Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 November 2024 be approved.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 20 January.
Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(3 days, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 11th 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, the Government are committed to transitioning the UK to a circular economy. We want to finally move away from the linear “take, make, throw” model, which we know causes harm to our environment and our society, and towards an economy that keeps our valuable resources in use for longer. A deposit return scheme for drinks containers is a strong example of the circular economy in action. It is a critical first step.
Deposit return schemes are a well-established and proven method and over 50 schemes are already in place, including in Germany, Sweden and the Republic of Ireland. A DRS incentivises consumers to return and recycle their drinks containers and means that valuable materials are collected, recycled and made back into new drinks containers—a truly circular loop.
The deposit return scheme is one of the three core pillars of the packaging reforms, alongside the extended producer responsibility for packaging and the simpler recycling programme for England. Together, it is estimated that these packaging reforms will support 21,000 jobs in our nations and regions and help stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. They are also estimated to deliver carbon savings of over 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035—valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefits.
At its heart, the deposit return scheme is a key environmental policy that will tackle the scourge of littered drinks containers, protect our beaches and countryside, preserve our wildlife and restore pride in our local communities. The benefits of the DRS in reducing littering cannot be overstated. Each year in the UK, approximately 4 billion plastic bottles and 2.5 billion metal drinks containers are not recycled. Instead, they are disposed of in general waste or littered.
We are all familiar with the destructive impact of litter. In recent years, we have seen littered drinks containers blight our marine environment, but it does not stop there. According to a recent report from Keep Britain Tidy, littered drinks bottles and cans along our roadsides are killing millions of our native mammals every year. This is devastating our rarest and most important small mammals such as shrews, bank voles and wood mice. We must act to protect our natural environment.
A deposit return scheme established under this instrument will also promote a fairer society. Obligations will be placed on drinks producers to ensure that containers are collected and recycled. This is consistent with the well-established “polluter pays” principle. We have set an ambitious target for the scheme to collect 90% of in-scope containers by the third year of operation.
Laid in draft before the House on 25 November 2024, this instrument establishes, in England and Northern Ireland, a deposit return scheme for drinks containers. Under a deposit return scheme, a person who is supplied with a drink in a container that is in scope of the instrument pays a deposit that can be redeemed when it is returned for recycling. The scheme design in this instrument is informed by well-established international examples and extensive industry experience. Many of our industry partners have shared their experiences delivering these schemes across the world. The scheme will be centrally managed by an industry-led, not-for-profit organisation called the deposit management organisation.
This instrument applies to England and Northern Ireland, but my officials have worked closely with the Scottish Government, who are amending their existing legislation to launch simultaneously across England, Northern Ireland and Scotland in October 2027. The Welsh Government have withdrawn from the four-nation DRS approach. However, we remain in close working partnership with them as they make decisions regarding a DRS in Wales. We are keen to keep the door open to provide as much interoperability of schemes across the UK as possible.
Before I turn to the detail of the instrument, I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which draws this instrument to the special attention of the House on the grounds that it is politically or legally important and gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. The committee highlighted questions on the scheme’s application in Scotland and Wales; the exclusion of glass; the deposit level; interactions with the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme; and the set-up of the deposit management organisation. The committee also highlighted correspondence received from the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which is supportive of the legislation in principle but raised questions about ensuring a comprehensive return point network; the exclusion of glass; monitoring and review mechanisms; and enabling reuse.
I now draw Members’ attention to the obligations introduced by this instrument. It sets out the scope of the scheme and places obligations on drinks producers, importers and retailers. Producers of drinks in plastic and metal containers from 150 millilitres to 3 litres will be obliged to label products and charge a deposit when supplying the drink into England and Northern Ireland. They must also pay the deposit to the deposit management organisation, along with the producer fees to fund the scheme. Retailers across England and Northern Ireland will be obliged to participate in the scheme by charging a deposit on plastic and metal drinks containers then taking the containers back and refunding the deposit. They are also required to pass the collected containers to the deposit management organisation for recycling and to display information to consumers so that they understand how the scheme works. These obligations on producers and retailers across England and Northern Ireland will start from October 2027, when the scheme is launched.
To administer the scheme, this instrument requires the appointment of the deposit management organisation. It allows for certain provisions to come into force on the day after the instrument is made. These are necessary for the appointment of the deposit management organisation and the establishment of the administrative arrangements in advance of the scheme launching. The deposit management organisation, which will be appointed in April 2025, will be obliged to meet collection targets, pay return point operators for collecting the containers, recycle the collected containers and pay national enforcement authorities.
The instrument provides powers for the deposit management organisation to set deposit levels, prescribe labelling, interact with other schemes, set producer fees, calculate handling fees for return points and exempt some retailers from hosting a return point. Under the “polluter pays” principle, it is the responsibility of businesses to bear the costs of managing the packaging that they place on the market. Through specific return point exemptions based on store size, proximity to another return point and suitable premises grounds, this instrument also protects small businesses across England and Northern Ireland, which are vital to our high streets and are the backbone of our economy.
Finally, this instrument makes provision for monitoring and enforcement activities by the Environment Agency and local authority trading standards to ensure that mandated businesses and the deposit management organisation are compliant.
In conclusion, the need for a deposit return scheme is plain to see. This scheme will not only improve recycling rates and provide better-quality material for recycling but make a difference to people’s daily lives. It will encourage people to see waste as a valuable resource and, by reducing litter, it will improve local communities. With this scheme, we can turn back the plastic tide. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions and asked extensive questions in this debate today. I will do my best to address as many questions as I am able.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a large number of questions. I shall start with his question on why we need a scheme to take back empty drinks containers to the shops, when it will be easier for us just to carry on doing it at home. I shall explain the rationale for introducing a DRS alongside existing recycling collections. In the UK, despite having kerbside recycling systems that collect plastic and metal drinks containers, recycling rates for these materials have stagnated at around 70%, and they continue to represent a high proportion of litter by volume, at 55%. By introducing a DRS, we create a separate waste stream which can improve the quality of drinks containers collected for recycling by collecting them separately from other recyclable materials. Comparable international examples have shown that alongside kerbside recycling systems, a DRS can offer unique benefits to recycling rates and quality, and to littering, by offering a true circularity of the material, meaning that used bottles and cans will be made directly into new products.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about Germany. We believe that the German scheme is a good example of a DRS which has scaled up and matured since it was implemented in 2003. We can learn from an awful lot from the experiences in scaling up a scheme such as Germany’s, but there is also a lot we can learn from deposit return schemes launching more recently, which offer more up-to-date learnings in how you can successfully implement a DRS from scratch in today’s world. This has included engagement with other recently launched schemes in the Republic of Ireland and Slovakia, while drawing on direct experience across many of the European schemes—those in Latvia and Sweden, as well as Germany. As was said, the deposit return scheme in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will launch in October 2027 and we do not intend to deviate from that, because we want to see the environmental benefits being made.
A number of noble Lords asked specifically about Wales and the interoperability of the four UK schemes. We recognise that this is a challenge and that industry has specific concerns. We are working through the detail with industry, including through facilitating meetings across our devolved nations to understand potential solutions. We are listening to industry’s views to see where we can support and ensure that DRS is successful across England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. But in practical terms, the regulations also allow the deposit management organisation to work in an interoperable way with any other deposit return schemes, so when Wales proceeds with setting up a DRS, the deposit management organisation can work alongside a Welsh scheme administrator. How a scheme works in Wales will of course be for the Welsh Government to determine, but we want to continue to work with Wales and industry as we progress our DRS.
There is currently nothing that prevents DRS items produced in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland being sold in Wales, including those items labelled as part of a DRS. Businesses will need to take this into account when considering how this works for their product lines and supply chains. Any labelling requirements will be a matter for the DMO to provide detail and guidance on.
The pEPR regulations include an exemption for plastic and metal drinks containers across the UK as these materials are going to be captured through the DRS in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland when it goes live in 2027. Glass drinks containers across the UK will, as we have heard, be subject to the pEPR fees from January 2025. Because the future scope of the Welsh scheme is not yet confirmed, we want to work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that the DRS and pEPR work effectively right across the four nations. Once we have the detail of the Welsh scheme confirmed, we can consider whether any further amendments to the pEPR regulations will be required.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Could I add a rider? Will there not be a de minimis rule? I asked about the size of stores; surely there will be a de minimis rule below which stores will not be required to participate.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have further information around size, which I will come to. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to all the shops selling drinks containers in the Westminster area being bigger than 100 square metres. The regulations set out that supermarkets and convenience stores will be required to host a return point unless they are subject to an exemption, which would be given if they did not meet that size and had applied for that exemption—that is how it is set up—or they could opt in. So takeaways are not included, but they could opt in, as the idea is to have a bit of flexibility in the regulations. I think that is correct.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
The takeaway joints—the Prets and Leons of this world—do not sell groceries, but people buy cans of drink from them to take away. Irrespective of size, are they included or are they not grocery retailers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
No—as I said, takeaways such as those will not be required to host a deposit return point, but they can opt in if they choose to do so. Automatic exemptions also do not currently apply to rural stores, as we need to ensure that there is sufficient return point coverage for all consumers, regardless of where they live. However, rural businesses are still able to apply to the deposit management organisation for a return point exemption, based on store size, proximity to another return point and suitable premises—for example, if they cannot adapt their premises to host a return point. There are grounds around what premises look like that permit them to apply for an exemption. I hope that has helped to clarify that point.
It is critical that we have sufficient return points such that consumers can take things back to get their deposits back. We also need to minimise the demands placed on businesses wherever possible, particularly on the local businesses that are essential to rural communities. Return point obligations will be kept under review as the scheme becomes more established, because this is clearly complicated, so we need to watch it as it is implemented. We need to ensure that the network is appropriate, is accessible and does not overly burden rural businesses. Coming back to the noble Lord’s final remarks, the DMO, with due regard to work already conducted by the ONS, will help retailers determine whether they are in an urban or rural area. They will not just have to read the regulations, as he pointed out.
I was asked whether hospitality venues, airports and railway stations can host voluntary return points. Under the regulations, other types of organisations that sell in-scope drinks containers, including hospitality venues, food-to-go stores, schools, hospitals, gyms, sports centres and community centres, will not be mandated to host a return point, although all could operate one voluntarily if they wanted to. Grocery retailers in locations such as airports and railway stations will be obliged to host return points in the same way that any other grocery retailer would be. In practice, we expect these businesses to be pragmatic when considering how to host a return point, which may be best achieved by having a centralised return point that operates on behalf of all the retailers in that area. The regulations contain provisions for exemptions and strategic mapping of return points to ensure that the deposit management organisation can work with businesses in high-footfall areas to deliver appropriate return point accessibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked how the Government define “same” in the definition of low-volume products and how we police the potential for cheating, as he put it. The deposit management organisation will work with producers to help them determine whether a product should be regarded as a low-volume drink. The producer will need to clearly demonstrate how the product constitutes a new product line, with relevant branding and labelling for the drink. The low-volume exemption is designed to support the smallest producers and, due to the cost of labelling production processes, it is highly unlikely that larger producers will be able to take advantage of this measure through the creation of multiple product lines.
I was asked about consumer research on how well a varied deposit would be received by consumers. There was a consultation in 2021; this included consideration of a variable and fixed deposit level, with many respondents agreeing that the DMO should be responsible for determining whether to adopt fixed or variable deposits. It also discussed how it could be varied with respect to many elements, such as material or container size. Our consumer research suggested a preference for simplicity in introducing a DRS, but recently the Republic of Ireland successfully launched a DRS with a variable deposit, based on the size of the container.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked how a deposit level is set appropriately. The deposit management organisation, as I said before, will be responsible for setting that level. It is incentivised to balance the need to ensure that returns are at the targeted level with the need to ensure that products remain affordable. We have commissioned research that showed that an effective deposit level is typically around 15p to 25p. This aligns with international precedents. For example, the DRS that launched in Ireland last year has a 15 cent and 25 cent variable deposit level based on volume. We are confident that the risks of a deposit level being too high or low are being managed, and we have sufficient levers in place to mitigate it being set at a level which impacts consumer affordability. But, as a last resort, Ministers also retain the power to remove the deposit management organisation and take control of the scheme under certain conditions.
I was asked who keeps the deposit if I buy a drink from a shop but recycle it at home. Consumers must return the container to a return point to redeem the deposit. Any financial surplus made by the scheme, for example through unredeemed deposits, will be reinvested into the scheme to fund the overall running costs. Again, this is in line with international schemes. I hope that answers my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s question about where the money goes.
However, for material which is recycled in kerbside collection, we anticipate that the deposit management organisation will work closely with local authorities to ensure that as much material as possible is returned via return points, and to help meet collection targets and keep material within the closed-loop model of the DRS. Local authorities and, where relevant, waste operators will be able to separate out containers and redeem the deposit on them, provided they meet the criteria for return.
Noble Lords asked specifically about Tetra Paks. The deposit return scheme focuses on containers made wholly or mainly from PET, aluminium or steel. This material can easily be recycled through the closed-loop system and reused by producers to make new containers. Unlike PET, aluminium and steel, which are collected from all local authority kerbside collections, just 64% of local authorities in 2022 collected beverage cartons. As the noble Lord said, that does not happen in our area. But with the introduction of simpler recycling, beverage cartons will be collected from all kerbsides. Therefore, Tetra Paks and other material combinations which are harder to recycle will be captured by the pEPR legislation and associated fees.
A number of noble Lords asked about the exclusion of glass. As was rightly pointed out, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will not be including glass when the DRS is introduced. The Government’s position is that glass would add considerable upfront cost and create complex challenges to the delivery of DRS, particularly for the hospitality and retail sectors, as well as disproportionately impact small breweries, and be inconvenient for consumers due to its weight and potential for breakage in transit to a return point. Glass drinks containers across the UK are included in the scope of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme to make sure that they are appropriately and efficiently recycled. Additionally, the glass recycling targets within the packaging scheme have been increased from 83% to 85%, but we are also considering how reuse systems could be developed in the future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I asked specifically about the Minister’s point on monitoring and enforcement by local authorities. Will they have the resources to do that going forward?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We want, as we bring the scheme in, to work closely with local authorities to be aware of any impacts on them and to ensure that they have the resources they need to manage the scheme effectively. I shall move on because I have been speaking for a long time.
Implementation timelines came up. The Government are not faffing around. Some people think that we are moving too quickly while others think that we are moving too slowly, but there is a scale to this challenge and a lot of effort from industry will be required to deliver the DRS. We believe that our timeline will provide the industry with the amount of time that it needs to implement the scheme properly. It assumes 12 months for the DMO to scale up, to make key decisions and to make the relevant appointments in its delivery partners, then 18 months of practical implementation time. That is why this timeline, which was agreed with industry and represents international best practice, has come in.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about costs of set-up and implementation. Following an impact assessment last year, we updated the previous figures, but it is important to consider that some costs will be compensated through the retailer handling fee, paid by the DMO. There are also benefits from increased footfall. Obviously, some costs could be passed on to consumers, but international evidence suggests that this would be relatively minor and well within the scope of the normal cost variations in the sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the impact on small businesses. There are exemptions for small retailers, as I mentioned earlier. The DMO will be required to consult with businesses of all sizes before it makes any of the key scheme decisions, such as on fees.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about Northern Ireland. The Environment Act, under which this statutory instrument is established, provides powers for the Secretary of State to legislate on behalf of Wales and Northern Ireland, with their consent. On Northern Ireland, DAERA asked Defra to legislate on its behalf, which is why we are including Northern Ireland in the legislation.
I have been talking for some time. I hope that I have covered most of the questions asked by noble Lords; a lot of questions were asked. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that Defra is determined to make this work; I thank her for her support for these regulations. I hope that I have answered most of the questions asked and trust that noble Lords accept the need for this instrument.
Global Warming
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing what has been an interesting and passionate debate. Noble Lords have made a lot of good suggestions, so I am pleased to be responding for the Government on this important issue.
Resilient, naturally functioning ecosystems provide essential services that underpin our lives. Alongside the intrinsic value of nature, these services, such as pollination and flood management, are fundamental to our economy and future prosperity and crucial for our health and well-being. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, clearly demonstrated, the impact of climate change on the natural environment is becoming increasingly evident. The scale and extent of this impact is, unfortunately, projected to increase.
In addition to the direct environmental challenges it poses, climate change also exacerbates existing pressures on biodiversity and their impact. Environmental degradation increases the likelihood and impact of climate shocks that could create significant and material risks for the UK economy. A report by the Green Finance Institute found that ongoing environmental degradation could slow UK economic growth by up to 3% of GDP in the coming decade. When compounded with climate-related damages, this could result in a scenario where GDP is more than 8% lower, so this is an economic issue as well as a nature issue.
The UK was one of the first nations in the world to enshrine climate adaptation into law, in the Climate Change Act 2008. We published the third national adaptation programme in July 2023, outlining actions to address the risks and opportunities from climate change that were identified in the third UK climate change risk assessment. The national adaptation programme includes many actions that will be taken to support the resilience of the natural environment, such as delivering our legally binding targets for biodiversity in England that were set through the Environment Act and are central to our environmental improvement plan, which we are updating, as I am sure noble Lords are aware. These include to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat by 2042. Delivering our biodiversity targets will help create more ecologically functional, better-connected habitats and larger species populations, which will confer resilience to the predicted impacts of a changing climate.
We also have international nature recovery commitments, as we have heard, such as to effectively conserve and manage 30% of our lands and seas by 2030—the 30 by 30 commitment about which we have heard so much. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, specifically asked about government plans to achieve this. We intend to deliver these targets through a variety of mechanisms, such as biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies and environmental land management schemes. Our review of the environmental implementation plan will play a key role in that.
As we have heard today, climate and nature are intrinsically linked. Functioning ecosystems are required to tackle climate change, and climate change is a key pressure on nature. Natural habitats provide key carbon sequestration and storage, which is needed to combat global warming. Around 580 million tonnes of carbon are stored in England’s priority habitats; deciduous woodland, blanket bog and upland heath-land store about 76% of the national total.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, talked about nature-based solutions. When designed well, such solutions can contribute to tackling climate change. Planting trees and restoring peat, as well as tackling climate change and restoring biodiversity loss, can support other priority issues—for example, flood management, which the noble Earl mentioned. I reassure noble Lords that this Government absolutely support and promote nature-based solutions.
We are also improving the evidence base through the Nature Returns programme. Six projects are creating or restoring habitats to test which are most effective in promoting carbon uptake or preventing greenhouse gas emissions. We are also supporting organisations to develop investment-ready nature projects that use private sector investment, which the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about, to benefit the environment and tackle climate change through the natural environment investment readiness fund. Through £15 million in grants, so far we have backed 86 pioneering projects to develop new business models that generate revenue from nature recovery, through carbon storage, cleaner water or enhanced biodiversity. We have confirmed the third round of grants, supporting an additional 50 projects to help farmers generate revenues from ecosystem services alongside food production.
The pathway to net zero includes actions to protect existing ecosystems, restore degraded landscapes and sustainably manage and create new ecosystems. We are actively pursuing the role of nature-based solutions to enhance habitats such as seagrass and salt marsh to deliver blue carbon and biodiversity benefits. This is not just about restoring land; it is also about restoring the sea.
A number of noble Lords, most recently the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about trees and tree planting. Of course, other key habitats are trees and native woodlands, which are an essential part of our nation’s biodiversity and are at the forefront of our plans to reduce emissions. As the noble Lord said, reforesting has an important role in achieving this. We are working towards our target to reach 16.5% tree canopy and woodland cover in England by 2050. Achieving this target would remove more than 20 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by 2050 and more than 100 million tonnes by the end of the century.
As the climate changes, however, extreme weather events will become more likely. The right trees in the right places can help protect us from these extreme events: for example, they can slow the flow of flood water to protect people, homes and the natural environment during intense rainfall. However, trees can provide these benefits only if they are themselves resilient to a changing climate. Threats posed by a warming climate include direct threats such as drought and wildfire—the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked in particular about the challenges of wildfire—and the increased risk of new pests and diseases.
Good woodland management is key to tackling these threats, but only 57% of all woodlands in England are currently in sustainable management. To address this, in December last year we published details of the improved offer for woodland management as part of the Countryside Stewardship higher tier environmental land management scheme. This includes increased payment rates and a new payment option for woodland resilience. We are also providing guidance for woodland managers and grant scheme requirements to ensure compliance with the climate change guidelines of the UK forestry standard.
Noble Lords asked about peat. We have ambitions to restore hundreds of thousands of hectares of peat across the country and are working to make sure that we have the most effective mechanisms in place to go further than we have before. Peatlands are our largest terrestrial carbon store, so our peatland restoration will directly support the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean-energy superpower and accelerate towards net zero. Peatlands are also a haven for rare wildlife and are natural providers of water regulation, helping to reduce the impacts of climate change.
Private finance will be critical to meet our restoration objectives and peatland projects must be able to use new revenue streams, including carbon finance. The Government are implementing policies that will mobilise private investment, including working with the International Union for Conservation of Nature to attract investment via carbon credits through the Peatland Code. I hope that helps to answer some of the questions on that. On the noble Baroness’s specific question on extraction, we are looking at the best measures to end the use of peat, including working with the horticultural industry to look at how best we can get there.
To achieve the best outcomes, it will be important to spatially target actions to restore nature in a climate-resilient manner. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that local nature recovery strategies are being developed right across England to target and deliver land management changes where they will have the most impact for nature and the wider environment. These strategies will consider climate change projections to help local areas prioritise and spatially target nature-based solutions that take account of our shifting climate.
My noble friend Lady Young asked about the land use framework. We have clearly committed to publish the land use framework. I previously said that we would publish it “soon”; I am pleased to be able to say that we will publish it “very soon”. I cannot give an exact date, but it will be very soon. Over the next 25 years, England’s landscapes will need to change to support climate change mitigation and adaptation, economic growth, housing delivery, food production, clean energy and the statutory targets that we need to meet on nature recovery.
I also point out that the NPPF—the National Planning Policy Framework—has recently been published and has a lot that relates to the environment and nature and how we should involve planning, with a look at the impact and mitigation on environment. There are three sustainable development objectives in the plan—economic, social and environmental—and I will read noble Lords the environmental objective:
“to protect and enhance our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy”.
If noble Lords have not read it, it is very good.
I turn to international co-operation, which is very important, because we cannot address the huge crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss without co-ordinated global action. A good example of the impact of climate change globally was given by the noble Lord about what is happening in California at the moment with the appalling wildfires. At the UN Convention for Biological Diversity COP 16 last year, the UK took the lead on unlocking the climate and nature finance and resources that developing countries need to support emissions reductions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The UK co-chaired the negotiations, which led to the creation of the Cali fund on digital sequence information, which is the first fund of its kind to focus on channelling finance from the private sector towards nature conservation and restoration. At COP 29 recently, we continued to build on these successes by maintaining momentum on the interlinkages between climate and nature, focusing on sustainable agriculture, nature finance and the ocean.
I turn to some of the other questions that have come up. First, I reassure noble Lords that Defra and DESNZ work incredibly closely together: we have some staff who work between both departments, because we recognise the importance of working together to achieve these targets.
My noble friend Lady Young talked about public bodies. With the concerns that she raised, I remind noble Lords that the Corry review is currently looking at the effectiveness of existing bodies and whether things can be done to improve them.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned wildfire. I think it is important to say that we are working with and encouraging landowners and land managers to adopt good-quality wildfire management plans, because that can make a real difference.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about the high seas. The UK played a significant and proactive role in over 10 years of negotiations leading up to the adoption of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. I am sure he is aware that ratification of the agreement is in line with the Government’s determination to reinvigorate the UK’s wider international leadership on climate and nature, and we are currently working at pace on the measures needed to implement the detailed and complex provisions of the agreement before we then ratify.
The noble Earl also asked about the chair of the Climate Change Committee. My understanding is that that is a matter for DESNZ, so I would have to pick this up with that department, or the noble Earl could.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, also asked about bottom trawling. Over 60% of marine protected areas have restrictions on damaging bottom towed fishing. The department is now considering the next steps for fisheries management in the MPAs in the context of our domestic and international nature conservation obligations and how we can support the fishing sector at the same time. We are extremely keen to manage it and sort it out.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, specifically talked about the green belt. There is a great big section in the NPPF on it if he is very interested in it. Again, we are taking our responsibilities towards it very seriously within that planning document.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked about neonics—neonicotinoids. I can confirm that we are committed to ending the use of those neonicotinoid pesticides that are known to carry substantial risks to pollinator populations, including through the use of emergency authorisations. In our recent policy statement, released on 21 December, just before Christmas, we set out our plans to deliver on that commitment.
A number of noble Lords asked about farming. First of all, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that I have read the Rock review. I regularly discuss tenancy matters with the noble Baroness, Lady Rock. Also, the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, is very keen to work closely with the tenant farming sector and is doing so.
On other issues around farming, we have committed to support the farming sector through a farming budget of £5 billion over two years in order to invest in the sector to support farmers to make their businesses and food production more sustainable and resilient. That is why the previous Government brought in the environmental land management schemes, and why we are continuing to support them and take them forward. They will remain at the centre of our offer for farmers with the sustainable farming initiative, Countryside Stewardship higher tier and landscape recovery all continuing, because we want to give farmers and land managers the support they need to help restore nature while supporting productivity and building in resilience to climate change. That includes restoration of soil.
The final question I come to was from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is nothing I enjoy more than a gentle chide from the noble Baroness. She asked about the EA appeal regarding the river in Pickering. I have asked about that because I felt the piece in the media was quite concerning. I now understand, and it is important we get this clear, that the appeal is seeking clarification on the interpretation of the water framework directive provided by the High Court judgment. The issue is whether the river basin management plans can be strategic plans to improve surface water and groundwater for a river basin district. That has been the approach in the UK and across the EU since the river basin management plans were first published back in 2009.
Following last year’s judgment, the Environment Agency has undertaken a further review of water quality at Costa Beck and publicly consulted on measures to improve that water body, which is one of nearly 1,000 covered by the Humber area, so there is good work going on to improve that river’s status. Finally, it is important to point out that we are committed to improving our water quality both through the Bill that has recently been through this House and through the commission that is taking place.
In conclusion, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are serious about tackling the challenges of climate change and the loss of biodiversity. To those who say that the Government are not taking it seriously, I point out that we have a Minister for Nature, who was appointed because we want someone to be focused on nature and nature’s recovery. That Minister is Mary Creagh MP. She is extremely competent and working very hard on delivering on the commitments and targets we need to achieve in quite a challenging space.
I hope I have demonstrated that the Government are taking action in many areas to deliver the restoration of our valuable ecosystems while recognising the increasing threat of climate change. I look forward to working with noble Lords to deliver on our targets.
Foot and Mouth Disease
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests, including as a dairy farmer who remembers well the terror and isolation experienced by all livestock farmers during the last foot and mouth outbreak. Can the Minister explain to the House what lessons have been learned and what would be done differently, were this dreadful disease to reach our shores, to prevent a repeat of that terror and the awful scenes of burning carcasses that tormented our entire country?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
The noble Lord is right when he says that the mounds of burning carcasses tormented our country. I do not think any of us who were around at the time will ever forget that. He asks about lessons learned. In addition to regularly exercising our disease response capabilities, lessons identified reviews are undertaken at the end of any outbreak in order to identify and evaluate where improvements to disease response capability processes and organisational structures for managing an outbreak of exotic notifiable disease can be made. This is something we always do.
Following both the 2001 and 2007 foot and mouth outbreaks, extensive inquiries and reviews were undertaken. That led to some critical changes coming in, including, for example, the introduction of a ban on swill feeding, standstill periods for cattle, sheep and goats of six days and 20 days for pigs, and improvements in livestock traceability. These were all implemented in response to the recommendations of those lessons identified reviews and they are critical in order to prevent infection—in the case of swill feeding bans, for example—because we need to minimise any implications of the disease coming to this country again.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the last time we had a countrywide outbreak of foot and mouth, it was devastating to both the farming community and the rural economy, as tourism-dependent businesses were badly hit. I commend the Government for their swift action to prevent German meat products entering the country. Biosecurity is vital for the protection of farmers and to maintain public health standards. A veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU is essential. Do the Government have a timetable for signing such an agreement?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I cannot provide the noble Baroness with any specific dates on those agreements at present. All I can say to her at this stage is that it is very much a government priority and we are working closely with the EU to make progress as best we can.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
The Government have imposed a blanket ban on all livestock products coming from Germany to England, Wales and Scotland but it is a much narrower ban in respect of Northern Ireland, where the ban applies only to a restricted zone around where the outbreak took place. Can she comment on that, and say whether she and her colleagues have been in touch with her counterparts in the Irish Republic?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are of course regularly in touch with our counterparts across all the devolved Governments, and the Governments in Germany and the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is subject to the EU import rules, which is why it is not included in the ban we brought in yesterday. This includes regionalisation requirements and is set out in EU legislation. Northern Ireland is protected from the disease coming in through being included in the EU ban, so Northern Ireland is as protected as the rest of Great Britain through those measures. The noble Lord can be certain that the EU would not want to see any spread of this disease to any other part of the European Union, and that includes the Republic of Ireland and, through the way the regulations are currently set up, Northern Ireland as well. I met yesterday with politicians from Northern Ireland and reassured them that we are as serious about stopping the disease entering Northern Ireland as we are in respect of any other part of the UK.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I congratulate Defra on the decisive action it has taken. I, too, have memories of the former outbreaks, travelling with my father to farms where what happened was devastating. Part of the risk comes from illegal movements of cattle and meat products. What additional briefing and support has been given to border and police forces to try to protect against this? Also, are there any additional resources for the mental health and well-being of our farming community, who will find this a huge threat to their livelihood?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We meet very regularly with the port health authorities, which are of course responsible for managing any illegal imports into this country. Dover has picked up more illegal meat imports recently than at any other time, so the authorities are clearly doing an excellent job. Of course, we work very closely with them and with APHA to ensure they have what they need to manage any imports. There are issues around the mental health of farmers across many areas. It has been a struggle for them over many years, and the Government and Defra offer support in that regard.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I wish the Minister well in this situation. As Animal Health Minister, I announced to Parliament what we thought was the first case of foot and mouth in February 2001. In fact, we later found that there were already probably 78 other cases in the country. That leads me to the conclusion that you do not have a lot of time to plan or to implement when you have the first case. What contingencies have been made, and what consideration has been given to vaccination, particularly ring vaccination? We had not developed plans for that, but it could have changed the progress of the disease.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The current policy reflects our experience of responding to past outbreaks and is in line with international standards of best practice for controlling the disease. Alongside culling and immediate movement controls, we are now looking at deploying vaccination as a control option. In order to achieve that, we now have a vaccine bank for a range of foot and mouth disease stereotypes.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, this is a highly infectious disease and no respecter of borders. The illegal meat trade has already been referred to. Is the Minister satisfied that limiting these restrictions entirely to Germany is appropriate, rather than also including its bordering countries?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is probably helpful to explain the disease outbreak in Germany, in order to put it in context. The German authorities have put in place strict controls to prevent onward spread, and they are currently investigating the circumstances of the outbreak. They have put in very strict controls already: the herd at the infected premises and all susceptible farmed livestock within a kilometre of the premises have been culled; there is a three-kilometre protection zone and a 10-kilometre surveillance zone surrounding the infected premises, out of which no susceptible animals can move; and clinical examination, sampling and testing of susceptible animals in the zone is under way.
It is also important to point out that at the moment, it is just one incident and there have been no further incidents. Our Chief Veterinary Officer is in close contact with the German chief veterinary officer so that, if we get any further information, we can act accordingly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in offering sympathy today to all the farmers who are fearing a repeat of the previous disastrous events. As the German Animal Welfare Foundation said, we are seeing a continual stream of animal diseases breaking out around the world, due to
“industrial farming and a globalised trade in live animals”.
Is this not a sad further reminder of the fragility of our global food system, which has huge implications for food and economic security, welfare and human health?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important to point out that our animal welfare and husbandry standards are very high compared to many other countries. One role we can play is to encourage other nations to follow the example of our animal husbandry standards. Also, we have very clear controls at our borders to ensure that the meat that comes into our country is of a standard we would expect.
Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 November 2024 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 January.
Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024.
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 21 November 2024. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing egg marketing standards to enable free-range eggs to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures, which restrict the access of laying hens to open-air runs.
Currently, when free-range hens are placed under mandatory housing measures due to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza, the egg marketing regulations allow their eggs to continue to be labelled as free-range for 16 weeks only; this is known as the 16-week derogation period. If the mandatory housing measure lasts for longer than 16 weeks, eggs from those hens must be labelled and sold as barn eggs. The requirement for egg producers and packers to relabel free-range eggs as barn eggs once the 16-week derogation period is exceeded is difficult to implement in modern automated packhouses. This adds significant logistical and packing costs to the industry.
This SI aims to remove the 16-week derogation period so that free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. During mandatory housing measures, egg producers still have the higher operating costs of maintaining their free-range egg system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that hens are also temporarily housed indoors. The normal laying period of a productive free-range laying hen in the UK is around 90 weeks. This SI will remove the derogation, which affects only a small part of a laying hen’s productive life, with all the other free-range criteria still needing to be met—except access to open-air runs.
In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes with the Scottish Government. Some 70% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. The removal of the 16-week derogation period has already come into force in Scotland. Following their own consultation exercise, the Welsh Government have also announced that they will introduce legislation to remove the derogation.
In 2023, the EU amended its egg marketing standards regulations to remove the 16-week derogation period, which, through the Windsor Framework, applies also to free-range eggs produced in Northern Ireland. Without this SI, the introduction of any mandatory housing measures that last longer than 16 weeks—during, for example, an avian influenza outbreak—could be detrimental for English free-range egg producers and result in an increase in free-range eggs being imported from the EU and Northern Ireland. This could have a significant negative long-term impact on the English free-range egg industry. This SI restores alignment with the EU and Northern Ireland.
It will also ensure that free-range egg producers and packers do not incur additional costs for adhering to government-imposed housing requirements. Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months—as was the case in 2021-22 and 2022-23, resulting in the introduction of housing measures for poultry that, in both cases, lasted longer than the 16-week labelling derogation period: for an additional six weeks in 2021-22, and for an additional seven weeks in 2022-23. So it is imperative that this SI is in place for the rest of the winter period and beyond.
We continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers and businesses. The change contained in this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British egg industry. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this fairly straightforward SI, which allows, during an outbreak of avian flu, for poultry that are normally free-range with access to open-air runs to be kept in barns for an additional period of time. The current derogation’s continuous limit of time during which birds can be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range is 16 weeks, as the Minister said. During the avian flu outbreak in 2021-22, the period was extended from 16 weeks to 22 weeks. During the 2022-23 outbreak, it was again extended—on this occasion, to 23 weeks.
The UK is 90% self-sufficient in egg production. As markets for eggs need to be strictly in alignment with the EU’s for the purposes of trade, it is important that UK regulations closely match those in operation in the EU. As 94% of UK egg exports go to the EU, it is important that our egg producers are not at a disadvantage during outbreaks of avian flu. Removing the 16-week derogation limit will ensure that UK producers have parity with the EU; I fully support this move.
However, as the UK seems to be affected by avian flu on a fairly regular basis during the winter months, I wonder whether there is likely to be a maximum number of weeks when birds need to be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range. Six or seven weeks is a short period by which to extend the derogation but the effect of increasing the derogation, as happened in 2022 and 2023, meant that it was for nearly 50% of the year. Can the Minister give reassurance that this derogation will not be extended any further? I note that she said that the Government will extend it for “however long” is necessary. It is difficult to see how the consumer is likely to be persuaded that eggs that have been barn raised for30 weeks of the year, say, can still be labelled as free-range. As we all know, free-range eggs attract a premium on the price the consumer pays.
I turn briefly to the subject of the consultation that took place between 9 January and 5 March 2024. Eighty egg producers, 20 egg packers and 49 members of the public responded. The response from the public is amazingly small, which raises questions. How was the consultation conducted? Where was it advertised? Given that consumers are very exercised about the conditions in which poultry are kept, and that many choose free-range eggs over barn eggs because they believe the birds have a better quality of life in the open air, I am surprised that more did not respond to the consultation. Perhaps the Minister can give details of how engagement with the public on the consultation was conducted.
Despite that query and concern about the derogation limit being extended to beyond 50% of the year, I support the SI but feel that avian flu is not going away, and egg producers need a way of dealing with the effects that it has on their business, as well as consumers needing reassurance that they are getting what they pay for in buying free-range eggs.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who took part in this short but important debate. As someone who keeps free-range hens—only a small number of them—I am very pleased that noble Lords have supported this SI because it is extremely important to have clarity for the industry on this matter. I thank noble Lords for their pertinent and helpful questions; I will do my best to respond to them all in turn.
On Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, the Welsh Government have now indicated that later this month they will lay an SI to remove the 16-week derogation period. Subject to the Senedd’s approval, we expect the regulations to come into force in February this year.
On enforcement, the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s egg marketing inspectors conduct risk-based and random checks on domestic and imported eggs at farms, wholesalers, distribution centres and packing centres. Local authorities also conduct checks at retailer level. The inspections ensure that only free-range eggs are labelled “free-range” during mandatory housing measures.
As to the necessity of mandatory housing measures, I receive regular updates and advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer about all decisions on when to introduce, amend or lift regional or national avian influenza prevention zones, which mandate enhanced biosecurity, and on when to extend them to include housing measures. In fact, I am meeting the Chief Veterinary Officer tomorrow to discuss a number of issues, including this one. Such decisions are always based on risk assessments containing the latest scientific and ornithological evidence and veterinary advice. Restrictions will therefore apply only while the risk remains.
In recent years, as I said earlier, the longest periods of mandatory housing measures being in place were in 2021-22, when it was for 22 weeks, and in 2022-23, when it was for 23 weeks. As I mentioned in my opening speech, the normal laying period of a productive free-range hen in the UK is around 90 weeks, so 23 weeks—the longest period— is actually a short period in that laying hen’s productive life.
Both noble Lords asked about the length of mandatory housing and its impact on the meaning of “free-range”. I fully understand why that question is being asked, but we do not have any intention of reviewing the definition of “free-range”. If we decide to do so, we will need to assess how amending our regulations would affect the UK internal market, our industry and our trade with the EU as our biggest export market.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked specifically about consultation. Defra ran a joint consultation with the Scottish Government. It was open between 9 January and 5 March 2024. This eight-week consultation was held to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the views of the industry and the general public on the intended purpose of the removal of the 16-week derogation period. It was an open consultation run on Citizen Space, and it was published and advertised through a press release and by contacting key stakeholders.
A question was also asked about reducing the risk of confusing or misleading consumers. We are encouraging retailers to place signage where eggs are displayed for sale that informs consumers of the imposition of mandatory housing measures, the impact that this will have on marketing free-range eggs and, notably, that the rest of the free-range criteria continue to be met, except for access to open-air runs. We believe that that kind of transparency will benefit consumers and is in the best interests of producers and retailers. The important thing is to have transparency, so that everybody understands the situation and can make purchasing decisions bearing it in mind.
In conclusion, I hope noble Lords fully understand the need for this instrument. Again, I thank them for their support. We need to enable free-range eggs to be marketed throughout the duration of any government-imposed mandatory housing measure to allow for trade to continue. The removal of this derogation will reduce additional logistical and financial pressure for egg producers, in the event of a mandatory housing measure.
Aligning with the devolved Governments and the EU also ensures that English producers are not put at a disadvantage if mandatory housing measures come into force. When they are put into place, we of course take the welfare of the hens into consideration. As I said before, it affects only a small part of laying hens’ productive life, so we are confident that animal welfare standards will be maintained and that consumers will be assured that the welfare of the laying hens is still a key priority during any mandatory housing measures.
We also must do our part to support our great British egg industry by ensuring that it has a level playing field with trading partners such as those in the EU, which have adopted similar provisions for their free-range egg producers. I hope that I have answered all the questions but will check Hansard to make sure. If I have missed anything, I will respond in writing.
Water Bills
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that water bills are affordable for consumers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, nobody wants to see bills rise, so the Government are committed to tackling water poverty and holding the water sector accountable for its commitment to end water poverty by 2030. That is why we are pushing companies to have sufficient support available for customers who are struggling to pay their bills while at the same time challenging Ofwat to ensure that all company investments are affordable and that customers do not pay twice for upgrades.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, higher government borrowing costs are being imposed by markets questioning the Government’s Budget assumptions, as I discussed in this Chamber on 19 December. Higher financing costs are likely to be passed on to UK domestic companies, including in the water industry. Does the Minister agree that this makes SAOs more likely? Having rejected our amendments to protect consumers from increased charges in that event in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, is the Minister willing to commit that extra charges will not be levied on consumers in SAOs?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are working very closely with water companies in order to ensure that consumers do not have extra charges placed upon them and that anything the water company wants to do through future investment, through the price review that has just come through, does not land in customers’ laps in a way that it should not. It is really important that the water commission, which we discussed recently in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, looks carefully at how water companies operate financially to ensure that consumers do not suffer unnecessarily.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that water companies should be encouraged to work closely with local organisations, such as citizens advice bureaux, to ensure that debt relief advice is available? If water companies are encouraging people to go on to direct debit, perhaps when they have water meters, they should not make big charges and then when they have taken a lot of money refuse to alter the direct debit to reflect what people are actually using, which can often get people into debt. Will she encourage water companies to look at these measures?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend makes some extremely important points. Citizens Advice does an important service in supporting vulnerable people. Water companies should work with all charities, such as Citizens Advice, in order to support vulnerable consumers. It is important that we simplify the processes so that customers who need extra assistance can get it. Citizens Advice is an important part of that and helps customers get advice on benefits and managing debt, particularly customers who have not been in financial difficulty before. My noble friend makes some very good points.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the expected rise in water bills to ensure future investment in infrastructure, so deliberately disregarded in the past by water companies, will fall heavily upon small businesses that use water and farmers, for whom water is essential for rearing livestock and growing crops. Is the Minister talking to her Treasury colleagues about how to help this vital element of our economy with this burden, which will affect small businesses’ and farmers’ profitability?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that Defra is regularly in contact with the Treasury about all issues such as this, particularly about how to support people going forward. Many of the challenges farmers in particular face—my colleague is at the Oxford Farming Conference today talking to farmers—are to do with long-term security and the ability to bring in long-term investment. Water affordability is an important part of that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister have the most recent figures for the level of bad debt in the water sector, particularly among vulnerable households? If she does not have the figures, could she release them by letter to the Library? Will she inform the House of how she intends to address the level of bad debt at this time?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not have the figures to hand for the level of bad debt, but I am, of course, very happy to provide them to the noble Baroness and share them in writing.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, is it possible to extend the argument around water to the quality of water itself and health? We have people suffering from dehydration. That is one of the major problems doctors face when people in poverty go in. Therefore, we really need to lean on the water companies. Can the Government lean on the water companies to improve the quality of water so that we do not get E. coli, as we did recently? People need water to be healthy.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that people need water to be healthy. We have the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which has a very high rating. The issues we had last year around E. coli were very unusual, but it is critical that we do not have situations like that arising again. That is why it is important to work with water companies to make sure that situations like that are going to be planned for, so that if they occur, they can be dealt with swiftly. Ideally, we need to continue to work with the Drinking Water Inspectorate to ensure that such situations do not arise in future.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I commend to the Minister the suggestions from the Consumer Council for Water, a commendable organisation that deserves more support. It has made six suggestions on reducing water bills for vulnerable people, including those in single occupancy premises and those with medical conditions, largely using the WaterSure mechanism. Can she pay particular attention to those suggestions and hopefully put them into effect?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, it is important that we protect the most vulnerable. We expect water companies to put robust support in place to address water poverty. My noble friend mentioned WaterSure, but there are options such as payment breaks, social tariffs and debt management support. It is important that water companies work with vulnerable customers to ensure that they know all the options available to them. The Consumer Council for Water does important work, so I think it is important that the suggestions it made are looked at seriously.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, following on from the answers that the Minister has just given—and I have relevant interests to declare in the register—all water companies have a variety of schemes to support customers who are in water poverty. The issue for me is that not all of them are as generous as they ought to be. Is the Minister prepared to speak to water companies to ensure that a greater proportion of their profits is focused on supporting households in water poverty so that, across the country, every customer in water poverty has access to a well-funded scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important that every water company does everything it can to support vulnerable customers. Like all businesses, some are better than others. We are working with water companies to try to ensure that they all come up to the same high standards that we expect. We know that some companies have committed to supplement support with contributions from shareholders’ profits between 2025 and 2030. Ideally, it would be good if all companies were prepared to do that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, given the failure of the regulator to control these water companies, is it not about time that we had a new regulator that would look after the public?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This takes me right back to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, where this was discussed in some depth. The simple answer to my noble friend is that this is something that the water commission, which is making good progress under Sir Jon Cunliffe, will look at and will be central to the outcome for the future of the water industry, because there is great dissatisfaction with the way in which the water regulator has managed things in the past. Certainly, that is something that will be central to the water commission’s investigations.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, one way of possibly reducing water bills is through the installation of domestic water harvesting systems. I know they are not feasible for all consumers, but what is the Government’s view on encouraging and perhaps assisting more people and possibly SMEs to install domestic water harvesting systems in order to reduce their water bills? It is also better for the environment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I think one thing water companies could be better at is providing advice to consumers about how to cut their water usage. We are not particularly good at that in this country; other countries are much better at it, and I think it is something that we need to encourage water companies to do.
Flooding
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to fire and rescue workers for their invaluable help over these last few days. Their commitment and expertise have been exemplary. I add to that list the council workers and volunteers throughout the country who have helped in these emergencies, and in particular the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales for their invaluable expertise.
Yesterday morning, as a result of a rapid thaw of lying snow and extremely heavy rain overnight, the Environment Agency in England had 167 flood warnings in place, where flooding was expected, and 312 flood alerts, where flooding was possible. Trains were cancelled and roads closed. Behind these facts are stories of people: people struggling to protect their homes and defend their businesses—all in the knowledge that their lives would be affected, sometimes for years—and people struggling to get to work. My commiserations go to them too.
I come from a valley that has always flooded, and I well know the misery that such events bring. In 2009, my area was badly flooded and a flood alleviation scheme was put in place by the Welsh Assembly Government, as it was then. My town now has demountable defences, flood walls and lowered spillways on the riverbanks. It is a massive scheme and our town is protected, but sometimes the floodwaters now travel down the valley and other places are badly affected. On New Year’s Day, although my town was fine, the A470 north to Llandudno was closed because of floods. This area had never flooded before, so we know what people are going through.
However, I welcome the Statement and in particular the extra £60 million for farmers in recognition of the battle that they have with flooding on their land. I also welcome the extra funds for internal drainage boards and the opportunity to review how flood relief money is distributed.
Plenty of notice was given of severe weather so that people could be prepared but, of course, some people were not. One could argue that, where storm and flood defences were overrun, a lack of funding over the past few years for maintenance or new defences contributed to some of the problems. The Chancellor has committed to £2.4 billion of funding for flood defences over 2024-25 and 2025-26 in the Autumn Budget. This is also to be welcomed, but experience has taught us that curing one problem can create another downriver: it is a never-ending battle against flood water. What plans do the Government have to commit substantial funding for flood defences past 2025-26?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, in thanking all the people who responded and supported local communities during these floods. There have been many volunteers from the communities, such as farmers—in my community, it was a farmer who came and helped out—as well as the emergency services, the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and so on. Without the extraordinary response that we always get from local communities and our emergency services, things would be so very much worse. Our thanks go out to them.
The Government recognise the terrible impact that flooding has on householders and businesses, and we absolutely sympathise with all those who have been affected over the last week or so. We know that flooding has a devastating effect, whether that is physical damage or disruptions to daily activities. There are also impacts on health, particularly mental health, for those who suffer from flooding.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about insurance. This is always a difficult issue once you have been flooded. It is really important that Flood Re exists in the first place. It has made a huge difference over the past few years for those who have struggled to get insurance. As the noble Lord said, we do not currently have any plans to extend its scope, but it will be part of our review of all policies, because there are clearly concerns about those who do not come under Flood Re, whether multiple occupancy homes, businesses or properties built after 2009. If colleagues have examples where properties, particularly those built after 2009, have suffered, I would be very happy to take examples so that, as we review, we have clear evidence in front of us.
We need to consider how we best support households. When Flood Re came in, its scope for eligibility and its duration were agreed alongside government and industry. It is really important that industry supports what government is doing in this space. Any changes to the scope of the scheme have to be consistent with the original agreement and premises that came through with industry—but, clearly, we will keep this under review.
The impact of flooding on farming was mentioned. I thank the noble Baroness for her support for the £60 million that we have distributed to 13,000 farm businesses through the farming recovery fund. In the floods investment programme, the amount of funding a project can attract will depend on the damages that it will avoid and the benefits that it will then deliver. The impact of the project on agricultural land is also included as part of any funding calculator.
We are also looking at reviewing the existing funding formula, which is really important because it has not worked for lots of different people and communities. We will review it to ensure that the challenges businesses and rural and coastal communities face are adequately taken into account. We are looking to open the consultation on that very soon; noble Lords may wish to input into it.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about dredging. On average, the Environment Agency spends between £30 million and £45 million a year on river maintenance, which enables it to dredge approximately 60 kilometres to 200 kilometres of main river watercourses every year. Where watercourse maintenance is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, it focuses its efforts on those activities that will achieve the greatest benefit in protecting people and property from flooding, therefore delivering the best value for money—that includes dredging. The assessment is undertaken by the Environment Agency, working in close consultation with local communities. It is important to remember that dredging is unlikely to be effective in isolation and is usually part of a wider approach because the silt can easily build up again.
The Floods Resilience Taskforce was mentioned. It met for the first time in September and is due to meet this year. There are 27 attending organisations, so it is comprehensive in its approach. At the first meeting there was a shared understanding of the weather and flood risk of the current winter to ensure we can be as prepared as we possibly can. It is important that we have a better awareness of EA flood asset conditions across England. There was also an agreement to share lessons from flood response from all tiers of government and with flood responders. Clearly, what we have just been through will be an important part of the next meeting of the Floods Resilience Taskforce.
The task force provides Ministers from Defra, MHCLG and the Cabinet Office with a combined overview of flood resilience, along with flood risk organisations and charities—flood insurance, for example. Although it is devolved, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are standing members. The idea is that it will learn from this instance so that next time we continue to build on how we can best prepare for the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about flooding caused by displacement. That is a really difficult issue, which is why any response we provide is not just about building barriers but about looking at bigger, broader support mechanisms, whether that means bringing in balancing ponds, for example, or better surface water flooding assessments. We have to look at this in the round; building higher only pushes water out.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the insurance industry is guilty of egregious delays in paying legitimate claims, and that this is a significant issue that is leading to people who are properly insured with enforceable contracts being forced to sue their insurance companies? For example, is she aware of the delay in compensating 100 shopkeepers for the damage caused by flooding in Newry in Northern Ireland early last year? Does she agree that the Government should have a word with the insurance industry to ensure that they become more efficient in this area?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am not aware of the specific incident the noble Lord referred to but if he would like to share the details with me, I would be happy to take a look at it. It is important that we do not tar all insurance companies with the same brush. Some are much better than others. They are not all part of the Flood Re system, for example, although the majority are. The incident the noble Lord referred to is clearly to do with business, which is different from Flood Re. There are particular challenges in managing flood insurance for businesses.
Lord Deben (Con)
Given that we are likely to have more and more occasions like this because of climate change, does the Minister acknowledge that the previous Government were strongly criticised by the Climate Change Committee for not producing a proper five-year programme for what should be done about resilience? In those circumstances, can she remind the House what the present Government will do to fill that gap and to produce a new report that will say how they will deal with this issue over the next five years?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an important question, because future resilience is going to be critical, particularly as we will have more incidents such as this due to climate change. That is why it is so important that we have set up the Floods Resilience Taskforce. The idea behind that is to bring together everybody who has a genuine understanding and a mutual interest in trying to resolve these issues for the long term, not just for the short term. Part of the problem is that often we have looked at short-term solutions. Part of the work of the Floods Resilience Taskforce is to get a better understanding so we can build exactly the kind of long-term plans that the noble Lord is talking about.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s Statement, but I have some questions that are relevant to the fact that the noble Lord just mentioned, which is that extreme weather events are becoming more extreme and more frequent. We are going to be building many more houses in the future, and the rules on housing development in the flood plain or in areas of high flood risk are simply not working at the moment. Each annual report shows a small number of developments in the flood plain going ahead against Environment Agency advice, but that gives a false impression, because in reality many more new properties are being built in the flood plain that are at real risk of flooding. Does the Minister agree that rules about development in the flood plain or in areas of high surface water flooding risk urgently need to be reviewed? Will she commit to do so to make sure that the planned major programme of housebuilding is not simply putting more and more people and properties at risk?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we have planning legislation coming forward. One thing we are doing in Defra is working closely with MHCLG around the future development of planning, particularly as we have ambitious plans for building a large number of homes that are so desperately needed. As part of the new home strategy that we have at the moment, we have committed to ensure that we are building more high-quality, better-designed, sustainable homes and creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. It is important that, when we plan, we also look at the impact on the environment, and that clearly includes the impact on flooding.
The Government are committed to consider whether changes are required to manage flood risk, coastal change and sustainable drainage systems provision through the planning system when we consult on further planning reform, including a set of national policies that are related to decision-making in this area. Where development needs to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding because no alternative sites are available, we are stressing that developments should be flood resilient and resistant, safe for a lifetime and should not increase flood risk overall. The problem you can have is that, if you do not look at this properly in the round, you can build a house that potentially could flood, so you put in place resilience measures and, as the noble Baroness said, they push the water on to another estate that has not flooded before. So it is really important that we look at this carefully in the round.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister update the House on when we can expect to see the land use framework that has been much delayed? It will shed some light on the competing priorities for land, including flood plains.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am hoping that we will see it very soon. The target we are working to is that we are hoping to see it some time later this month.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister like to take this opportunity to renew her commitment to not building on functional flood plains, such as zone B, which she was kind enough to support in an amendment in my name to an earlier piece of legislation, the levelling-up Bill? I add my congratulations to all the emergency services and others and add the drainage boards and declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. Will the Minister explain how many kilometres of minor watercourses she expects to be dredged and maintained during the course of this year?
I recognise the extra funds that the Government have awarded to drainage boards for this purpose. One issue is that we do not currently have a total—totex— budget. As the noble Baroness, Lady Humphries, referred to earlier, the budget is divided between maintenance spending and capital spending, with endless arguments. If there was a total budget such as there is for water companies, which also do some of this work, flood defences and flood maintenance would be in a much better state.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, drainage is an important part of managing any kind of flood risk. If the water cannot go through the drains, it will sit on the surface and cause problems. It is always difficult keeping drains clear throughout a whole flood event, because water inevitably brings with it things that will cause blockages in drains. But it is important that we manage the drains as effectively as we can ahead of flooding and that we also support internal drainage boards.
Internal drainage boards clearly do important work managing water levels and reducing flood risks to farmers and rural communities. The Government have committed to providing an additional £50 million to internal drainage boards over this year and next, to improve, repair or replace the flood-risk assets. This builds on the £25 million that was already being provided. As I have said, we are committed to continuing our work with internal drainage boards and also with MHCLG. With so much of this, the two departments need to come together to get a consistent and effective approach for the long term.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the UK Food Security Report, published on 11 December, identified extreme weather events as major threat to good food production, and therefore a risk to our own national security. The Minister has just been talking about cross-departmental work. Can she assure the House that, as the Government develop the national food security strategy, they will liaise with the food resilience task force? This all needs joined-up thinking if we are going to guarantee our security.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for mentioning that we are producing the food strategy. It will be incredibly important if we are to have proper food security going forward. Clearly, climate change brings particular challenges to our farmers and, because of that, to our future food security. We are very determined as a Government to bring departments together in order to produce sensible, forward-looking plans for the future. I am sure that we will be liaising with the group he mentioned. I will discuss it with the farming Minister, who is producing those plans, to ensure that that is done.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lady Young, on planning and flood risk, I recall being a member of the board of the Environment Agency when it was given responsibility in the sense that it was a statutory consultee. I remember saying at the time, “This gives us responsibility without power”. Will the Government, in addition to the very welcome measures the Minister has already announced, give the Environment Agency and equivalents the power to override planning decisions if they consider the flood risk presented to be unacceptable? Will she also extend the period of help for the Environment Agency in terms of capital and staffing costs to ensure that the monitoring is effective?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, the Environment Agency does important work here. Of course, monitoring needs to be effective: otherwise, what is the point in doing the work? The Environment Agency provides regular reports for many applications. Regarding his suggestions, a review of the Environment Agency, alongside all other organisations within the Defra family, is currently being carried out by Dan Corry. As part of the Corry review, we should be looking at exactly what the different organisations should be responsible for and whether that is adequate or whether it should be looked at and changed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I preface my question by noting with approval that the Minister finished her answers to the Front-Bench questions by saying that building higher only pushes water out. I am pleased that she acknowledged that.
We should look at the tone of this Statement and indeed of much of the discussion we have had thus far. The Statement says that improving flood defences and drainage systems is a priority. It sounds like how we were talking about this issue in the 20th century. Where has “slow the flow” gone? Where is the understanding that pushing water from one place very often pushes it on to another community, and pushing it from one space simply causes damage in a different one? Where is the discussion about nature-based solutions to hold water and release it slowly and gradually?
A number of people have raised the issue of flood plains. Do the Government recognise that the flood plain is not beside the river? The flood plain is part of the river.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks what we are looking at beyond flood defences—the actual physical barriers. There was quite a discussion during the Water (Special Measures) Bill about natural flood management and the work we are doing and promoting in that area. She may recall that we amended the Bill to ensure that we looked at more natural flood management schemes—nature-based solutions, as she suggested. We are doing that not just through the Water (Special Measures) Bill; we have made a number of announcements on this issue because we see it as an important part of the long-term solution. We need to look at long-term solutions, particularly, as the noble Lord said, because of the climate change pressures. In a way, building a flood barrier is a short-term solution because we do not know how long it is going to last for, so we need to combine that with longer-term solutions. Recently, for example, some balancing ponds have been developed with a grant near where I live. That is the way forward: barriers and longer-term nature-based solutions hand in hand.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, a number of Members have raised the question of flood plains and building houses. There will already be a number of planning applications approved yet not activated by a number of those who own the land—they have their planning approvals and maybe five years to do something about them. Is it possible to seek a review of those to see that we are not putting more people into high-risk situations as a result of the applications that have already been approved?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised a very good point about slowing down the flow. That may mean some form of additional forestation, or it may mean providing variations to certain waterways and so on. Is an attempt being made to combine the two things together? At the end of the day, we are facing change, and there is virtually nothing more debilitating than seeing people flooded out. Anyone who has had to go out and look after constituents in this situation knows there is nothing like the misery they face and how appalling the situation is, because it is not just water that goes into their houses. That is something that I think is often overlooked.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If a planning application has been approved in a flooding area, I would expect it to have been granted alongside mitigation measures that the developer would have had to provide to get planning permission in the first place from a local authority. Clearly, I do not know the detail of every single planning application that the noble Lord is talking about, but whether that would be available for review would be a matter for policy development through MHCLG as well as for local authorities, because it is local authorities’ responsibility to provide planning grants and look at applications.
On some of the other matters that the noble Lord raised—this is probably relevant to some of the other questions too—I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we are reviewing the flood funding formula. A lot of the issues that have been raised are down to the fact that the existing formula follows a complex process and risks slowing down the development of the kinds of schemes that perhaps many noble Lords would like to see. We are aiming to bring in a new approach from April this year, and that is important. Where I live in Cumbria, the existing formula certainly did not work for us when we were badly flooded, and the Government had to provide an extra top-up amount of money. That is not the way to go forward. We need to ensure that communities are properly supported with the kinds of budgets that can bring in the long-term solutions that will be needed to protect them against potential future floods.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, since there is still a bit of time, may I ask the Minister what thought the department has given to the health of our soils and their decreasing ability to absorb water? A lot of the issues around flooding concern run-off and the reduced capacity of the land to absorb water that it used to be able to. Two issues arise out of that: increased water, which we have little way of dealing with at the moment, and the reduced replenishment of our aquifers, which is causing water shortages around the country. Is the department giving deep thought to that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The quality of soils is incredibly important, for all sorts of reasons, but the noble Baroness is correct that when you have better soil it holds more water. Grants are available through different routes such as the environmental land management scheme; for example, for soil improvement. I have also been to see a Rivers Trust project where it has improved soil qualities around a particular river and was able to demonstrate that the water was held better by the improved soil when there were flooding incidents from that river. We have the evidence that it makes a difference, and we are looking at it extremely seriously.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Since there is time, let me say that I visited Lancaster after it was hit by serious and major flooding. There was a lot of assessment afterwards of how the community had been able to cope. It was found that there were not the community structures—the organisations within local community groups, with people helping out their neighbours, et cetera. We have just seen one business owner in Leicestershire rescue someone from a flooded car when their life was in extreme danger. Often, communities are going to have to help themselves in this new climate emergency situation. Are the Government looking at how they can strengthen the many communities around this country that are at risk of being affected by flooding, so that they can cope with those crisis situations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that one thing we have been looking at as a Government is more devolution to local areas. As part of that, it is important that we look at how best we can support our local communities, because it is always those communities that pick things up when you have problems like this. Supporting local communities, whether that is our local authorities, our parish councils or our town councils, is a really important part of the work that we need to do.
Rural Economy
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing what has been an excellent debate. In the short time I have allocated, I shall do my very best to respond to the various questions and issues that have been raised—and there have been a lot, so I shall follow up any outstanding questions in a letter and write to anybody whose questions I have not answered.
First, I would like to say that the Government have been clear: sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and people’s living standards, and this is equally true for those living and working in rural areas. Rural England makes up over 85% of the land mass and is home to 9.7 million people, equal to the number that live in the nation’s capital. We recognise that rural areas offer significant potential for growth and are absolutely central to our economy. The right reverend Prelate referred to untapped potential: over half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, with the rural economy contributing over £315 billion a year—and that is just in England.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned the wide range of industries that work and support our rural communities. There is a good example in west Cumbria with Sellafield, a major industry that supports a much larger rural economy. I note that the Lord Bishop is the president of the Rural Coalition, which I have met with in the past, and I know that the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner MP, is going to attend a meeting in January. It is important that we work with organisations, and we are keen to do so in government. As we have heard, overall productivity in rural areas is just over 80% of the average for England. As noble Lords have said throughout this debate, there is significant potential to improve this.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked how we could do this, working with devolved Governments. That is a very good point. I assure him that I meet regularly with devolved Ministers, and this is one of the issues that we pick up and discuss. We are committed to improving the quality of life for all people living and working in rural areas, because we need to reach the full potential of rural business and our communities. While farming, forestry and other traditional land sectors are essential for delivering so much of what we value in our countryside, we know that businesses found in rural areas are just as diverse as those found in urban areas, with 86% operating outside agriculture and related sectors. In fact, the largest contributing sectors to the rural economy include education and health, distribution and hospitality, tourism, real estate, manufacturing and administrative services—and there is so much more. The Government are taking steps to support businesses right across every sector of the rural economy. To achieve this, we are ensuring that the needs of people and businesses are at the heart of our policymaking. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we need to be strategic about this, if we are to succeed.
Noble Lords are clearly aware of our growth mission, which includes announcing a series of planning reforms to get Britain building; removing the de facto ban on onshore wind; establishing the National Wealth Fund; announcing a pensions review to unlock growth, boost investment and deliver savings for pensioners; launching Skills England; announcing the Get Britain Working White Paper; and taking the first steps to create Great British Energy.
The industrial strategy will be a significant driver of national renewal and a central pillar of this growth mission. While the industrial strategy’s focus will be on growth-driving sectors and places, it will include addressing cross-cutting challenges and supporting a pro-business environment. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some really good points on that, on innovation in farming and rural businesses and on how that can be used within the industrial strategy; I will feed back those suggestions. All sectors can shape, and will benefit from, wider policy reform through the broader growth mission. We believe that it will create the conditions for businesses to invest and employ and for consumers to spend with confidence.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned the importance of natural capital, which is absolutely central to this. I am not sure if he has seen the recent report on that; it is quite big and I am slowly working my way through it. There is a lot of good information out there that we can refer to and use.
The Government have also recognised the specific challenges and opportunities that make rural economies distinctive, acknowledging the importance of direct support to the rural economy through programmes such as the rural England prosperity fund, which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. To those who mentioned co-operatives, I strongly support the benefits that can be brought through co-operatives; they have an important role to play in rural communities.
Small businesses are essential to our economic success; that is true not only for our urban centres but for every community up and down the country. In fact, more people are employed in micro-businesses in rural areas than in urban areas, as we have heard in today’s debate. Our plan for small business will hardwire the voice of small businesses into everything we do in government. We will use the levers at our disposal to boost small business growth and productivity. This includes addressing barriers through prompt payment and regulatory reform to improve the business environment; creating opportunities for UK business to compete on our strengths, break into new markets through exporting and attract investment; and helping small business to access the skills and support that they need to grow. Community-owned businesses also play a vital role in rural areas, providing opportunities for communities to come together and access services. We recognise, however, that there are significant challenges facing rural community businesses, and that the Government can play their part in overcoming them.
Although the rural economy extends beyond agriculture—as many noble Lords have said—this Government recognise the vital role that farmers and growers play in national economic growth. Farmers are the backbone of Britain, and we recognise the strength of feeling expressed recently by farming and rural communities. We are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry, which is why we have announced that we are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years. I remind noble Lords that this is the largest amount ever directed towards sustainable food production, rural economic growth and nature’s recovery in our country’s history.
We have already started to deliver on this commitment to restore stability for farmers by continuing the rollout of the Sustainable Farming Incentive. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the slow rollout. I am pleased to say that the uptake has increased in the last year. More than half of farmers now have an agreement, and we will continue to promote it. We need go further by optimising our schemes and grants, ensuring that they produce the right outcomes for all farmers— including small, grassland, upland and tenanted farms—while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, which, I am sure he is aware, is going to open next year—we recently made that announcement. The reason for that is that since the Government came in, in the summer, we have been prioritising the rolling out of the SFI and confirming the budget through the spending review, because these obviously affect the largest number of farmers and the largest-scale outcomes in the short term. Also, those with expiring agreements will be offered an extension to give them time to apply for the expanded scheme. Beyond this, the Government have also recently confirmed the intention to produce a long-term road map, Farming 2050: Growing England’s Future, which is to provide a vision for our farming sector into the future. It will outline how the farming system will boost food security, deliver on our environmental objectives and drive innovation, unlocking delivery across our government priorities.
Rural transport is also key. The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, opened the discussion on this and many noble Lords mentioned it. We know that, for a prosperous rural economy, we need to improve rural transport as well as our digital infrastructure and the availability of affordable housing and energy, all of which came up in the debate. We know that people living and working in rural areas often travel further to access work, education and training and other essential services and that this can be not just more costly but more time consuming. We are determined to deliver better bus services and we have set out a plan to achieve this in the Bus Services (No.2) Bill. This is based on the idea of giving local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve. I recognise the challenge in many areas and the need for innovation in this area.
A number of noble Lords mentioned digitisation. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about Project Gigabit. That is designed to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to premises that will not be built by the market without subsidy, with the aim of ensuring nationwide gigabit connectivity by 2030. Most premises deemed uncommercial by the market are of course in rural areas, but there are also commercial not-spots in urban areas. The point is that we recognise that these areas will need government subsidy if we are to get the kind of broadband gigabit coverage that we need. We are also determined to ensure that businesses that are still reliant on 3G are not left behind as a result of the 2G/3G switch-off. 4G coverage is increasing, thanks to the Shared Rural Network, which the Government will continue to invest in.
Genuinely affordable homes were also mentioned and are essential to sustain our vibrant rural economy. We know that the housing shortage has been driving high rents and leaves some of the most vulnerable without access to a safe and secure home, so we are reforming our planning laws to build the homes that our rural communities desperately need. At the same time, we must protect our green spaces and our natural environment. As part of this, the Government recently ran a consultation to reform the National Planning Policy Framework. We need to look at how best to build more homes. How we get more growth-focused interventions that will help us build the homes that people need in the places that they are needed is key.
Housing was mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord de Clifford. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to funding the rural housing enabler programme until the end of March next year. Funding allocations for individual programmes for the next financial year will be determined in the coming months through the department’s business planning exercise and we will announce these in due course.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, asked about affordable housing. We know that there are real issues with unmet demand for affordable housing in rural communities. The Government’s aspiration is to ensure that in the first full financial year of this Parliament, 2025-26, the number of social rented homes is rising rather than falling. We have also asked Homes England to maximise the number of social rented homes in allocating the remaining affordable homes programme funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned the huge challenge of second homes and their impact on places such as where he and I live, in the Lake District.
Permitted development rights were also mentioned, and we recognise the importance of improving and streamlining the planning system to underpin the growth of rural businesses. We are working with MHCLG as it reviews the planning system, to ensure that it supports farm diversification and the provision of affordable rural housing through mechanisms such as permitted development rights.
On energy, it is clear that rising energy costs present a challenge to rural businesses and communities, many of which, like mine, are off-grid—which has its own challenge when we are moving to a low-carbon energy system. We are clear that we want to lower bills, boost energy security and protect our environment, and are looking to do this through Great British Energy, which we are setting up. It is also designed to support local and combined authorities and community energy groups, which are an important part of rural communities, to roll out small- and medium-scale renewable energy projects. The idea is that we will increase local generation across the whole country by eight gigawatts of capacity by 2030.
Another significant requirement for a prosperous rural economy is a skilled workforce. We are planning to extend our childcare and early years system to drive up standards and modernise the school curriculum, and to boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, to give businesses the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce. We also plan to open new specialist technical excellence colleges, to give rural communities the chance to fit the skills they need to their local economies and empower their local businesses to play a bigger role in this skills revolution.
The delivery of health services, such as GPs, dentistry and women’s health services, faces particular challenges in rural areas. It takes longer to access services due to longer travel times, but also rural communities increasingly tend to have living in them people who are going to need the services the most. We have ageing populations in many of our rural areas, so that is a challenge. Integrated care systems will have a key role to play in designing these services.
The issue of community assets was raised. Village halls, pubs, post offices, local shops and banks are all incredibly important, but we have been losing too many of them in recent years. Where they do remain, they often need repair or modernisation, so we are taking this very seriously and looking at how we can best tackle it.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked about cross-departmental working. I can confirm that Defra is committed to this. One example is the Child Poverty Taskforce, which the right reverend Prelate asked about. I am proud that I am part of that, and we want to ensure that our efforts cover all communities in all areas, because you do not tackle child poverty only in urban areas, but right across the countryside.
The right reverend Prelate asked about the index of multiple deprivation. We are working very closely with the MHCLG, which is responsible for the IMD, to ensure that it works more effectively in rural areas. Work has been commissioned which will specifically feed into the planned review. I also recognise the point concerning hidden deprivation in rural areas, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Noble Lords may not know this, but I used to work in rural Devon, doing outreach into particularly deprived communities in areas where people were very poor, although it was not obvious. I totally understand that point and am always very keen to ensure that colleagues appreciate it as well.
Crime was mentioned, and the National Rural Crime Unit helps people across the country tackle organised theft and disrupt organised crime groups. The neighbourhood policing guarantee is going to deliver thousands of additional neighbourhood police and community support officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that the Government do not understand farming in Northern Ireland. I am sure he would be pleased to know that two weeks ago I visited a dairy farm in County Armagh with the Ulster Farmers Union, which I have been meeting regularly so I can fully understand their specific concerns.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned seasonal agricultural workers. To underline the Government’s commitment to the horticulture and poultry sectors, on 21 October the seasonal workers’ visitor rate was confirmed for 2025, with a total of 43,000 seasonal worker visas available for horticulture, and 2,000 for poultry.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked about local government. Yesterday, we launched a consultation on the principles of any reforms to local government funding, which will inform the development of a new local government funding assessment. The recovery grant is not an assessment of relative need and resource in itself. We are proposing this because we must act quickly, given the state of local authority finances, and start to fix the distribution of funding.
I am almost out of time, but the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about access to visits. I recently went to the Yorkshire Dales and met children from a deprived area of Liverpool who had come to stay at the youth hostel there as part of Generation Green, a Defra-funded project which is absolutely fabulous. I recommend that everyone get to know about it.
I have to give a plug for the Cockermouth Show, as everyone else has mentioned their show.
I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to talk to the Treasury from Defra, and I will always stand up for the countryside and our rural communities. We recognise the importance of the rural economy and wider rural communities. I will continue to do everything in my power, through Defra, to ensure a prosperous future for them. I end by thanking everyone once again and wishing everyone a very happy Christmas.
Domestic Animals: Welfare
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his new job. The Government will end puppy smuggling, address puppy farming by tackling low-welfare dog breeding practices and consider whether more should be done to protect the welfare of companion animals. We are supporting some key measures in Private Members’ Bills and have already met with key companion animal stakeholders as the first steps in delivering on our commitments and developing an overarching approach to animal welfare.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and for her passion for and enduring commitment to animal welfare. Does she agree that too many cats are being bred commercially without adequate safeguards to protect their welfare? Increasingly, unregulated, unlicensed, unscrupulous owners are raising cats with extreme, exaggerated features to sell as fashion accessories without any concern for the terrible harm to the animal. So-called bully cats, for example, are bred without fur, which predisposes them to painful skin disease, and their genetically shortened legs can result in joint abnormalities and agonising arthritis. Will the Minister join me in condemning the practice of breeding for deformity, which causes unacceptable suffering and distress? Will she commit as a matter of urgency to regulating cat breeding in order to ban such activity?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the licensing of activities involving animal regulations requires anyone in the business of breeding and selling cats to have a licence, and they must meet statutory minimum welfare standards. The noble Lord makes some very good points about recent practices that are not acceptable. Defra has been working on a post-implementation review of the regulations, which will be published shortly. We are also carefully considering the recommendations in EFRA’s report on pet welfare and abuse, and the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on feline breeding, which will also be published soon.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government will find time during this Session to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is already 60 years old and rather showing its age? A fundamental improvement to the welfare of domestic animals would be to bring up to date the legislation regulating veterinary medicine and particularly veterinary medical practices, which are currently not formally regulated. That would enable the public—and indeed the animals—to be assured that veterinary medicine, and veterinary practices in particular, will provide modern, high standards of care. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at this issue, and an update is long overdue. Can the Minister assure me that she will provide time for that legislation?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We will of course continue to support the vital work of the veterinary profession, and I acknowledge the veterinary workforce’s commitment and dedication to animal health and welfare. My noble friend makes a good point, and we are very aware of calls to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is now very old. Defra is talking to key stakeholders and different veterinary groups to explore the best way to support the profession, and we are looking at the legislation.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, we are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers, but some of the UK’s major animal welfare issues are in plain sight and affect some of our most popular pets. I refer to the extreme conformations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but particularly the problem of flat-nosed dogs—so-called brachycephalic breeds—which suffer or are highly predisposed to ill health virtually all their life, with breathing, whelping, ocular and skin difficulties, and reduced lifespan. Legislation exists to deter the breeding of such animals, should that lead to a detriment to the health and welfare of the bitch or her offspring. Why has there not been a single prosecution under the legislation, given that this is a serious welfare issue?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, our animal activities licensing regulations have been developed to prevent poor dog breeding practices rather than penalise them. Local authorities can refuse, vary or revoke a licence to breed where they are concerned about the dog’s fitness. We believe the impact of having a licence revoked provides a significant deterrent. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point in that, currently, prosecutions are perhaps not happening as frequently as we would expect. This is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I am very happy to take it up with my colleagues.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, now that all cats and dogs have to be compulsorily microchipped, the number of microchipping databases has shot up to 23 but none of them talk to each other, so it is really hard for rescue centres and local authorities to rehouse the animals or find the owners. What plans do the Government have to introduce a portal to link up these databases, so that cats and dogs can be rehomed quickly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are aware that there are some digital challenges within the department, and we are looking at that very carefully.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not enough is being done about puppy smuggling? How many prosecutions for puppy smuggling and for boiler-house productions have there been following the Animal Welfare Act? Boiler-house puppies could be relieved if the mother—the bitch—was present at the sale of the puppies. Will the Government enforce that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. On puppy smuggling, we have made a clear commitment to end puppy farming. We are also supporting a Private Member’s Bill in the other place on puppy smuggling, because we are determined to do our best to stop these abhorrent practices.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests. The public rightly benefit from fantastic access to the countryside through our network of public and permissive footpaths, as well as open access land. However, this brings pets into frequent proximity with farmed animals. Earlier this year, we supported legislation to update and strengthen police powers to deal with livestock worrying; it was not enacted. What plans do the Government have to increase protection for farmed animals?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have committed to support a Private Member’s Bill, introduced by the Conservative Member of Parliament, Aphra Brandreth, which looks to introduce new measures to tackle the serious issue of livestock worrying. The Bill is going to focus on three areas which we support: modernising the definitions in scope, strengthening police powers, as suggested by the noble Lord, and increasing the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine in order to act as a deterrent.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Can the Minister tell the House when the regulations to ban the use of cruel, remote-controlled electronic shock collars for cats and dogs, which inexplicably failed to gain Commons approval before the election, will be introduced? Will she give a clear commitment to put them into effect as fast as possible?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Defra’s code of practice for the welfare of dogs supports positive reward training techniques for dogs, but electronic shock collars should be avoided. Furthermore, the code advises people to seek out professional advice for behaviour problems, and the best training options that are available. The Government are currently considering the available evidence on the use of hand-controlled e-collars and their effects on the welfare of animals.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
What measures are Government thinking of taking to try to eradicate dog fighting?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, dog fighting should not be taking place in this country. We are extremely keen to root it out where it is happening, and it is matter for Defra and the Home Office to work on together to ensure that, where it is found, it is properly cracked down on.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
People remain in danger from and are occasionally killed by dangerous animals. Are the Government satisfied that the current law is sufficient?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Ongoing attacks show that we need to do more to protect the public from dangerous dogs. There has of course been a ban on XL bullies, which has been updated recently. That is there to protect public safety, and we expect owners to comply with all the conditions in that legislation. More broadly, we are working with enforcement agencies and animal welfare groups to help prevent further attacks by encouraging responsible dog ownership, addressing dog control issues before they escalate and using the full force of the law where needed.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, we have heard this afternoon the Government’s announcement on plans for substantial changes to local government. Of course, much of the enforcement of animal welfare regulations happens at local government level. Can the Minister assure me that Defra is fully involved in making sure that, whenever the changes happen, the animal welfare elements are maintained as a strong force in whatever new arrangements come in?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can completely reassure the noble Baroness that we are working very closely on a cross-departmental basis on any issues that cover more than one department’s interests. I am sure she is aware that I have a very strong interest in animal welfare and will be doing all I can to ensure that it is considered at every level.