Flooding Interventions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what outcome-based measures they use to measure the effectiveness of flooding interventions.

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

My Lords, properties better protected is currently our main measure for tracking the current flood investment programme. In addition, we measure asset condition. A new 10-year programme starts in April this year and will benefit 840,000 properties by 2036. Our new strategic objectives will drive funding towards the most beneficial interventions. This will be measured by a set of outcome metrics covering economic benefits and reduction in flood risk to properties.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. In October 2025, the Government committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences to protect nearly 900,000 properties. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what assessment they have made of this investment in flood defences, reducing insurance costs for those residents, bearing in mind the ever-present problem of climate change?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is correct that we have committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences, the reason being that flood risk is one of the factors that determine home insurance prices. Our investment programme is designed to manage flood risk by reducing it and by preventing further increases. Clearly, this can also take properties out of the need to use Flood Re for their insurance. To remind noble Lords, Flood Re is a joint government and industry flood reinsurance scheme designed to help UK households at high risk of flooding to access affordable insurance.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, one of the most efficient ways to reduce flood risk is sustainable drains. When do the Government expect to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to make sure that they will be mandatory for major new housing developments?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that sustainable drainage is an important factor in managing flood risk. I am sure she is aware that I am personally supportive of this measure. The department is looking at it and is working with MHCLG, which, as the planning department, also has a particular interest in this. I will keep the noble Baroness up to date as we progress.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that farmers remain a critical partner to government in the fight against flooding? Will the Government therefore consider the EFRA Select Committee’s recommendation of a more comprehensive compensation strategy for farmers who store floodwater on their land to serve and protect downstream communities?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. As someone who lives in a rural area that floods regularly, I am aware of the important role farmers play in managing flood risk and storing water on their land. Farmers can access payments in a number of ways, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. One is the farm recovery fund, in cases where damage has occurred and farmers need to recover costs. It pays up to £25,000 and can be important to farmers when they have suffered flooding. We are looking very carefully at the Environment Audit Committee’s recommendations in this area. Farmers storing water on their land is an important way of moving forward, and it is certainly something we are looking at.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, when Flood Re was set up, my understanding was that it was a transitional body that would no longer be necessary after a certain period, once other means of insuring homes at risk of flooding were put in place. Does Flood Re have a limited life expectancy, and if so, what is the estimate?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that Flood Re was set up for a certain period of time. I am doing this from memory, and I shall tell the House if I am wrong, but I think it was due to run through to 2036.

We are looking at possible alternative arrangements. Clearly, the last thing we want to do is take away households’ ability to have insurance. We do not want to go back to how it used to be—people being completely uninsurable or having excess limits of, say, £10,000. That is not the future we see for insurance. The noble Lord is right that it has been set up as an intermediate system, and we are looking at ways to move forward.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Environmental Audit Committee’s fourth report on flood resilience in England in October 2025 highlighted that Defra’s flood budget is increasingly a thin blue line protecting the nation’s transport, energy, housing and utilities from escalating flood impacts, yet it remains siloed, with no cross-government accountability for measurable outcomes or value for money. Will the Minister clarify what work the department is doing beyond using standard HM Treasury guidance to ensure value for money in flood investments?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, we have invested a record amount of money in addressing flooding. We have also reviewed the way funding is applied and how communities, businesses and so on can apply for it. The new programme we have set up has four metrics, and if I briefly go through those, it will help to answer the noble Lord’s question.

There are two outcome metrics and two output metrics. The first outcome metric is around economic benefits. It captures all the damage that has been avoided to properties, infrastructure, agriculture and a range of other areas, as well as the positive economic benefits of such things as natural flood management, which we are very keen to invest in. The second is around the risk to properties. The Environment Agency is developing a way of reporting on the reduction in flood risk due to the investments made through the national flood and coastal investment programme. I think that is due to report in April.

The first output metric is around how properties benefit from the new investment. That is made up of three parts: whether it is large reductions in, small reductions in, or prevented increases in any size of flood risk. The last metric is around asset condition, which initially remains the percentage of Environment Agency high-consequence assets at target condition. So we have a whole new system of managing exactly those outcomes and investments.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the floods that occurred in Wales in recent months—in particular, the difficult ones just before Christmas in Monmouth, a border community. She may also be aware of the Written Questions I tabled on whether there is adequate co-ordination of efforts on the Welsh side and the English side of the border to minimise the danger. Can she confirm that she has had discussions with Welsh Ministers or civil servants to minimise that danger?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. The noble Lord makes an important point: floodwater does not recognise boundaries, as I think we all know. I live in Cumbria, which, again, is a community with a border with one of the devolved nations. I meet regularly with my Welsh and Scottish counterparts, as well as those in Northern Ireland. It is important, as we make policy decisions and decide what legislation investments we are going to make, that we all work together. It is something I am very committed to.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Some floodwater is highly toxic and dangerous to humans, particularly if it comes from a sewage treatment works or from farms. What extra interventions are done on such floodwaters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and it is one of the reasons why we are investing in anti-pollution measures, working with farmers, for example, to see how we can stop run-off and better manage slurry, and working with water companies. A water White Paper is coming up that will look at many of these issues. As someone who lives in a flood high-impact area, I know that the damage that can be caused by pollution is immense and is something we absolutely need to tackle.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, in the middle of last year the excellent report came out from the Independent Water Commission which, among other things, recommended a certain restructuring of the Environment Agency. We were promised a White Paper later last year, after that report. I wonder what has happened and whether the Minister has any idea of when the White Paper will be published.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is very interesting that the noble Duke asks that, because I asked that question this morning. The answer is that it is being “actively worked on” at the moment.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am giving the noble Duke the answer I was given. It is an absolute priority for the Government’s next Session to have a water Bill in place in order to have a water Act to deal with all the issues we have been discussing for so many months and years in this House. The White Paper is the first step towards that; I hope he will see it before the end of the Session.

Nitrogen Reduction, Recycling and Reuse (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on securing this debate. I thank the whole committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, for its thorough inquiry into a very complex environmental challenge that touches on so many aspects of our society.

I confirm that the Government very much welcome this report and the recommendations it contains and are grateful to all those who provided evidence and contributed to the vital discussion that we have had today. Having carefully considered the committee’s findings, I also welcome the opportunity to be able to respond and to explain the Government’s approach to addressing nitrogen pollution, while maintaining our commitment to economic growth and supporting our farming communities.

It is important at the start to acknowledge the scale of the challenge that we face. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about the witness who described nitrogen pollution as an octopus. That was really quite striking; it is a complex multifaceted issue that spans agriculture, transport, industry and so on.

The committee rightly highlighted that excessive reactive nitrogen damages our ecosystems through direct toxic effects, soil acidification and eutrophication. It also contributes to climate change through nitrous oxide emissions and impacts public health through air pollution. The Government fully recognise these impacts. We understand that there are significant economic costs from the inefficient use of nitrogen resources. These are costs borne by farmers, often through their fertiliser bills. They are borne by our health service through the impacts of air pollution, by our water bills as we look to clean up pollution and by our environment through the ecosystem damage it causes. These are not abstract policy challenges but real issues that we are facing every day in our communities.

I accept that the regulatory framework, which has evolved over a number of years, has become fragmented, especially as new technologies and practices have been more widely adopted. We agree that effective nitrogen management must be embedded within our broader environmental and economic strategies, not isolated in separate silos. This is why the Government are looking to address the issue by taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to reforming our existing policy frameworks, rather than just creating additional bureaucratic structures.

I turn to a few of the questions. I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talk about how he has been farming to manage nitrogen and nutrients, because managing farm nutrients such as nitrogen better is clearly an important way that farmers and land managers can help reduce their environmental footprint, cut costs and improve profitability. I reassure him that this is very much in line with the Government’s food strategy, which seeks a food system that is more environmentally sustainable and resilient. It is likely to be the kind of activity that the farming road map, which will be published later this year, will seek to encourage. I am sure noble Lords are aware that this road map will be our response to the farming profitability review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, which will bring together a lot of work that the department has been doing. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that we will of course work with and listen to stakeholders as we develop that road map going forward.

The current regulatory framework for fertilisers in the UK covers only limited organic fertilisers and soil improvers. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about this. There are no requirements for recycled nutrients, including nitrogen, or newer types of fertilising products or materials such as biostimulants. Defra is planning to launch a consultation and call for evidence on this in order better to understand the regulatory options that we can take forward in this space.

I want to confirm that nutrient pollution from our agricultural targets is part of the analysis that we plan to publish in the land use framework, which will come out later this year. Hopefully, that answers part of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, about how we are joining up our thinking on this. We are very much looking to do that.

There were a number of questions around whether Defra supports the development of a national nitrogen budget similar to the one being developed by the Scottish Government. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, in particular mentioned that the Government have said we will consider the national nitrogen balance sheet approach, how it is working in Scotland and whether a similar system would add value in England. We are looking to work with the Scottish Government to better understand how well this nitrogen budget system is working to drive change as we look to move forward in this space.

At the moment, we do not see value in producing a separate nitrogen strategy when nitrogen considerations are integrated across multiple policy areas. The revised Environmental Improvement Plan was mentioned by noble Lords; it was published last December and serves as our overarching framework for achieving environmental outcomes, including those related to nitrogen management. We want to bring in an approach that avoids duplication while bringing proper co-ordination across departments and sectors. We heard about the circular economy growth plan, which we will also publish soon. It will support the transition and systemic changes so that resources are kept in use for longer and waste is designed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the waste hierarchy; this is part of that.

Agriculture was discussed a lot in the debate, obviously, and the committee rightly identified it as a significant source of nitrogen pollution. Our approach is looking to balance environmental protection with support for farming communities. We recognise that there are gaps in regulation and that a more coherent approach is needed to improve effectiveness. However, we also very much recognise that effective change requires farmer engagement and support, not just regulation.

I also want to come back on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said. She suggested that the Government are postponing action to simplify the regulatory framework for farming. That is not what we are looking to do; we are looking to work more effectively with the farming community to move forward. As I have said, in the EIP, we are looking to improve the regulatory approach more broadly. We are developing options for consultation on the expansion of environmental permitting to dairy and intensive beef farms; that approach is going to build on and learn from the successful application of permitting in the pig and poultry sectors, where high compliance rates have been achieved.

We are also reviewing the regulatory framework for sewage sludge spreading to agricultural land in order to ensure that it effectively manages risks to human and environmental health. In parallel, we in Defra are already working with the farming sector and environmental organisations to explore how we can make the agricultural water regulations clearer and more effective. Our statutory reviews of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations and the farming rules for water are both informing that piece of work.

Compliance also needs improvement; that has been mentioned, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. One thing that we need to do is make requirements and expectations clearer. Certain noble Lords mentioned this. We have amended the farming rules for water guidance in order to have more clarity on enforcement regulations; enforcement was mentioned by, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, in her introduction. On that, we are doubling the funding for the Environment Agency’s farm inspection team, raising the number of inspections to more than 6,000.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, expressed concerns about this. The idea is to help farmers improve standards. We know that most farmers do the right thing. This is not out to get people; it is about improving standards and working with farmers. However, if farmers do not heed advice and there are problems, the EA will not hesitate to enforce the regulations—including by moving to sanctions, if necessary. Last year, there were some 4,500 inspections at, I stress, high-risk farms. Those resulted in 6,500 improvement actions being issued, with 6,000 of them being achieved. So the regulations are being looked at in order to make a genuine difference here.

Training was mentioned, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. We recognise the important role that farm advice and training can play in helping farmers manage nutrients. We are exploring the potential for future support regarding advice and farmer collaboration. My noble friend Lord Hanworth talked about how farming has changed over the years and how the intensiveness of farming has caused a number of problems. It is important that we work with farmers because we are talking about changes in culture, to a certain extent, in how farms have operated for many years.

We recognise that farmers need access to training, advice and planning tools. It is important to know how to plan going forward. There are grants available through the ADOPT—Accelerating Development of Practices and Technologies—Fund, which was launched in April last year to support farmer-led, on-farm trials to develop and test new solutions to farming challenges. We also support the Fertiliser Advisers Certification and Training Scheme, which is an independent accreditation scheme. There is a lot of work going forward in trying to support farmers in this space. Some 3,000 advisors have been accredited to improve standards on nutrient management in farms, which is a significant number.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked whether we would assess the effectiveness of the AHDB nutrient management guide and asked why we think that ours would be more effective. The tool that we are introducing is designed to build on existing work—for example, the guide that currently exists through the AHDB. The idea is to make it easier for farmers to create a nutrient management plan that will optimise crop yield while reducing costs to the farmer and the environment. That is what we are trying to achieve going forward.

The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Ashcombe, both referred to the Netherlands. As we discussed, the Dutch have substantially reduced nitrogen losses, particularly ammonia to air, through a combination of measures, including investment in research and knowledge transfer, which has been referred to in the debate, as well as funding and regulations. We want to learn from different approaches as they have done in the Netherlands to see how that can inform our approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also asked about encouraging low-emission spreading and slurry stores. We have seen a good uptake of low-emission spreaders from the farm equipment and technology fund. In 2024, 66% of farms that spread slurry on crop-land used low-emission methods. Last year, just under £50 million was made available for farmers, growers, foresters and contractors, and £30 million of that was for productivity and slurry. Grant funding for slurry covers includes existing stores, not just new stores.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the waste hierarchy, which I mentioned briefly. The circular economy growth plan explicitly aims to support the transition, focusing on increasing resource efficiency and supply chain security through policy interventions aimed higher up the waste hierarchy. That is what we are trying to achieve there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and others talked about the circular economy. The Government strongly support the committee’s emphasis on circular economy approaches to nitrogen management. We are effectively promoting the three key principles: reducing inputs, efficient use that minimises losses and reusing what remains. There was some discussion around the enormous potential of technology and innovation to make more efficient use of nutrients generated and used on farms. We believe that the Government’s role is to provide the policy framework and support to enable those markets to develop. We are working to revise fertiliser product regulations to ensure that products derived from quality recycled organic materials can be classified as high-value products based on quality rather than source.

Ofwat’s price review came out in 2024 and led to us allocating £6 billion for nutrient pollution reduction programmes, including improvements at wastewater treatment works, protecting 15,000 kilometres of rivers. That is a huge investment into the sector.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, referred to the committee’s recommendations on catchment-based approaches to water quality. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission made similar recommendations and the Secretary of State is already committed to including a regional element for water system planning. The idea is to tackle all pollution sources more effectively and rapidly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to air quality. We have made substantial progress in reducing nitrogen emissions from transport, but there are clearly some challenges remaining. Clean air zones and ultra-low emission zones have been effective in securing compliance with statutory nitrogen dioxide limits at urban roadsides. However, we recognise that a lot more needs to be done and continue to support local authorities with the highest emissions. We have been looking to see how we can more quickly deliver electric buses, for example. We are also committed to phasing out the sale of new cars relying solely on internal combustion engines by 2030.

My noble friend Lady Whitaker raised important points about indoor air quality, particularly nitrogen dioxide from gas appliances. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is considering these impacts as part of broader decarbonisation work, including the electrification of heating and cooking. We will look at that evidence in our policy development, and we will continue to work across departments. So much of this is cross-departmental work.

We also recognise the importance of robust data for effective nitrogen management and are working to improve nitrogen flow data within our existing monitoring and reporting frameworks. We also understand concerns about monitoring costs for local authorities and are exploring how we can better support them.

The committee called for urgent regulatory reform, which we are looking at through the Corry review recommendations, which have been mentioned during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, particularly asked about this issue, and I assure him that work is under way to implement next steps as well as to consider them. We are looking at how we implement the recommendations for enforcement approaches, regulatory guidance and sanctions for environmental regulations. We need to improve clarity, consistency and effectiveness right across the regulatory system.

It is important that our approach maintains that environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. We know that effective nitrogen management can reduce costs for farmers—we have heard examples of that today—and that it can create new private markets for both recovered nutrients and nutrient pollution reductions. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talked about some of the ways that we can work effectively with industry and create economic opportunities at the same time as protecting public health and restoring nature.

We take nitrogen pollution very seriously. We are committed to addressing it through integrated, evidence-based policies that support our communities while protecting our environment, and we want to continue to work proactively with stakeholders and noble Lords in order to look at how we can deliver these benefits.

The Independent Water Commission was mentioned. We are responding to the recommendations for water sector reform. As I was asked about earlier today, we will be looking to produce the White Paper on water very soon.

On the recommendations from the committee, we genuinely recognise and appreciate their valuable input to the work that the Government are doing in this area. While we do not agree with every specific proposal, we share the ultimate objectives in the committee’s report. The Government are absolutely committed to delivery and to action, not just to strategy documents and reports. Through our existing frameworks and cross-government co-ordination, we will continue making progress on nitrogen management as part of our broader environmental and economic objectives.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response, which has finished bang on the dot of 20 minutes. I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have participated in the debate. The contributions have been fantastic and reaffirm yet again the breadth and depth of knowledge that runs deep through Members of this House.

The time is late so I will not keep the Committee long, but I have a couple of points—I have made lots of notes, but I shall mention just a couple before we close this debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his contribution and for reminding us that there was a time when inert dinitrogen gas, N₂, was in equilibrium with bioavailable, more reactive nitrogen in the soil, so things do not have to be like this. Modern society and our burning of fossil fuels have contributed to reactive nitrogen, but the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process has led to the mass production of cheap fertilisers that are being overused—and abused, really.

I am not going to run through everything, but I will try to pick up a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. All I will say is that a 1% per annum reduction in artificial fertiliser inputs, which is the aim of the company that he represents, pales in comparison with the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, with regenerative farming. The noble Earl achieved a 20% reduction in two years, while a rate of 1% will take 20 years—I just wanted to point that out. At the same time, I congratulate the noble Earl on his fantastic work in this field. It will make a real difference to have someone of his stature and capacity leading regenerative farming. If he were to throw his weight behind this, that would be a game-changer, so I welcome his input.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned a 39% reduction in fertiliser input since 1989. Quite a lot of that came at the same time as the reduction in livestock numbers. We know that food grown to feed cattle and other livestock takes up a lot of our inputs, which may well explain the large numbers since 1989.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who mentioned roads. We deliberately chose not to look at nitrogen emissions from roads because they have fallen quite a lot, by 70%. The committee recently did a report on the uptake of EVs—we can see in today’s media that we had a record year for electric vehicles last year—so we felt we should concentrate on agriculture and wastewater, where reductions in nitrogen emissions have been much more stubborn. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her work in making sure that we do not lose sight of indoor nitrogen pollution from cookers and domestic boilers. She will do us all a service if she stays with that issue and makes sure that we do not lose sight of it.

I will wrap up. The Minister commands respect around the House, certainly from me, so I really welcome her words. However, I received an email recently about a meeting in October of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The email says that, at that meeting, the UK succeeded in having struck from the meeting record that there are any cost-effective low-hanging fruit for ammonia mitigation. That was a pity, since reaching agreement on that point was the centrepiece of the evidence that the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen provided to the meeting. I am sure that these discussions will continue, but that fills me with trepidation. I look forward to the Minister writing to me to verify that email or otherwise. I have to say, it comes from an extremely reputable source—otherwise I would not have brought it up. I apologise to the Minister for bringing it up, but it is crucial to this debate.

Our report was undertaken in response to the widely perceived failure of successive Governments to effectively manage nitrogen pollution. I am sorry to say that the Government’s response to date and the information I have just relayed do not inspire confidence that their response matches the scale of the problem or the opportunities available. However, I look forward to further discussions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I just confirm that I will look into the issue the noble Baroness raises in that email and will write to her.

Motion agreed.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the first female Deputy Prime Minister in British history, for her work on the Bill, which embodies the steadfast Conservative commitment to farmers. We should also flag the many organisations that have campaigned for and been instrumental in delivering reform in this area. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition is fully supportive of the Bill, which is a long overdue update to the law and of genuine benefit to rural communities such as the one that I live in.

The Bill will, among other measures, extend the powers available to the police to enforce the law against incidents of livestock worrying. With an estimated 34,000 such incidents every year across England and Wales, this issue is of key concern, not only because of the significant financial costs but because of the distress it causes to farmers, who truly care for the animals in their keep and who have to bear both the emotional and monetary scars.

The Bill also includes new protection for the 45,000 alpacas and llamas, whose UK population continues to grow. They will now be afforded the same protections as other livestock under the 1953 Act. By enhancing powers of enforcement, encouraging responsible dog ownership and securing justice for those negatively impacted, the Bill delivers for both farmers and their livestock. We commend the Bill to your Lordships’ House, and we look forward to seeing it complete its final stages.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and support for the Bill during its passage through the House. I particularly thank the honourable Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this very important Bill in the other place—and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for successfully guiding the Bill through this House, and for keeping at it.

I am pleased that, as we have heard, the Bill makes important changes to strengthen police powers and increase fines as a deterrent, as well as expanding the law’s scope to include incidents on camelids. On roads and paths, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned that she had received an email from my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. To clarify, the ordinary meanings of “road” and “path” are broad. We would expect the courts to interpret “road” or “path” broadly to include things like tracks, so that they do not have the narrow meaning the noble Baroness was concerned about.

The passing of the Bill is clearly important for our farmers and their livestock. Its strength and provisions will send a clear message that livestock worrying is a serious offence, and that responsible dog owners must be accountable. The provisions will serve as a deterrent but also restore confidence among farmers and members of rural communities, many of whom live in fear of the devastating impact of such incidents on their livelihoods and the welfare of their animals. The Bill is a truly meaningful step forward in our commitment to animal welfare and to those who work tirelessly to sustain our agricultural sector. I look forward to seeing the positive impact that it will have.

Welfare of Domestic Animals

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote the welfare of domestic animals, including prohibiting the use of electric shock collars.

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

My Lords, the Government remain committed to improving the welfare of domestic animals. We are considering the available evidence around hand-controlled electronic collars and their effects on animal welfare, and we will outline our next steps in due course. More broadly, we are developing an overarching approach to animal welfare and have been engaging with key welfare organisations as part of this work. The Prime Minister has committed to publish an animal welfare strategy by the end of this year.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I know the noble Baroness will agree that the use of electronic shock collars on cats and dogs is cruel and unnecessary, causing pain, fear and stress in animals we should be caring for. Could she therefore explain why they have not yet been banned, a full seven years after a consultation on their use in 2018 showed strong support in favour of a ban from those with animal welfare expertise? The then Government, with strong backing from the noble Baroness, were fully supportive, but draft regulations brought to this House in 2023 moved with glacial speed and timed out before the election. Since then, nothing has happened, and animals are still being caused pain and suffering. I know Whitehall can move with great speed when it wants to, but is not seven years unacceptable? Can the noble Baroness, who I know is a great supporter of animal welfare and a proud cat owner, tell us when these regulations will reappear?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that I have been supporting this for some time, and that seven years is an awfully long time. That is why, when I came into my position as Animal Welfare Minister, I wanted to properly review all the animal welfare legislation that had been sitting there, left over from the previous Government. It is why we have been pulling together this overarching animal welfare strategy. We are looking at the available evidence on electronic shock collars. We are looking at the potential impacts on animal welfare, livestock management, dog training, and owner responsibility, which is an important part of it. So, as I say, keep a watching eye out for the animal welfare strategy.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the legislation on electric shock collars was written, scrutinised and approved by this House in June 2023. It lapsed on a technicality, not due to any flaw. Defra’s own research concluded that these devices cause fear and harm, offering no welfare-compatible training benefit. The Government can deliver a swift animal welfare win by immediately relaying this instrument. Will the Minister undertake to do this, instead of waiting?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, when I came into my role as Animal Welfare Minister, I asked for a list of animal welfare legislation and consultations, and all sorts of other things that had been undertaken by the previous Government. The list was huge, so my job was to look at where I felt we could make the best improvements for animal welfare in this country. That is why I commissioned an animal welfare strategy, which looks at what makes the biggest difference to animal welfare. If the noble Baroness looks out for that strategy, which will be published very soon, she might find many things that she will want to support.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, the breeding of dogs with extreme conformations for purely fashionable reasons causes significant, and potentially lifelong, ill health. It is illegal under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) Regulations. A new initiative—the innate health assessment tool—has been lodged to help owners, breeders, trading standards officers, vets and others to avoid this practice in dogs. However, we are now increasingly seeing cats bred with conformations that are seriously deleterious to their health and that of their offspring. Will His Majesty’s Government amend the current regulations to include cats and to encourage the development of innate health assessment tools, or similar tools, to help reduce and avoid these abhorrent breeding practices in cats?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this issue. As he said, there has been quite a lot of interest and work done on dogs in this area. As a result of the concerns that have been continually and increasingly raised around the health and conformation of cats bred for sale as pets, the Government commissioned the Animal Welfare Committee to produce a report looking at the welfare implications, exactly as the noble Lord talked about. Those recommendations are now with the Government and we are carefully looking at them.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, might I suggest to the Minister, in the same way as I did to her Conservative predecessors when I was trying to introduce legislation to ban the import of hunting trophies, that there is nothing I am aware of in the Representation of the People Act that prevents Governments undertaking popular policies? So could she overcome the institutional lethargy of Whitehall in this and other animal welfare issues and just get on with it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is probably aware that there are an awful lot of popular policies that everybody would like to see put forward immediately, which is why I wanted to spend time on getting an animal welfare strategy that actually looked right across the board at what was going to make the biggest difference for animal welfare and at different bits of legislation that were much more achievable. So again, I say to the noble Lord, as I have said to others: keep a watching eye out for the animal welfare strategy.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood for raising this Question. As he said, the House did pass the last Government’s banning regulations in 2023, but they did not go through the Commons. I welcome the fact that the Government are considering all the evidence on this. As she knows, the British Veterinary Association and many dog trainers say that positive incentives are far better than shock treatment. However, many farmers say it is essential for sheepdog training, although that great sheepdog country, Wales, has banned it since 2010 without any difficulties. I suspect that I am in the same boat as the noble Baroness. If someone tried to put an electric shock collar on my cat, they themselves would get an awful shock. Can the Minister give any indication of when a conclusion may be reached in this evidence-gathering exercise? If Defra does decide to proceed with a ban, could we expect regulations similar to those we introduced in 2023?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, we are considering all the evidence around this. It is something that we want to consider how to bring forward. As the noble Lord and others have said, we supported the work that the previous Government did on this. I cannot give a date, but we are looking at the evidence now, and obviously we want to move forward.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her continued support on animal welfare in the UK. I declare my interest as someone who works in the veterinary industry. I hope the Minister has seen the recent report from the APPG on Animal Welfare regarding animal welfare enforcement. What are the Government doing to improve enforcement of animal welfare laws and to support local authorities and charities in protecting domestic pets from cruelty? Will she look in particular at reducing the time that local authorities have to hold seized pets?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks a really important question around enforcement. As I have said more than once in this House, what is the point of having laws if they are not enforced? Local authorities, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the police do have powers to investigate allegations of animal cruelty, including breaches of any disqualification orders. The Animal Welfare Act of 2006 also enables the courts to ban offenders from owning or keeping animals following a conviction. If anyone has any concerns, they should of course report them to the police. Clearly, any legislation where the enforcement is not working needs to be looked at, and I am more than happy to do so.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us were in Downing Street yesterday, and there was a cat wandering around in Downing Street. Can she make sure that the owners are acting responsibly?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Interestingly, I was in Downing Street yesterday as well, and I saw said cat. I foolishly attempted to take a photograph of it and was told that it was not acceptable and would not help the animal’s welfare.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am much concerned by a piece of legislation passed by this Government that would ban the introduction of animals with mutilations that would be illegal if carried out in this country. We have the Act, but it depends on regulations. When may we see those regulations—in seven years’ time?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. This relates to ear cropping, for example, and so on and so forth, which was in the Bill that got Royal Assent earlier this week. I cannot give the noble Baroness a date, but I can assure her that we are very keen to move as quickly as we possibly can to bring in the statutory instrument to allow this to actually happen as she says.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, before my noble friend from the Front Bench responds, I ought to say, in the spirit of this morning, that there is a four-legged member of this House here beside me who would like to thank everyone involved on behalf of his species.

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to speak at the Third Reading of this Private Member’s Bill. Ending puppy smuggling was a government manifesto commitment, and we have been really delighted to support this animal welfare Bill through both Houses of Parliament.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees—I will call him my noble friend—for his excellent stewardship of the Bill through this House. I also thank Dr Danny Chambers MP for so carefully guiding the Bill through the other place and for working so constructively with us in government. My department will now take forward the crucial task of implementing the measures just set out by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, including the delivery of the relevant secondary legislation. In doing so, we will consider any appropriate exemptions and work closely with our enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the tools needed to uphold these rules effectively. Only yesterday, I went down to Dover to meet with our APHA colleagues who are on the front line and who work so hard to catch the pet smugglers. The Bill represents a pivotal step towards ending the illegal pet trade for good, and I am thrilled that this important piece of legislation is finally making its way on to the statute book.

Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 September be approved.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motion agreed.

Biodiversity and the Countryside

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for tabling today’s debate. It has been a very interesting debate, and I thank everyone for their contributions. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to restoring and protecting nature, but we recognise the challenges that we face. I will talk about the progress that we are making and some of the actions that we are currently taking to deliver change.

In England, we are committed to delivering the Environmental Act targets, which have been mentioned during the debate, to improve species abundance, reduce species extinction risk and restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat. Alongside this, we are also determined to deliver on our international commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030, but, clearly, this is a challenge. The programme is adaptive, so we can update it and make changes as we get more information and evidence on the progress that we are making. We simply cannot be the generation that lets nature slip away. We need to allow our children to inherit a wild and beautiful Britain that is richer in nature than it has been before.

The 2025 spending review announced the largest investment into nature in history, with over £7 billion directed towards nature recovery. This includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £86 million for peatland restoration. These investments are designed to improve water and air quality, and to create spaces where biodiversity can thrive. The environmental improvement plan was mentioned by noble Lords, and I am very much looking forward to its publication. This will be our long-term plan for improving the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it.

Obviously, farming was mentioned a lot in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about the importance of nature-friendly farming, for example. Farming is central to our ambitions for nature. The sustainable farming incentive and Countryside Stewardship were mentioned; we are looking to evolve those schemes so that they work for both farmers and nature. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and others asked about the next round of Countryside Stewardship. Applications will be by invitation from Natural England and the Forestry Commission. We are currently working with farmers and land managers to develop the application. It will include some farmers and land managers who are in existing agreements, as well as those who will have new agreements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, was clear about the importance of certainty in farming. Farmers need to know how to plan for the future, and I fully understand that; it is something that I talk about in the department. As noble Lords mentioned, we have announced a one-year extension for more than 5,000 Countryside Stewardship agreements to help farmers deliver vital environmental work, including managing hedgerows. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked about the review being carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and when we are likely to see it. The Secretary of State for Defra confirmed this week that it will be published before Christmas, so noble Lords should look out for that.

The landscape recovery programme is one of the most ambitious parts of our farming programme. It aims to deliver large-scale nature restoration. We have two landscape recovery projects—Boothby in Lincolnshire and Upper Duddon in Cumbria—which are restoring habitat and boosting species abundance now.

The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked specifically about action on and delivery of habitat targets. We are starting to see encouraging signs of progress in nature recovery. Since January 2023, action has been taken to create or restore more than 38,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, for example.

My noble friend Lady Young asked about tree planting; it is now at its highest recorded rate in over 20 years and we are delivering our manifesto commitment to create three new national forests. The Western Forest, which we announced in March, is the first new national forest in 30 years. Last week, we also confirmed the second national forest, which will be between Oxford and Cambridge. Early next year, we will launch a competition to decide the location of the third forest. They will see millions of trees planted in the years ahead, as part of our wide commitment to allocate over £1 billion in this Parliament to tree planting and to support the forestry sector.

We are also taking action to protect and restore peatland. We have invested £85 million in peatland restoration and lowland peat management, which will take us through to 2030.

We are also supporting the recovery of threatened and declining species. The noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, talked about declining species such as the curlew. We recognise the importance of stopping those species further declining and we need to look at how best to restore them. We have a species recovery programme, which works in partnership with organisations across the country, as it is absolutely right to respect those who are already working to re-establish species to support that recovery.

We think that such partnership working is essential. We need to work with farmers, as the noble Lord, Roborough, said; the private sector, which is a really important investor; civil society; and landowners. We have established the National Estate for Nature—the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, might be interested in this—which is a group of major public, private and third sector landowners which collectively manage around 10% of England’s land.

The local nature recovery strategies are also supporting local partnerships to identify the priority places for nature recovery. Last November, the first ever local nature recovery strategy was published. We now have 16 more, and the remaining 31 are expected soon, over the coming months. The idea is that they will cover the whole of England.

A number of noble Lords talked about the land use framework. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about the competing pressures on land use, and that is what it is designed to do: to deliver for nature recovery alongside housing, infrastructure and food security. All these have been discussed in the debate, and we recognise that England’s land is limited and the demands on it are growing. My noble friend Lady Young and others have asked about the timing on the land use framework for England. We are currently looking at the consultation that ran earlier this year and are working across government to see how best we can use the responses from that to develop the appropriate proposals through it. I cannot give an exact date, but we are actively working on it at the moment.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was obviously mentioned by quite a few noble Lords, and there has been a lot of interest in it. I think it is important to remind noble Lords that we did table a number of amendments in your Lordships’ House to better protect nature and the environment and for it to work better with development. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked, we are still actively in discussions around further concerns that noble Lords have on that. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Young that development and the environment do not have to be in conflict, and I am certainly not a fan of nature bashing.

I remind noble Lords that we also have a clear role for green finance, which is why we are working to strengthen private finance for nature recovery. We have a natural environment investment readiness fund that actively works in that space.

I have a few minutes to go through some of the specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, asked some pretty detailed questions—which are important questions to ask—around how land is managed, who owns it, and incentives and support for recovery. I would suggest that these matters really need to be dug into more deeply. I would be very happy to sit down and go through them with her, because she is far more experienced on this—and my maths is dreadful. It would be really good to have a bit of time with her if she is happy to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about biodiversity net gain. We recognise that BNG is working as is intended but also recognise that its implementation can be challenging for SMEs. We have had a consultation to explore options for improving BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development, which is also an important part of this. The feedback we have gathered is that we want to balance environmental outcomes with their actual deliverability, and officials are looking at that at the moment.

Bottom trawling—a really important subject, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—is clearly a damaging activity. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Anyone who saw David Attenborough’s programme will be very clear about what the damage is. Our approach is to restrict fishing which is assessed as damaging to the specific protected features in each marine protected area, based on advice from the statutory nature conservation bodies. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that a consultation on the latest round of proposed fisheries by-laws, which proposes further restrictions on bottom trawling, closed at the end of September. The Marine Management Organisation—MMO—is now carefully looking at all the responses that were received. It may be that we need to pick this up together, because I know of the noble Lord’s specific interest in this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked about our little slogan, “food security is national security”. My understanding is that this is about our ability to feed our population and that is a fundamental pillar of our stability, safety and security. Food production and its supply chains should be considered part of our critical infrastructure. That is my understanding.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about a number of things, but I want to comment on the important things he said about rural communities and the economy and the fact that there are challenges in the rural community around that. We are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, because thriving rural communities and a prosperous rural economy make such a difference to the overall economy of the country. We need to underpin that through improvements in rural connectivity. I am not just talking about digital; I am also talking about transport, which is often a big issue. We need to ensure that affordable housing is available, that the energy supply is secure and affordable and that community services are available to rural communities. A Defra-led rural task force was set up earlier this year to gather evidence on those potential opportunities and challenges in rural areas, in order to look at how we can deliver growth and support sustainable rural communities. The noble Lord may be interested to look at that task force.

The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, talked about our energy policy. I am sure he is aware that planning for renewable energy projects, as for any project, requires extensive up-front surveying. There are important checks and balances that need to take place, because decision-makers need to ensure that statutory environmental and habitats assessments are conducted as part of the planning determination. Those assessments consider the likely impact on the environment and protected species and habitats. If significant adverse impacts are likely, developers have to put in place measures to avoid, preferably, or reduce, mitigate or compensate for those impacts. I hope that is helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked some specific questions. She asked whether we agree with the CLA’s assessment that 3% of England’s land counts towards 30 by 30. The answer is no. The government analysis is higher. We have identified 7.1% of England’s land that already meets the 30 by 30 criteria and counts towards the target, but on the other specifics I will write to her.

I hope I have covered most of the questions that have been asked. If I have not, I will check. I thank noble Lords once again. It is important that we consider these debates in the round and I think we have done so today.

River Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle river pollution from sources other than sewage.

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

My Lords, cleaning up our rivers is a top priority. To tackle agricultural pollution, we are increasing regulatory compliance, reforming environmental land management schemes to prioritise water and promoting innovation. To tackle pollution from abandoned metal mines, we are investing in a programme of water treatment schemes. Finally, we are working with the Department for Transport to review our approach to tackling pollution from road run-off, including tackling chemical contaminants.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. According to the Cunliffe review, agriculture is the single largest cause of river pollution, with pesticides and nutrients ultimately leading to poor environmental outcomes dangerous to public health and blocking developments in affected catchment areas. If we ignore agriculture, little will be done. Can the Minister say how the Government plan to address this source? Will they need primary legislation to do so, and if so, when can legislation be expected?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On agricultural run-off pollution specifically, which the noble Baroness asked about, we are doubling the funding to the Environment Agency farm inspections and regulatory enforcement team, which will enable it to conduct at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, in order to work with farmers to raise standards, which is really important.

The catchment sensitive farming grant—of which my husband and I have been recipients—is designed to address the specific needs of each farm. For example, we have fenced off the river to stop cattle going down and causing pollution and damage to the riverbanks. This supports capital investment in specific ways to stop livestock going in watercourses, for example, as I just mentioned. That also includes improving drainage to manage run-off more effectively.

The sustainable farming incentive scheme pays farmers for actions that protect and enhance our natural environment. That includes things that reduce run-off and erosion, and that will maintain soil cover, create buffer strips and so on. We are also looking at improving farm pollution regulations, which need to be both simple and effective. We have also issued amended statutory guidance on the farming rules for water to set clearer expectations on enforcing the regulations.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the Canal & River Trust has removed litter bins from the canal network throughout England and Wales, on the tow-paths. It has a statutory duty to manage litter in England and Wales. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of water pollution on biodiversity and wildlife on our waterways?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is important that we do not have litter blowing into our rivers, causing further damage and pollution, or litter generally, not just going into the watercourses. The Canal & River Trust can make its own decisions, but we work very closely with it and urge it to consider pollution in its decision-making.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, there was a report last week in the Guardian about the operators of intensive chicken and pig units that are apparently withholding their emissions data from the public. Would the Government now follow the recommendations of the Government’s 2022 and 2023 Environmental Audit Committee inquiries and adopt a presumption against expanding intensive chicken and pig production in polluted catchments until there is a plan as to how to reduce the amount of pollution we already get, which is estimated at 70% in the River Wye from the chicken farms alone?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that pollution from chicken farms, particularly in the River Wye, is a huge problem. I have met with people with interests in the River Wye to look at potential solutions to that, and the department is considering how best to deal with it. Planning is an important part of how we manage our sustainable agriculture going forward, and I know that the Farming Minister has been taking a particular interest in how we can look at planning to improve both pollution and animal welfare.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that this Question relates specifically to river pollution, but my noble friend will no doubt be aware that there has been a major pollution event in East Sussex on Camber Sands in the recent past. That has resulted in some very necessary clearing up having to be done by a wide range of agencies, but as yet, as I understand it, there is no clear indication of where the pollution came from. Since it represents a serious threat to wildfowl, among other things, in the area, can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on identifying the source?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend an update on where we are on Camber Sands and Southern Water at the moment. The pollution incident is really worrying, and it is disappointing that it has happened. We are pleased that Southern Water has now taken responsibility for this plastic pollution incident. The Environment Agency is currently conducting a thorough investigation. It is also looking at what regulatory action should be taken and is working with Rother District Council on the clean-up operation. It is absolutely unacceptable that something like this should happen. For too long, these serious pollution events have not been taken seriously. It is absolutely right that the Environment Agency is looking thoroughly at this incident so we can understand exactly what has happened in order to try and prevent it happening again in the future. We need swifter penalties to clamp down on polluters. We have given £104 billion in private investment to help cut exactly this kind of pollution incident.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Cunliffe review and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill all offer the potential for the mobilisation of greater private capital in dealing with non-sewage pollution in our rivers. Can the Minister inform the House what progress is being made with private sector investment? How big a contribution is planned and how much will therefore be saved for the benefit of the taxpayer? I refer the House to my registered interest as a land and river owner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As part of dealing with any major area that requires investment and funding, we will of course consider how private investment can support what the Government are trying to achieve. We believe that it is important for us all to pull together to make the right kind of progress.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the release of millions of toxic bio-beads happened two weeks ago. Southern Water at first refused to take responsibility and, even now, it is not in charge of a clear-up that would benefit people and wildlife. When will this Government accept that the water companies are incompetent and badly managed and should be nationalised?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is aware that the Cunliffe review made a number of recommendations, and we are acting very quickly on nine of them. She will also be aware that it is our intention to bring forward a second water Bill in order to tackle properly so many of the issues that we still see in our water industry that are simply not acceptable.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Inter-Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met in June this year; it was very high level and all the top Ministers from the various nations were there. An extensive communiqué was issued in September, but it made no mention of this important topic. Can the Minister assure us that, the next time that the interministerial group meets, this topic will be on the agenda? Can she tell us—directionally, at least—when it will meet again?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am afraid that I do not have any information on when it will meet again. However, I am more than happy to pass on the noble Earl’s suggestion and concerns to the new Secretary of State in Defra, who I am sure will want to take the best action possible at the next meeting.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a key challenge for this Government is the lack of effective planning enforcement? I have a classic example from my own village of Goring-on-Thames in connection with a retrospective application for an Airbnb on a zone 1 flood plain. The Liberal Democrat council accepted a work of fiction by so-called professionals, Taylor Consulting, which even named the wrong village and the wrong river in its report, which was entirely accepted by South Oxfordshire District Council. It completely ignored all kinds of water going into the river, including treated pool water.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, I cannot comment on a specific case. It is important that, when planning applications are put forward, they are properly considered in the context of pollution.

Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 16 September. I welcome the chance to set out the action that this Government and the devolved Governments are taking to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic right across the UK.

The Government are committed to bringing forward root and branch reform of the water system to secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment and to restore trust and accountability. A key part of this is enabling pre-pipe drainage and wastewater solutions, including better management of our rainwater and preventing pollutants entering the sewerage network and our waterways. Banning wet wipes containing plastic is integral to this ambition.

Wet wipes containing plastic are a growing source of plastic pollution. They are often found in our natural environment, including in waterways and on our beaches. They break down into smaller pieces when in the water, contributing to microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning them will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution as well as the volume of microplastics entering wastewater treatment sites when wrongly flushed. This is part of a wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviour around the consumption of single-use plastic. Ultimately, we want to encourage a shift towards reusable and/or plastic-free alternatives. In our 2023 public consultation, 95% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are supportive of these regulations, which seek to ban wet wipes containing plastic. We commend the Government on pressing ahead with this important measure, which was first initiated by the previous Conservative Government in 2024. It is both a long-overdue and necessary step in tackling the scourge of plastic pollution, which finds its way into our rivers, on to our beaches and, ultimately, into our oceans.

These regulations are sensible, proportionate and practical. However, while this statutory instrument will eliminate one major source of plastic pollution, it will not solve the wider problem of what we are flushing down and into our sewer system. Wet wipes and other waste continue to create enormous fatbergs in our sewers. Oils, grease and wipes congeal into solid mounds that block the network, leading to flooding and enormous clean-up costs. Water UK tells us that 93% of sewage blockages are caused by wet wipes, costing around £100 million per year to clear. We have seen gruesome evidence of this: the 250-metre fatberg in Whitechapel in 2017, which weighed in at 130 tonnes, and, more recently, the so-called wet wipe island on the Thames near Hammersmith Bridge.

Even so-called plastic-free wipes are not a simple solution. Whether they are made from cotton, bamboo or viscose, they remain single-use products with significant environmental footprints and the liquids they contain often include palm oil or chemical preservatives that can damage our rivers. Nor does “biodegradable” mean what many people assume it does, as highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Bennett. In laboratory tests, everything eventually breaks down, but our sewers are not—and should not be—laboratories. As the Rivers Trust has pointed out, these wipes are not designed to disintegrate quickly, so they continue to block pipes and form fatbergs. The only gain is that they no longer shed microplastics.

While His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support this ban, we must not imagine that it will end the fatberg menace. Plastic-free wipes, whether cleaning, make-up or baby wipes, behave nothing like toilet paper. They cling to grease, oils and other debris, creating the vast sewer monsters that cost millions to remove and drive up consumers’ water bills. Only last month, Thames Water cleared a 100-tonne fatberg from a sewer in Feltham in west London. Some 10 metres below ground, engineers had to blast, chisel and vacuum out 125 metres of congealed fat, oil and wet wipes—a blockage weighing as much as eight double-decker buses. The waste had to be craned out in skips and sent to landfill. Thames Water described the clearance as “hugely complex” and reminded us that, while some fatbergs weigh the same as 25 elephants, most blockages begin in small local pipes where sewage can back up into our streets, our rivers and people’s homes.

What can we do? Either we press manufacturers to create wipes that truly disintegrate or we accept that fatbergs, floods and higher water bills are here to stay. This statutory instrument is a necessary and welcome step and we commend the Government on carrying forward the initiative begun in 2024, but please let us not assume that our drains will run clear all of a sudden. Until both product design and public habits change, the fatbergs will keep on coming.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate and for their contributions. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to bring this important debate to the House of Lords. It has been a really interesting discussion. I am grateful for the broad support but, clearly, there is a range of views as to how best to introduce this measure and what it should contain. It is clear that we are all quite passionate about this, so it has been a really good debate. I will try to pick up most of the issues and questions raised.

A number of noble Lords asked about the issues around manufacture. Banning the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic is in line with most other recent single-use plastic bans where manufacture of the products has not been banned. One problem is the size of the wet wipes industry in the UK, and because of that we need to act carefully to ensure the ban is both proportionate and effective, much as the noble Earl just said.

We need to mitigate any economic impact of the ban and reduce the possibility of job losses in the industry. It is also important, however, that our domestic wet wipes manufacturers remain competitive in international markets; I will come to that later. We want to continue to encourage manufacturers to move to a position where all their wet wipes are plastic free. Most manufacturers have already started this transition to producing plastic-free wipes; the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the amount of notice they have been given. I confirm that we are not ruling out a ban on manufacture at a later date. We will consider whether this is necessary once the ban on supply and sale has come into force.

Energy Market Reforms

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what further consideration they have given to the case for energy market reforms following their decision not to implement zonal pricing.

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

My Lords, the review of electricity markets arrangements has concluded. This Government have decided to retain a national electricity market pricing regime and have established a programme called reformed national pricing. The purpose of the new programme is to deliver a cohesive package of reforms to improve the efficiency of our future power system. We will publish further detail on the reformed national pricing later this year, which will give market participants and investors clarity on our approach.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

We still have some of the highest energy prices in Europe. Does the Minister agree with me that reducing the costs of energy for everyone has to be an absolute priority? What progress is being made on producing a clear programme to redistribute energy levies, and will the Government examine in detail the Greenpeace policy proposals to remove gas plants into a regulated asset base, which it is claimed could save £5.1 billion a year by 2028?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Delivering lower bills and a secure energy supply for families and businesses is absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to achieve through these reforms, particularly with moving towards renewables—that homegrown renewable energy sprint, as we are calling it—in order to get where we can as quickly as we can. The quicker we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the more quickly we can reduce bills and do more about getting off the gas grid, which I think is at the heart of the noble Earl’s second question. Of course, the Government are always happy to look at contributions from different groups and NGOs, but the important thing is that we focus on that transition to renewable energies to bring those bills down.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

On energy market reforms, should His Majesty’s Government not take advantage of the news that the North Sea oil reserves are now considerably higher than anticipated, and of a better quality and cheaper than imports of gas and oil, and therefore help to bring down energy prices?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have just said, the Government’s focus to bring down energy prices is moving away from reliance on fossil fuels, and I am sure the noble Lord is aware that oil is a fossil fuel. Our focus is on moving to a more renewable energy market, to take away that reliance and bring down energy bills through that route.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister can assure me that the Government are still very focused on helping with the development of small modular nuclear reactors and that she will ensure that they are built in this country —for example, in places such as Sheffield Forgemasters.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. Nuclear energy is part of the Government’s strategy in order to have sufficient energy for this country and to move away from gas power stations, for example. Personally, I am keen on small modular reactors: they are very important as part of our nuclear energy mix. I know that colleagues of mine in Cumbria have been pressing that we should have them there, as well as in Sheffield.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action. The warm home discount—for those households in greatest fuel poverty—has remained at £300 for the last few years. What plans do the Government have to increase that figure so that the poorest, most fuel-impoverished households will receive more money off their bills?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is absolutely critical that we support families who struggle to pay their electricity bills. We do not want people to be cold in the winter. I am not aware of any plans to increase that payment at the moment; I will get back to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is important to bring down bills but also to work with energy companies on their support for vulnerable customers, because there is a role for energy companies to play in that aspect.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. In response to the Government’s Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan published last week, Nigel Topping, the chair of the Government’s statutory Climate Change Committee, said:

“Our number one recommendation remains to make electricity cheaper. This means taking policy costs off electricity bills”.


Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, one of our key priorities is to reduce bills for consumers, particularly for vulnerable customers. We will look at all aspects of how best to do that.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, energy companies made £30 billion profit last year, which is over £500 per household. This fuels inflation and poverty. Some 128,000 people die in fuel poverty each year. There is an urgent need to end profiteering by excluding gas-generated electricity from Ofgem’s marginal pricing formula. Can the Minister explain why, after 35 years, Ofgem’s pricing formula has not been reformed?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks about marginal pricing and refers to gas, because gas and electricity prices have been coupled together for many years. The market currently operates on the principle of marginal pricing, and the cost of electricity often tracks the cost of gas because gas generation frequently sets the wholesale price. It is a complex area. There are good reasons why the electricity market operates on that basis. Comparable countries tend to operate in this way as well. Over time, we need to rely less on gas, which means that electricity prices will become increasingly detached from the price of gas and be more frequently set by other generation, such as renewables. We see that as the way to bring prices down to support vulnerable people and to enable them to pay their bills. That is why our focus is on increasing renewable energy.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Increasing the capacity of the grid —particularly bringing more offshore power onshore—will see a dramatic escalation in the number of overhead power lines to distribute the power, as well as more onshore substations. Given the huge profits made by some of the energy companies, what are the Government doing to mitigate the visual impact of this increase in energy distribution? Can these energy companies not be invited to contribute towards a fund that will see, where possible, the burial of overhead power lines?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There are two aspects to this. There is the National Grid, and in Scotland there is ScottishPower. We also have the district network operators, so we have different levels of pylons. It is not quite as straightforward as having a simple pot. The important thing is that we build the renewable energy that we need. We also need to look at battery storage. Not all electricity generation needs to be connected up through power lines. The last figures I saw on burying power lines showed it to be about 11 times more expensive. It depends where they are—through a national park, for example—and what the current situation is. It is important that we have the renewable energy connection, and we want to bring down prices, but we must build the connections in the right place. Connections are not just built in a straight line. Electricity companies spend a long time ensuring that the route chosen is the best one: they talk to people. This is part of creating the renewable energy future that we need.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, alongside decarbonisation, one way to reduce prices for many people would be to encourage them to use flexible electricity? In other words, through battery storage and other modern techniques, consumers can be encouraged to use electricity at a time of abundance and thereby reduce their bills. The Government set up a task force this summer. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that it can spearhead reform in this area?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I just mentioned battery storage, so that is a very appropriate question from my noble friend. As I said, over the summer we announced our decision not to introduce zonal pricing and, instead, to implement this ambitious package of reforms to improve the effectiveness of our current national pricing model. We will publish more detail later this year—including on the role of flexible assets such as storage and consumer-led flexibility in addressing constraints, because flexibility will be a critical part of lowering costs and achieving our clean power ambitions. We recently published the Clean Flexibility Roadmap, which contains a comprehensive, actionable plan for unlocking the kind of greater flexibility to which my noble friend refers.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, the decision not to implement zonal pricing will mean the continuation of payments to turn off wind farms when they produce excess power, which are projected to reach £8 billion by 2030. Given the scale of this, and following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, asked, do His Majesty’s Government agree that they should focus their efforts on securing a baseload of energy by investing in nuclear power in order to offset the strain placed on wind farms?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We need both. We need renewable energy—I have talked about including wind farms and solar, for example—but that baseload of nuclear power is also important. That is why we are also investing in nuclear and making commitments to nuclear power. It is about finding a balance and getting both, because we need to make sure that we have sustainable, secure energy for the future.