of rural crime, including waste-tipping, theft and hare-coursing, rather than chasing after people who simply like to dress up and ride along a pre-set trail?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I commend the noble Lord on his earlier fitness—I do not know if he still carries it out. It is important to stress that there are no plans to include other activities, such as drag hunting and clean boot hunting, in the ban on trail-hunting. The noble Lord makes a really important point about enforcement. I have asked for a meeting with Home Office Ministers to discuss exactly that, in not just this area but others within Defra, as we feel that we need to work much more closely with the Home Office to ensure the enforcement of the laws that we bring in.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister undertake to ensure that any future decision in this area, particularly on trail-hunting, is evidence-led as much as possible and based on assessing whether it causes harm to animal welfare, biodiversity and public confidence in law? The economies of so many rural communities are extremely diverse, with many more people in the countryside participating in, for instance, rambling and orienteering than trail-hunting.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that, when I look at future policy and legislation as part of my role as a Minister, it is incredibly important that everything is evidence-led and, where scientific evidence is needed, that we take the most up-to-date scientific evidence into account.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, I come from a disadvantaged area where a ban on trail-hunting will be seen as a punch in the stomach by people who have already endured a considerable amount of distress as a result of other government policies. Some 20 years ago, after this House passed the Hunting Act, the then Prime Minister regretted what had happened and particularly regretted having to spend 700 hours of parliamentary time on that legislation instead of on his priorities. He asked, “Why was I not told?” Please can the Minister go back and tell the current Prime Minister the same?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, this is a manifesto commitment and it is my responsibility to deliver it. On the other concerns that my noble friend raised, we will start the consultation soon. I encourage people to look at it and take part, because it will be comprehensive.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, our rural police forces are already overstretched, and banning a harmless country pursuit will simply stretch them further and alienate them from the community they protect. As has been discussed, hunting with dogs has already been banned by Parliament. This has resulted in only 52 convictions for organised hunts, with only one of those based on evidence collected by the police. Rather than now targeting trail-hunting, have the Government considered that laws that cannot be effectively enforced by the police are bad laws?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is also important to stress that, if there is a law, people should obey it.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Are the Government aware of how important the supporters’ clubs of hunts are to the local communities? In the part of Devon where I live partly, the local communities in rural villages are very much separated from each other, and they all offer something on one Sunday, Saturday or Friday every week. If there is no supporters’ club, there will be very little for these rural communities to do in the winter.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I live in a very rural community and always have done, and we have plenty of options for things to do in the winter that do not involve supporting hunts. If it is a particular concern in the area where the noble and learned Baroness lives, again, I encourage her to take part in the consultation.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister knows the countryside well, and she must know that huge numbers of jobs will be lost if trail-hunting is banned. What is the justification for this when so few people have been prosecuted for illegal hunting? If a couple of Peers behave badly, we get rid of them; we do not get rid of the whole House of Lords—surely she should look at that example.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Do not open that Pandora’s box—that is what I would say to the noble Baroness. More seriously, I know that there are concerns on both sides. This is a polarising debate, with strong feelings on both sides. That is why I am determined to hold a proper, detailed consultation, where everyone has the ability to put forward their concerns, so that we can move forward in a way that delivers our manifesto commitment, while at the same time making sure that we do what we can to mitigate any concerns that are put forward.

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

It is nice to be back. I remember just enough of the rules to know that I should declare my interest as a trustee of the Countryside Alliance. I remember only too well how hard it is to bid for legislative time, particularly in Defra, and I am concerned that other priorities will be overtaken if this consultation and legislation go ahead. Does the Minister really not have other things that she would rather do?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the noble and learned Baroness back to her place—it really is a pleasure to see her. She is absolutely right: pitching for legislation is great fun in every department, I am sure, and certainly in Defra. As I said, the reason this is one of our legislative priorities is that it was a manifesto commitment, but clearly there are also other manifesto commitments. In Defra we are working out a timetable for how we can deliver all of those at the same time as other priorities.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my farming interests in Kent, as set out in the register.

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

My Lords, the new sustainable farming incentive offer for 2026 builds on the 2024 scheme but is simpler and more streamlined. When applications open in June this year, priority will be given to small farms and those without an existing environmental land management revenue agreement. Small farms are defined as having at least three hectares and no more than 50 hectares of agricultural land.

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. Given that farm units of the size that she has mentioned are generally viewed as uneconomic and unviable in purely agricultural terms, I ask, if I may, two questions. First, given that the Government used 140 hectares as the size of the average family farm when making calculations for the new inheritance taxes for farms and small businesses, why are they now penalising family farms by allowing only one-third of them by size to qualify for this funding tranche? Secondly, in the context of the Batters report, how does this small SFI tranche help with the two fundamentals that the report highlights—namely, to facilitate increased productivity and the need for greater security for domestic food production?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We believe that it is important to encourage smaller farms and those without existing agreements to come forward to access the grants that are available to make their farms more sustainable. It is a little sweeping to say that they are not economic. All farms are different, and it often depends on how they are managed. As the noble Lord said, there is a second window opening in September to which all farms will be able to apply. We are looking to support all farms in increasing food production. Food productivity is an important part of the Batters review. Much of what we are doing in the new offer and in the farming road map is in response to the Batters review’s recommendations.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the definition of a small farm within the SFI recognises the contribution of smaller, diversified family farms to nature recovery and local food production? How will the Government avoid favouring larger land holdings that may find it easier to access the 71 requirements—admittedly down from over 100—of the still complex scheme?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have tried to reduce the complexity of the scheme. We want to make it more straightforward for more farms and different types of farms to access. There are opportunities for horticultural growers, which are often smaller farms as well. We are looking to better support tenant farmers and, importantly, are doing more to support people who farm on moorland and in upland areas. If we are to support sustainable farming, we need to encourage all farms to feel that they are part of what the Government are trying to achieve.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not about time that we means-tested farmers? We seem to be giving taxpayers’ money to billionaires. Is it not time that we stopped doing that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the recommendations in the Batters review is about active farming and ensuring that the payments that we make from government go to people who are farming and supporting the food production that our country so badly needs if we are to have food security. That is what we are trying to do.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I very much welcome the announcement on SFI support for smaller farms, although I have many of the same reservations as the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. However, does the Minister recognise that the proposed 62% rise in electricity standing charges in April, which already accounts for 60% of energy bills, will drive food inflation and dramatically affect the competitiveness of intensive farming and horticulture, which are already facing imports of products grown to lower standards overseas? Do these sectors remain a priority for the Secretary of State for Defra?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a really important point. There are a number of challenges for farming around things such as electricity prices, and oil is now being affected by the ongoing war. We are critically aware of that. It is not just farming; there are a number of industries where these kinds of pressures are going to be challenging. One thing that we are doing in Defra is trying to work these issues through. My colleague, Angela Eagle MP, who is the Farming Minister, is talking regularly to farmers about these issues. We have to look at how we can support and manage these kinds of challenges.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The new SFIs offer some reduced payment rates per acre and remove management payments—winter bird food falls by 24% and herbal leys by 41%. SFIs require substantial expenditure by the recipients in order to claim these payments, and reducing payment rates dramatically reduces the potential for profit and the incentive element of the SFIs. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, costs are going up for farmers. Could the Minister tell us what work has been done by the Government to ensure that these are adequate payment rates? Will they commit that, if take-up of these schemes falls below budget, the full farming budget will be used elsewhere to support the farming sector directly? I refer the House to my interest as a farmer in receipt of SFI payments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Farming Minister has spent a long time looking at the different options to try to target the types of farm and types of productivity that she wants to increase. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that the management payment has been removed. That was done to increase the amount of budget that would be available for new agreements. We want as many farmers as possible to be able to benefit from SFI funding this year, which is why that payment was taken out. A number of actions have come out but, in some areas, agreements have seen the payments increase for certain activities—for example, on moorlands. Some areas have gained and some have not, but it is about getting the balance towards where the Government want to see things changing.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

I keep hearing from farmers, particularly from small farms, about the impact of the fiasco of the changes in inheritance tax. Would the Minister give some reassurance that future policy changes will truly be rural-proofed? I declare an interest as this year’s president of the Royal Norfolk Show.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am beginning to wish I lived in Norfolk so that I could come—it is a long way from Cumbria. I reassure the right reverend Prelate that one of the things we have been working much harder on in Defra, as we develop policies and then manage and oversee them, is working with other departments where there is also an impact. It is really important to have that oversight. The noble Lord was just talking about energy prices, and we work with DESNZ on how best we can approach that. It will be the same for rural-proofing more broadly. It is certainly very much on our agenda.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, in the first round of SFI26, the maximum per farm will be capped at £100,000? According to my mathematics, these aspirant billionaires with 50 hectares cannot possibly fit enough options in there to get to £100,000. Would it not be better to reduce the cap—make it, say, £30,000—and spread it far more widely over these small farms than will be possible now?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct that there is a cap of £100,000. The first tranche is open to small farms and those who do not have an agreement, and then there will be another tranche in September, which will be open to all. That is why the cap is important.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the sustainable farming incentive is trying to put a sharper focus on water quality and biodiversity, which small family farms are often quite good at. I am concerned that their value is appreciated from a local economy point of view and because they are quite often very sustainable and organic. Does the Minister feel that they are going to be properly valued?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The short answer is yes, I very much hope that they will be. We are keen to support organic farming and to see more farms become more, shall we say, environmentally friendly.

PFAS

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the consultation announced in their PFAS Plan: building a safer future together, published on 3 February, will include an option for per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances to be banned in all consumer products manufactured or sold in the UK.

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

My Lords, the PFAS plan was published on 3 February this year. It sets out for the first time the Government’s approach to minimising the harmful effects of PFAS while moving to safer alternatives. The plan includes consideration of measures to manage risks from PFAS in consumer articles. While there are no current plans to consult on banning PFAS in consumer products, any such future regulatory ban would involve consulting on a proposal.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. PFAS are considered to be harmful to the environment, and by the time we collect enough evidence that a substance is harmful, it is too late—it is prevalent in the environment and costly to clean up, if that is even possible. Considering this, a precautionary approach would be to not allow these substances to be sold or used in the UK unless they can definitively be proven not to be harmful. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to follow the precautionary principle and signal the Government’s intention to take rapid steps to end the use of PFAS in the UK. If we do not, there is a real risk that we will become a dumping ground for products not suitable for the EU market.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important issue. When deciding what action they will take to address any PFAS risks, the Government will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement from the Environment Act 2021, which includes the precautionary principle. We know that many PFAS have useful properties and are widely used and that some critical uses of PFAS which benefit society do not currently have suitable and sustainable alternatives available. While we see their use continuing in the near future, we absolutely have to manage any risks effectively. The PFAS plan contains action to support this transition to alternatives.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister look carefully to the forthcoming water Bill and the conclusions and recommendations of the Cunliffe report as to how we can remove these very dangerous products from our water courses, our rivers and the sea?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are a central part of the Government’s programme and a priority for Defra. We are looking at the Cunliffe report extremely carefully; it is an important piece of work.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why, when PFAS contamination of marine life and wildlife is already so widespread and understood, the Government are choosing what looks like a pathway of delay and of more research, more information and consumer choice, and considering only limited change to products such as waterproof clothing and period products rather than pursuing a more aggressive approach attempting to ban PFAS now?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, we want to move forward as quickly as we can. The noble Baroness and others will be aware that we are working with the EU at the moment. There are negotiations. We know that the EU is looking at its own approach and, clearly, we need to take that into consideration and to work alongside it. It is important to remind noble Lords that PFAS is a large and complex group of over 15,000 chemicals. There are significant differences in chemical structure and toxicity, so it is important that we work alongside the EU to tackle this effectively and efficiently for the long term.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, on the whole, on all these bans, we are way behind the EU. I have raised in this House the issue of school uniforms and polyesters being next to the skin, the largest organ in the body. I now ask the Minister to turn her attention to babies’ mattresses. Babies spend 12 to 16 hours a day on a mattress. The PVC covers leach phthalates into the atmosphere and there are fire retardants in the foam, as in most mattresses. These produce effects in babies which include cancers in later life, and there is now a definite understanding that they are hormone disruptors which are leading to lower sperm counts in males all over the world. It is important that we take a precautionary principle here and at least follow the EU all the way.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we will be taking a precautionary principle approach. The noble Baroness talked about school uniforms; it is important that we make sure that children are protected as much as possible. We recognise the concerns in this area. Her point about mattresses is also important. The textiles industry is already moving away from PFAS voluntarily, but we clearly need to do more. I assure noble Lords that the PFAS plan is the starting point and the platform for moving forward in this area. This is not the limit of our ambition.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we are concerned that the plan promises high-level actions without clear timelines for phase-outs or mechanisms for delivery. In addition, companies need sufficient time to explore safe alternatives and for the supply chain to adapt accordingly. What are the Government doing to support the private sector in innovating viable alternatives to PFAS?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The simple answer is that we are carrying out a lot of stakeholder engagement. We are working very closely with industry and business. As I said, the textiles industry is moving that way voluntarily. We need to work with other sections of industry in the private sector to encourage them to do so, because the more we can do now voluntarily, the better, while we bring in our more detailed plans.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister may have seen in the Financial Times this week a large article about the concerns about PFAS in sportswear. If you are wearing sportswear, sweating and moving very fast, there is a large area of concern in terms of off-gassing and absorption through the skin. Given there is so much public concern with sportswear—particularly for children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said—surely the Government need to address this far more rapidly than they are doing now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, this is very much the starting point. We are in negotiations with the EU. The EU is looking at what it wants to do in this space. We wanted to lay out a plan that demonstrated that government was serious about doing something in this area, because it is important. It is also important that we work with industry and educate consumers along the way. It is important, too, that we continue to work constructively with the EU, because we want eventually—as I said, this is the starting point—to get to a place where PFAS chemicals are dealt with effectively.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, rural community pubs are very much a force for good, not just for the local rural communities they serve but also for the wider communities in towns and cities. Does the Minister agree with that statement, and does her department agree that diversity within the rural economy is most welcome for those in towns and cities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. Diversity in the rural economy is important. I just wondered whether there is a particular explosion of PFAS in pubs.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I just wanted to bring a bit of thinking here. Why is your Government now looking like every other Government, in that when you get the opportunity to be brave and act quickly, you are incredibly tardy. That lot was doing it before you, and presumably some lot will be doing it next after you. Let us be brave and let us grab something that will help our children to not get cancer in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time. Let us do it now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that I am always happy to be brave when I can and I will encourage the department to push forward as best it can in this area. It is important and I recognise the huge concern both in this House and among the public.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said that this is a starting point and we broadly welcome that, and I note that she said that this is an extremely complicated group of chemicals used in many industrial processes. The Minister also spoke of Europe and the action being taken there. Fundamentally, the approach being taken in Europe is different to that being taken in the UK. Can I ask the Minister for further clarity about how we can have further co-operation with our European partners on these important issues?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Lord says, the EU is developing a broad ban on PFAS. We know that industry is concerned about any plans being workable, which is why this is the starting point in working with industry to get it right. We need to see what the EU’s proposals are; we do not know yet. We are expecting it to announce an update next week, which will be followed by a consultation. I am sure that we will debate that much more in Parliament. But our plan is the starting point; we want to work with the EU. We are waiting to see what it comes up with. Then, I hope, we can be braver.

British Farming: Competitiveness

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this Government are backing British farmers to create a productive, profitable and sustainable future for farming. We will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and any impact that it may have. Where necessary, we will be prepared to use the full range of powers at our disposal to protect our most sensitive sectors. We will set out our wider plans to boost farming profitability and long-term viability later this year.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. UK food self-sufficiency has fallen below 65%. Britain increasingly relies on volatile international markets while holding its own farmers to higher standards than most of our trading partners. The Batters review was unequivocal that food security is national security, so, yes or no, will the Government commit to treating agriculture as a sensitive sector in all future trade negotiations and ensure that no future trade deal allows imports produced to lower welfare or environmental standards to undercut British farmers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have been very clear when working on our trading agreements with other countries that our standards are sacrosanct. We will not allow deals that undermine the standards that we have in this country. We are investing £11.8 billion in the farming budget over this Parliament, so we are absolutely serious about building our farming road map and responding positively to the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. It is really important that any products that are produced to different environmental or animal welfare standards can be placed on the UK market only if they comply with the strict requirements that we put in place.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, the way to help with this significant issue would be the Government achieving their own manifesto promise of getting at least 50% of food supply to the public sector produced by British food producers. Can the Minister share with us what is preventing the Government achieving that with some urgency?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that we talked in our manifesto about the importance of public procurement in supporting our food industry. The Procurement Act allows contracts for certain value thresholds also to be reserved for smaller UK suppliers. We want to look at the big suppliers and the smaller suppliers in order that we can deliver that manifesto commitment as best we can, because 50% is a large amount of our food procurement. Last year, we had a new national procurement policy statement, which puts emphasis on weighting environmental and social outcomes in government contracts. British farmers and local suppliers will be very well placed to meet those outcomes.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, one way to improve the competitiveness of UK farming is through innovation. The Government have invested a considerable amount in research and innovation in relation to agriculture and the food system through UKRI. As a result of that, the UK is at the forefront of a number of novel technologies, including precision breeding and the use of AI to detect animal diseases. In negotiating a new SPS agreement with our colleagues in Europe, will there be a carve-out for these new technologies so that we can continue to develop and use them even if we have a new agreement and dynamic alignment with the European Union?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord in that I am not able to discuss any specific carve-outs that we are looking at during the negotiations with the European Union. What I can say is that the innovative areas that he referred to are under discussion, because they are very important both for our scientific communities and for our farming communities, and those discussions are ongoing.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my registered interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. In so doing, I commend the work of my noble friend the Minister in achieving agreements with the European Union in that regard. Further to that, can I urge her, working with the EU as part of the reset, to ensure that we achieve an SPS veterinary and phytosanitary agreement that will help promote and protect our farming industry and food security, not least in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that working with the European Union around sanitary and phytosanitary issues regarding veterinary medicines is very important and something that we are clearly focused on. I also thank her for her role in the Veterinary Medicines Working Group. The whole group came together to do the best we could to ensure that veterinary medicines were still available in Northern Ireland after the end of the grace period at the end of last year. We will continue to work together on how we move forward within the EU reset.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have said that they do not expect the EU–Mercosur trade deal to impact UK food production, supply or security, or indeed UK imports of agricultural products from the bloc. However, the British Agriculture Bureau has taken a market-wide view and has warned that the deal risks increasing competition on the EU market, potentially displacing products on to the UK market. What is the Minister’s assessment of this? I declare my interest as a dairy and beef farmer.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is important to say that the UK values its relationship with the Mercosur countries and we are committed to identifying ways to continue to strengthen our trade relations. We are not currently negotiating a free trade agreement with Mercosur, but our trade strategy is clear that we will consider new free trade agreements where there is a comprehensive deal that makes sense at the time.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in relation to the latest free trade deal with India, there is every reason to believe that Indian dairy products will be allowed into the UK market without reciprocal rights for British dairy farmers to export their products to India. How can such a deal be done when we are trying to support British farmers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the India deal, we maintained tariffs on several products, including pork, chicken and eggs. That was because we had concerns about animal welfare standards and the potential impact on British farmers. That is what we will do and the position we will take when looking at trade deals with any country.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, when will the Government publish their response to the excellent Farming Profitability Review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters? Will it focus on the farm-to-table food chain to ensure that profitability reaches the farm gate and is not consumed by retailers, wholesalers and distributors en route? In that regard, will it also take note of the model set forth in Great South West’s recent agri-food growth plan, which shows the value of regional focus, championing local farming and food production? I note my interest as a Devon farmer and a programme board member of the food security board.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the latter part of the noble Earl’s question, Great South West does tremendous work in this area. I went to the launch of its review, which is a blueprint for how the Government believe we should be delivering and supporting farming in our country. I commend the noble Earl for his work with and support for that group.

There are a large number of recommendations—57—in the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. We are looking at those carefully but taking some actions on a number of them already so that we can deliver practical support and certainty for farmers where we can before we publish our full response. Part of that is the new farming and food partnership board, which we have announced, that will bring together farmers, processors, retailers and the wider supply chain to drive collaboration and increase the kind of fairness that the noble Earl talked about.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My noble friend referred to the Government’s procurement plans. In my experience, I never found any government procurement plans; there were departmental procurement plans. It was impossible in particular regions to get the prisons, the schools and the hospitals to work together, because they had their own budgets and decision-making. That is still the case today, and it goes against co-ordinated effort to help British farmers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the important things that we are doing in Defra and other departments is trying to have a better collaborative relationship with local authorities. Much of what we want to do as a Government will be delivered by local authorities so, unless we support them better, we will not be able to deliver much of what we need on the ground. Procurement is an exact example of that.

Forest-Risk Commodities

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to implement due diligence requirements for forest-risk commodities.

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

My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering their approach to addressing the deforestation impact of the use of forest-risk commodities in our supply chains, and we will update the House at the earliest opportunity.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the national security assessment, which the Government still refuse to publish in full, has been leaked in full to ITV News. It states that nature loss, including deforestation, is already slowing UK growth and productivity and could leave annual GDP 12% lower by 2030 than it would otherwise have been, making a mockery of the Government’s growth agenda. Will the Minister confirm these figures? When will the Government start taking nature loss as the grave economic threat that it is and get on with urgent job of protecting nature?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that the UK remains absolutely committed to providing international climate finance, both now and in the future, and to play our part alongside other developed countries and climate finance providers to deliver on our international commitments. There is a real economic benefit globally, not just here, to do that. We are on track to deliver £11.6 billion in international climate finance by the end of 2025-26 and are supporting the transition to more sustainable food and land use globally to help ensure the future of our global supply chains.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I imagine that the Minister is aware that the Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Indonesia, which is a substantial producer of palm oil and palm oil products. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Indonesian palm oil products exported to us are not being grown in plantations planted in place of tropical rainforests?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we remain steadfast in working with partners to deliver our shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation. Clearly, examples such as that which the noble Lord has just given are part of that. We need to ensure that any regulatory frameworks we bring in are robust and proportionate but also effective in addressing any deforestation in UK supply chains. Any decision-making will also have to consider the implications of the EU deforestation regulation on UK businesses that trade with the EU, and that is part of the bigger picture in order to address exactly the issues that the noble Lord is talking about.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, some might say that the Government’s proposals for nature loss are very ambitious; some might say they are overambitious. Does the noble Baroness agree that taking 10% of farmland out of food production to go towards clean energy projects is not in the interests of the country? Surely, taking farmland out of production in this way must count against nature loss and biodiversity gain.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the Government are working alongside farmers and environmental organisations on our farming road map, “Farming 2050, Growing England’s Future”, in order to set the course of farming over 25 years. We need a long-term vision for farming and food security, and this road map will be designed to get there, because ultimately, we need to deliver our food security alongside our environmental objectives.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, this is surely part of a much wider problem concerning the line of sight that businesses in this country have over their supply chains and supply lines. That applies to forests and to modern slavery, but it also applies generally in all sorts of ways—I declare my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—to the sources and sustainability of the products on which we rely. This is not just about food security; it is also about ensuring that businesses know what their supply lines are and where they are from. What are we doing as a nation to make it easier for businesses to understand their supply chains?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks a really important question. We announced a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct as part of the UK trade strategy, and that is exploring the UK’s effectiveness in preventing human rights harms, labour rights harms and environmental harms in supply chains. That is how we are looking to support businesses and give them access to the kind of information my noble friend talks about.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, while it is right to take steps to protect forests overseas, I point out that Brazil and Indonesia, for example, have 50% forest cover, versus only 13% here. These countries already protect their forests through the Brazilian forest code and the Indonesian timber legality assurance scheme. Can we not do more to make the world greener in our own country by increasing our paltry 16.5% forest cover target? I declare my interest as an investor in SLC Agricola and Anglo Eastern Plantations, and as a forest developer.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have ambitious tree-planting proposals, including planting three new national forests—one has already begun and two are well on the way—because it is important that we increase tree coverage. We are also looking at how we can better protect the forests we already have, particularly our ancient woodlands. The environmental improvement plan the Government have recently published addresses many of those issues.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, what projections have the Government made of the impact on regional GDP and jobs if UK food and retail businesses lose market share because overseas competitors can show that they are stronger on deforestation-free credentials? Will the Minister commit to publishing any economic modelling behind their current chosen timetable and the scope for these due diligence regulations?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Due diligence, particularly around trade and standards, is incredibly important. We want, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, to grow our economy in this country, but at the same time we must support business and ensure that we are doing so in a way that is sustainable—whether it is to do with the environment or human rights and so on. We discussed the issues she talks about with the Department of Trade, and we will continue to have very close discussions with it on how we continue to grow sustainable businesses in this country.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, regulations about forest-risk commodities were starting to be drawn up in 2023. In August 2024, the Labour Government said that they supported the policy and would work on it. It is really concerning to hear the Minister now say that they are still considering this policy. I know there was an issue connected with aspects of Northern Ireland, but can the Minister please say what is going on? Are they now going to change to the EU regulations which were decried around the world, or can we press on so that we can do something to help save the planet?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I shall take the noble Baroness’s concerns back to Defra because they are fair. But the issue is that we must make sure that we get the best regulatory approach to address deforestation in our supply chains. There are a number of factors we are considering, and I will just mention a couple. First is the compatibility of the forest-risk commodities approach which is enshrined in Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 and the EU’s deforestation regulations. The issue is the differences between them—the EU approach introduces a strict deforestation-free standard and customs controls, whereas the Environment Act addresses illegal deforestation. The Government’s ongoing review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct that I just mentioned, led by the Department for Business and Trade, is also looking at the effectiveness of the UK’s approach to preventing human rights harms and environmental harms in supply chains. We must tie all this together if we are going to get it right and make it effective.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, returning to palm oil, global production affects at least 193 threatened species, with potential impacts on 54% of all threatened mammals and 64% of all threatened birds. It is the leading cause of orangutan decline: eight orangutans are lost every day. Do the Government not need to take urgent action on the deeply problematic product of palm oil?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have already mentioned, we are absolutely committed to delivering this and ensuring that any regulatory framework we bring in that will affect any kind of product, such as palm oil and the UK trade in it, is going to be robust and effective, because there is no point in doing it if it is not going to make a difference.

Global Biodiversity Loss and National Security

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published on 20 January.

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

My Lords, nature underpins our security, prosperity and resilience, and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is essential to address them effectively. This important assessment provides strategic analysis that is designed to help government plan for future risks that may arise. The UK is already taking comprehensive action to strengthen resilience to environmental risks, both at home and overseas. The findings in the report will support and inform that action.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, a nature security assessment was initially withheld and then only partially released following an FoI request. Given the gravity of its findings for biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and our future national security, will the Government now publish the report in full? What policy responses are being developed as a result? Will Ministers engage in open dialogue, both at home and with allies, that recognises the interlinked climate and nature emergencies as essential to our natural security strategy and future prosperity?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is important to note that this is a strategic tool and not a prediction of future possibilities. The idea behind it is to help government plan for future shocks that are credible enough to warrant preparation. The way it has been managed reflects standard national security planning for preparedness. On policies, we are taking comprehensive action to strengthen resilience to environmental risks, both at home and aboard, through various ways. Tree planting in England is at its highest rate, and we are restoring peatlands, improving water quality and protecting pollinators. We have introduced landmark legislation to protect our oceans. We are supporting food security with new technology and farming schemes that reward sustainable production, and we are also committed to providing international climate finance—I could go on. Maybe the noble Earl and I can pick this up in more detail after the Question.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that farmers are probably best placed to regard the future of nature and to safeguard our biosecurity and ecosystem? Will she carefully consider the damage that could be done, particularly to livestock farmers, from some of the proposals in the animal welfare strategy, which I would be very happy to raise with her separately?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The proposals on farmed animals in the animal welfare strategy are designed not to harm farmers but to bring long-term improvements to animal welfare in relation to how our food is produced. Our intention is to work very closely with farmers and other relevant stakeholders so that the policies we introduce do not cause harm but support animal welfare.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, on food security, as everyone in this House knows, there are severe floods across Somerset, Dorset, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire and lots of growing areas. Compounding that, there are floods in Spain as well as Sicily. These are all areas where we get our fresh vegetables from, and these floods are damaging the crops for this year. We also know that there are going to be droughts after the wet weather. What are the Government doing to look, in the immediate future, at the food security situation, because many farmers cannot plant on land that is absolutely sodden with water?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there has been terrible flooding. Much of the change in our weather systems is inevitably caused by climate change. We are working very hard to invest more, not just in flood defences but in natural flood management. Regarding sustainable food and food security, we are trying to better support farmers on food security in sustainable practices. The new SFI offering will look more at small farmers and sustainability in order that we prepare for the long term for exactly these kinds of outcomes.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Government sound very good on all these policies, but, in fact, they are not meeting their targets. They are not meeting their targets on tree-planting, marine protected areas or flooding. It is going to be a contest between which comes first—World War III or climate collapse. Do the Government agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At least the noble Baroness thinks I sound good. The revised environmental improvement plan is designed to deliver everything the noble Baroness talked about. We are working very hard in Defra to ensure that it does.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures aims to bring nature into the core of business and financial decision-making, recognising that the health of our natural environment is crucial to the long-term health of our economy. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to accelerate adoption of TNFD reporting to incentivise better performance and thus encourage businesses to channel investment into nature recovery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for mentioning the TNFD, because it is very important. We are continuing to fund the Green Finance Institute to progress market capacity building and uptake through the TNFD UK consultation group. That is evolving to include a pilot programme on integrated nature transition plans. Fifteen businesses are currently already signed up to that. We are also in the process of onshoring the International Sustainability Standards Board’s general sustainability and climate disclosure standards in the UK. That will draw on the work of the TNFD. We are looking at its imminent work on nature standard-setting. Once that direction of travel is clear, it can inform our future paths on policy and regulation.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, how will the Government’s strategy deal with the problem of pollution by farmers in our rivers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are currently looking at that. We need to reduce the amount of run-off, for example, from farms, and we are looking at how best to work with farmers to improve the situation.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the assessment is explicit that nature is a foundation of national security, yet independent analysis, not least by the Government’s own watchdog, the OEP, in its recent annual report, shows that the UK is not on track to meet its own nature recovery targets, thereby increasing domestic risk. How do the Government reconcile this security assessment with current trajectories on the Environment Act targets and land use policies?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are doing a number of pieces of work right across the department that will come together to try to have the outcomes that we want. It is important that the role that Defra plays in national security and resilience planning is better implemented and recognised across government. We are working really hard to do that, whether it is the work we are doing around flooding, with farmers, within biodiversity, on tree planting, or globally. There is a huge amount of work, and once that all comes together, we should see the results and outcomes of it.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I regard environmental horticulture as a vital stakeholder in all this. Does the noble Baroness agree, and if so, can she put some pressure on Defra to think the same way?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, I congratulate the noble Baroness on a significant birthday this weekend. Secondly, as she knows, I am a great supporter of horticulture; I have recently been speaking to the Farming Minister about it and will continue to do so.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, 40% of our food comes from abroad. Should there be a World War III, the Royal Navy would be responsible, as in the past, for ensuring that that flow of food continued. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that we really need to get some haste in building the new frigates and getting a rolling programme going to ensure that we have security of our food supply?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am starting to get a bit alarmed about the number of questions referring to World War III, but the noble Lord is right: food security is of critical importance. I am sure that right across every department we will do everything we can to ensure that, should World War III come anytime soon, we will have good food security in our country.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is well aware of the challenge that we face around our marine biodiversity. One thing we have been able to do since we left the European Union is improve some of the protections, particularly around marine protected areas. What steps are she and Defra taking to ensure that the Government’s reset with the European Union does not end up compromising those standards and taking us back to where we were before?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot comment on the ongoing discussions that are taking place with the EU regarding the reset. However, we have been discussing with the EU the importance of not reducing any of our current standards.