Water White Paper

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement repeat this evening. Some proposals in this White paper are indeed most welcome, including the scrapping of Ofwat—something we have long called for—but it falls short of the fundamental reforms water customers are so desperately in need of. True reform demands root-and-branch change within the water companies themselves, because until profit is no longer their driving force, shareholder payouts will continue to be prioritised over investment and the urgent need to end the scandal of sewage in our rivers and seas. We therefore advocate a move towards mutuality, not the costly nationalisation that others propose but a shift to public benefit companies, a model that has proved so successful elsewhere, particularly in the United States.

I have a few questions. How can the Government claim there will be nowhere to hide when the White Paper rules out structural reform, including changes to ownership and profit extraction? What action is being taken to stop water companies evading the bonus ban, given evidence to the Public Accounts Committee only recently that they have reclassified such payments as “retention incentives”, even in the past year?

If this is truly the biggest overhaul since privatisation, why does it fail to confront the broken ownership model which has enabled pollution, underinvestment and profiteering for decades? Did the Government consider alternative models, such as mutuality, and, if not, why not at this stage, when the current funding system so clearly prioritises shareholders over customers, in turn using huge debts to fund dividends?

What guarantees can Ministers give that a new regulator, potentially more than a year from being operational, will be able to deliver immediate improvements, rather than the risk of extended regulatory failure? What assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of historic underinvestment and excessive dividends in today’s water bills, and how will this White Paper address that inequity? How will the Government work with farmers to tackle agricultural pollution in genuine partnership with them, rather than the slight blame culture that currently exists? Will Ministers commit to ending the sewage cover-up by requiring full publication of sewage volume data, not just the spill duration, as is the current system and the one we had under the last Government? Given record sewage dumping and rising bills, what measurable standards will define this White Paper as a success if river and coastal water quality, for instance, continues to decline?

Finally, and no great surprise from me, when will we see the necessary legislation on our precious chalk streams, which have a very welcome inclusion in this White Paper but which were promised urgent action when we were discussing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? There continues to be a danger that it will be too late for the chalk streams.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest and their questions on the water White Paper, which we published and laid in Parliament on 20 January. The White Paper outlines how we will work together with water companies, investors, communities and the environment to transform our water system for good, because we need to ensure a sustainable water system for future generations.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked why it had taken so long and when we were going to see change. As noble Lords know, we have already taken action. We brought in the Water (Special Measures) Act and took action to ring-fence water company investment. The transition plan will be published later this year, which will provide a road map for implementing the changes. We will bring forward a new water reform Bill during this Parliament, alongside which we will make progress with reforms that do not require primary legislation. That will include a shift to a supervisory approach to regulation, with dedicated teams with an understanding of how each company operates. There will be the piloting of regional planning approaches across the country. The water reform Bill will be a priority for the department going forward.

The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned the extension of environmental permitting to cattle. As the White Paper sets out, we are considering extending environmental permitting beyond pig and poultry to cattle, because cattle are a significant source of water pollution. However, we are working closely with the NFU and others, because we need to take a balanced approach to that issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned Ofwat and regulation. We have already done something on this, with the Water (Special Measures) Act, which shifted the burden of proof from the regulators to the water companies in order to enable automatic fines. The new regulator that will be set up will require us to change legislation. We feel it is really important to make sure that we get this right. The existing regulators will in the interim retain the powers they have until we have the new regulator in place.

The Environment Agency is carrying out record levels of funding and inspections, and is currently on track to deliver 10,000 inspections in the year 2025-26. We are going to issue interim strategic policy statements to the regulator as part of the transition plan, which will provide legally binding instructions on what the regulator’s priorities should be and how they should act during the transition period. We will reform the approach to the strategic policy statements and issue wider strategic guidance to provide long-term direction to the entire water system, alongside specific, measurable directions to the new water regulator.

The noble Earl asked when we are going to make appointments to the regulator and when it will be set up. We intend to make formal appointments to the board of the new water regulator at the earliest opportunity. We believe that providing early leadership will help the new regulator begin to develop its internal strategy, to build a new culture, which is very important, and to deliver the industry-wide approach from the start. As I said, during that transition the existing regulators will retain their full powers and responsibilities. We are considering the funding arrangements that will be needed. The new regulator will have the power to deliver its responsibilities in full and will balance the interests of customers, investors and the environment.

The noble Earl asked about accountability. Clear oversight and accountability will be an important design principle of the new regulator, and we anticipate that the regulator will be accountable to Ministers, and by extension to Parliament, in the way that it carries out its functions. We will consider how parliamentary accountability is handled through the legislation, any sponsorship arrangements and the framework agreement. We recognise the importance of appropriate independence, particularly for economic regulation, in supporting the credibility of the new regime and investor confidence, so we will ensure that there are mechanisms in place, including within the legislation itself, to protect regulatory independence. We will look at other relevant public bodies as we draw that up.

The noble Earl asked specifically about the water restoration fund. We are doubling our funding for catchment partnerships in order to bring together farmers and stakeholders to tackle agricultural problems. I am not in a position yet to say whether we will be continuing with the water restoration fund.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about bonuses, which I think everyone feels strongly about, particularly in the light of what has been happening recently with South East Water. We introduced criminality for water bosses who cover up illegal sewage spills and the power to ban unfair bonuses. Some £4 million in bonuses for 10 water bosses was blocked last summer. We absolutely expect water companies to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law, and Ofwat is considering what further action can be taken to ensure that companies are held to account. The water White Paper goes further in order to ensure that water companies have nowhere to hide on poor performance. That includes a new supervisory scheme, which will ensure that the regulator has a stronger grip on exactly what is going on in each company.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about mutuality and models of ownership. Mutual or co-operative ownership is not something that we are opposed to in principle. The White Paper says that, if a company’s owners propose changes to the ownership model, the new regulator will assess any proposals carefully against transparent criteria. But to take a company into mutual or co-operative ownership, either the current owners would need to propose this or the company would need to be bought first. We would therefore need to think carefully about how that transition would actually take place. We are not opposed to it in principle, but any mandatory changes in ownership would be costly and complicated, and would not deliver the material benefit. That is why it is important that it is the company’s owners who are proposing any such changes.

The noble Baroness also asked how the White Paper was addressing pollution; we talked about a number of issues there. As we have set out in the White Paper, there are several measures that we are taking to tackle pollution. Importantly, we are looking to strengthen collaboration in planning at catchment and regional level. This will help to identify lower-cost, higher-impact solutions to tackle pollution and include opportunities for farmers—which the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, was asking about—water companies and other stakeholders to work in partnership to ensure that the action taken is effective. We are also developing a new and strengthened approach to monitoring, because we do not want companies marking their own homework, as they have been doing for years. We are looking at how we can strengthen that.

We are shifting the emphasis towards tackling the root causes of sewage pollution by reducing the volume of rainwater and pollutants that enter the sewerage system in the first place and freeing up sewerage capacity for development and growth. I will give some examples of how we are doing that. We are building on the ban on wet wipes, which contain plastic, to stop sewers from getting clogged up so much. We have introduced a national standard for sustainable drainage systems which will help to improve drainage quality. That will be a requirement for all new developments and will have drainage implications beyond that through the National Planning Policy Framework. We are also committed to ensuring that funding looks at how to improve nature and the environment more broadly. This was mentioned when we talked about the PIB.

Overall, we need to improve transparency and ensure that the public can see what is happening in their local waters. That is important if we are to get back consumer confidence and boost protection for customers. We want people to see that this is serious action that we are taking to improve the water systems.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and the White Paper, as the Minister knows, and I am particularly pleased that the Statement refers in its opening paragraph to

“putting consumers and the environment first”.

We had a discussion in this House at the time of the Water (Special Measures) Bill on whether the environment was given a voice equal to that of consumers. I was always in favour of giving more voice to the environment, so I am pleased that the Secretary of State has recognised that.

I have mentioned many times in your Lordships’ House the necessity of a single, strong regulator, and I welcome this. That involves abolishing Ofwat and taking over parts of the work of the Environment Agency and other regulators. We must recognise that Ofwat over many years allowed the balance sheets of the water companies to be transformed by private equity-increased leverage. That was agreed by Ofwat without any regard to the consequences for the environment. Despite the Environment Agency always claiming that it does not have enough resources, it has considerable resources. The problem is that it never gave sufficient priority to controlling pollution in rivers and on beaches.

I have some questions for the Minister. Of course, we are all anxious to see all this put into effect. The White Paper was delayed. The Minister said that there should be some guidance later this year. I hope that there will be a new water Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Can she confirm that? Fundamentally, when can we expect to see the new regulator in operation? That is what we are all looking forward to and what the public now expect.

The Whip is making a face at me, but I think that I am allowed to ask a second question. Will the new regulator have sufficient budget to fulfil its very considerable responsibilities? We all want to see a favourable outcome to this policy in development.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Duke for his broad support for the White Paper. He has been a champion of improving the situation with our water systems.

He asked about the new regulator. We intend to make formal appointments to the board of the new water regulator at the earliest opportunity. We want to get cracking with this. I am not in a position to say whether the Bill will be in the next Session or when it will come, but I reassure the noble Duke that this is a top priority for Defra. We are working very hard to bring this forward as soon as we can.

We are considering the funding arrangements that we will need, but I assure the noble Duke that the new regulator will have the power to deliver its responsibilities in full. We want to make sure that any new regulator is able to do the job and do it well.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on producing this White Paper and on putting into effect the excellent work that Sir Jon Cunliffe did in his review.

The water industry has been an example of the worst of the capitalist system—not value creation but value extraction in a major way. Obviously, a major concern of any Government is keeping down the cost of living. My fear is that we will create a situation where the Government and the regulator are under pressure from the companies to allow environmental standards to be further weakened to make the finances add up and to save them from bankruptcy. Can my noble friend assure me that we will not tolerate any of that nonsense?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely; water companies have done an extremely good job of trashing the environment and causing pollution. This White Paper and the water Bill that we will be bringing forward are designed to stop that, to have a water system that people can trust and to have water companies that behave as we would expect them to behave. They have a responsibility for the environment. They should take that responsibility much more seriously.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, one of the areas that the White Paper does not even mention is the voluntary sector, particularly citizen science, which has been fundamental in calling water companies to account—in the Wye valley and other areas. As well as not mentioning citizen science, the White Paper does not mention either science or citizens, which is perhaps more worrying. What are the plans of the Government to keep this whole area of citizen science, which has been so positive in putting pressure on the water companies regarding water pollution and in motivating them to continue their work, and to somehow include this in the future? It is a resource that is wide, large, educated, willing and desperate to make sure that we have a better future.

Also, why is artesian water not mentioned in the report? In terms of long-term assets, it is one of the most important that we have. Although it is okay at the moment, it will be severely challenged in the future.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think that much of what the noble Lord has talked about is what I need to feed back to the department. Obviously, this is a White Paper; it is not the final version of what any Bill must look like. The noble Lord makes some very important points, particularly on citizen science. I have a personal interest in this because before I ever came to this place, I was part of the Consultation Institute, which has worked in citizen science, so I appreciate what he is saying.

We have talked about working regionally. We have talked about working with stakeholders. We have talked about the importance of that local connection if we are to succeed in making the changes that we want. Citizen science—the noble Lord is absolutely right—can play a role in that.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in responding to the Front-Bench questions, the Minister said the Government are not opposed “in principle” to mutual or co-operative ownership. I am sure that will be delightful news to the Co-operative Party, which of course has been in an electoral partnership with the Labour Party since 1927.

That question of ownership is one we keep coming back to. The Minister also said that we will get a regulator with a tighter grip. But will that grip not be resisted and see coming against it the force of the damage of private ownership that the noble Lord opposite just referred to? The legal responsibility for the managers of private companies is to maximise returns to shareholders. That is going to come up against, as the Statement says, this reform being for customers and the environment, but those are set in opposition to the profit motive. Surely the only way we are going to get a water system that does indeed work for customers and the environment is if we have a public organisation managed for the public good.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about science and there not being a lot of it. One thing we are going to do is bring in a new chief engineer to bring more technical scientific expertise to the new regulator, which, just to come back on his point, is important.

On the modelling, the difficulty in moving away is how you are going to do it, because any new model needs to work. The evidence has shown that where there have been problems around the globe, the model has not been the problem; it has been the way that the owners have managed and dealt with the company and any problems that arise from that. I do not think we can just blame the model. We can blame the behaviour of the companies, the fact that there was not enough done to stop that behaviour sooner, and the way that the regulator has been set up—these are the problems we now want to tackle. Rather than just focusing on the model, we should focus on how we can restore confidence to consumers, how we can improve the environment and how we can set up a new system that makes sure this kind of behaviour can never happen again.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure there is agreement around the whole House that the state of the water industry in this country at present is very far from satisfactory. In her remarks about the White Paper, the Minister referred to a whole number of possible initiatives and changes and regulations. Does she agree that, at the last resort, we as a society have to generate enough resources focused on these specific problems to actually bring about change? Is she confident that society will be able to generate those resources, because if not, various things are simply not going to happen?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It would be useful for me to perhaps have a cup of tea with him and understand specifically which resources he is referring to, because it could be very wide-ranging.

As I have said, we want to ensure that the new regulator is set up with the sufficient funding and resources to ensure that the water companies deliver what they are supposed to be delivering—what their contracts expect them to deliver.

As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, pointed out, this is about a balance between proper consumer support, decent water and the environment, because consumers have been treated very badly by water companies over the years, as has the environment. We need to get that that right, and if those are the resources the noble Lord is talking about, that is absolutely what we are fixed on delivering.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, since there is time, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about science and citizen science, one thing that some of that sampling is starting to expose is the level of contamination from new areas of concern, such as PFAS, pesticide contamination and microplastics and nanoplastics. My reading of this report is that it does not seem to focus on the way in which new science is uncovering new concerns for public health and environmental health from those kinds of contamination. Is that something the Government are going to look at as they go forward with the new plans?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can completely assure the noble Baroness that these issues are being looked at outwith these proposals. These are concerns that we are taking very seriously in the department.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, as there is still time, I will ask one further question, if the Whip will allow me. The White Paper mentions cutting leakage. The previous Government had a target of reducing leaks by 50% by 2050. It seemed to me—I asked a question in the House of the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon—that surely that was not ambitious enough. Do this Government have an intention to change the target to something more ambitious than a 50% reduction by 2050?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The problem with targets is that half the time they are not met. With the water White Paper, we are looking at ways in which we can improve the infrastructure and get proper funding into it that is also for the long term, because there is no point in putting a plaster on it if it explodes later on, which is what has been happening all the time. We need proper investment to ensure that we do not have continued leakage. That is why we are bringing the new MoT checks on water infrastructure; that is, health checks on assets such as pipes, pumps and treatment works to stop them just being left to crumble. It is about getting ahead of problems before they come into place. That is the way we resolve issues such as leaks. Up to now, water companies have mended them as cheaply as possible by just doing a mend. We had it where we live in our village; they mended it, and then it started leaking somewhere else, and so it continued—you do not resolve the problem. It is really important that we are bringing in these MoT checks and a new performance improvement regime, so that if the water companies do not do what they have agreed to do, we can really crack down on them, because this is the way we need to move forward.

Large-scale Waste Crime

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[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 tackling waste crime. The Environment Agency assesses all reports of waste crime and deploys its resources against the offending that poses the greatest threat, risk and harm. The Environment Agency recorded 176 active, high-risk, illegal waste sites at the end of March 2025. As with all criminal activity, understanding the true extent of waste crime is difficult due to its often covert nature.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, organised waste crime is out of control, and there seems to be a reluctance to expose its true scale. In the five weeks since the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report, more illegal waste sites were discovered than were previously known to the Environment Agency. Will the Minister commit to using remote monitoring and AI to survey the country and drive enforcement; hypothecate landfill taxes for cleaning up sites; and end the perverse practice of charging the Environment Agency landfill tax on the waste it removes?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are committed to the introduction of digital waste tracking, and the analysis of data that this brings will enable us to provide a significant asset for regulators and enforcement bodies in the fight that we have against waste crime. Additionally, the Environment Agency is looking at other technology-based opportunities to measure the levels of waste crime. That could use the potential of satellite-type technology and machine learning. We are providing the Environment Agency with extra, targeted funds. My officials are also working with the Environment Agency and the Treasury on the implementation of the proposed Environment Agency levy, and we will be able to update on that in due course. Of course, we will also continue to work with the Treasury on the landfill tax policy and keep under continual review how best to tackle waste crime, including considerations around resourcing.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, fly-tipping is a blight to farmers across the country, with over 80% reporting to the Environment Agency that they are impacted by small-scale tipping and over 20% by large-scale offences. Ultimate responsibility lies not only with criminals but with householders who do not pay adequately to dispose of their waste and wash their hands of it. What efforts are the Government making to prosecute under the householders’ duty, and what number of successful prosecutions have there been?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Prosecutions take a long time to work through the legal system and the court system, but numbers are in line with other law enforcement agencies when we compare them with the number of interventions. Of course, prosecutions are only one part of the picture. Prevention and disruption work is just as important, because we need to intervene and stop criminal activity at an early stage or before it happens so that we do not have prosecutions coming in further down the line. It is important to say quite clearly that the Government do not believe that the status quo is working. We need to make changes because it is, as the noble Earl said, getting out of control. We are looking at the best ways that we can make changes to improve the situation.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, the status quo clearly is not working. Can the Minister explain how the Kidlington site, an illegal site that grew to over 10,000 tonnes of rubbish, was allowed to happen before any effective official action was taken? It would have taken more than 300 heavy goods vehicles to make those illegal deliveries.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Viscount and others know that the Kidlington situation was utterly appalling. It was, as he said, quite extraordinary that it was allowed to happen. It is important to recognise that it was exceptional. We need to concentrate on the fact that waste crime is more and more frequent. It is a serious criminal activity that blights our countryside, which is why, as I said, the status quo is not acceptable, and we are seriously looking at what we can do to make the improvements that are needed.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s department has confirmed in Answers to a series of Written Questions from me that neither the Government nor local authorities have any responsibility for dealing with the disposal of material dumped by third parties on private land. Criminals are of course aware of this, and target fields and tracks off immediate public highway verges with impunity. Victims typically lack the money or expertise to remove illegal waste yet are told that it is down to them to deal with it. Does the Minister feel that this state of affairs is just? Do the Government have any plans to address it and give practical assistance to the victims?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we do not think the status quo is working. We need to look at how tidying up and tackling waste crime, both from the start and at the clearing up end of things, are properly resourced, and at how the criminals carrying out this illegal activity are caught and dealt with. As the noble Lord said, that is difficult because of the nature of where it happens but, again, we are working across government to look at the best way to tackle this, because unless we all come together across government, we will not resolve this issue.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the Environment Agency may be good at prosecuting a known farmer who damages a river or a known factory which has a chemical spill, but fly-tipping style is now a national organised crime on a mega scale, costing the economy over £1 billion per annum, and it is beyond the competence of the Environment Agency to tackle it. In the Defra-led Joint Unit for Waste Crime there are also the police, HMRC and the National Crime Agency. I was interested that the Minister said that she has to do things differently and that the status quo is not an option, so will she now consider making the National Crime Agency the lead agency in that unit to tackle this growing national problem that is doing incalculable damage to some of our finest countryside and SSSIs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are happy to look at all options for how to move forward, because the situation is unacceptable. On the Environment Agency’s role in waste crime enforcement, the total budget has increased by more than 50%—that is a £5.6 million increase from the previous year—which has allowed the EA to double the size of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, so we are investing financially to tackle this. It means that the EA has increased its overall front-line criminal enforcement resource in the JUWC and we have brought in more staff—I think the number is 43. We are investing significantly in how we are operating, but we also need to consider how we can make changes to improve the situation.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee which produced the report on waste crime. On 16 December, the Environment Agency wrote to the committee stating that 749 new illegal waste sites had been found in 2024-25, compared to 427 in the previous year. Clearly, the system is broken, not just failing. Two of the most devastating sites are in Kidlington and in Bickershaw, Wigan. Has work started to clear the Kidlington site? If so, at what cost to the taxpayer? Why is the same priority not applied to the Wigan site, given that it is near houses and a primary school and burned for nine days last July?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Environment Agency’s exceptional decision to progress works to entirely clear the site at Kidlington of waste followed new information and advice from the fire and rescue services that indicated that there was an increased possibility of a fire at the site, which is why it moved in to do it. It was the scale of that fire risk that set it apart from other illegal waste dumps in England. That is why it became an overriding public imperative. Regarding the other site, investigations and work are going on there, so it is difficult for me to comment specifically, but I am happy to look at what I am able to share with the noble Baroness and put it out in writing.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, there is waste crime in plain sight. For decades, England’s water companies have illegally dumped sewage in rivers, lakes and seas. Companies have nearly 1,200 criminal convictions, but their directors receive mega bonuses and rewards. Despite promises, no director has been prosecuted or disqualified from acting as a director. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to indulge criminal entities and elites?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend knows that water companies are private companies. He also knows that we have a criminal justice system that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice work in. The law is there to be used when appropriate, and I would hope that it will happen.

Meat Labelling

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to ensure that labelling on meat states whether the animal was stunned before being killed.

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

My Lords, the Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare and slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. As set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, we are also committed to ensuring that consumers have access to clear information on how their food is produced. We will continue working with relevant stakeholders to explore how food labelling can support consumer transparency and promote animal welfare.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister. I know she is a genuine supporter of good animal welfare, which is why I was surprised that there was not a word in the strategy document that came out about the very cruel and barbaric way millions of animals are killed each year in a non-stun method. A lamb is shackled, pulled along and then has its throat cut, and takes up to nearly two minutes sometimes to die. It is just shocking, and all in the name of a religious belief. Even if this Government will not ban this kind of non-stun slaughter, will they at least commit to make it a legal requirement to label the meat to show whether the animal has been fully stunned? Will she make it a legal requirement for all government institutions, such as schools and hospitals, to label properly so that the public can have a choice and show their horror at the treatment of sentient animals?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said in my Answer, we encourage all animals to be stunned before slaughter. It is what we would prefer as a Government—clearly, as someone who strongly supports animal welfare, it is what I would prefer. We have to recognise the religious sensitivities around this issue, and we are looking at the best way to move forward regarding food labelling.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that, before any labelling scheme could be considered, there would have to be an assurance that it would be comprehensive and not discriminatory against religious slaughter of shechita and halal? While a recent study in the American Journal of Veterinary Research confirmed that

“religious slaughter induces swift LOC”—

or loss of consciousness—

“reinforcing its potential to minimize animal suffering”,

we know that animal welfare standards in industrialised slaughterhouses, using gassing and electrocution, are often very poor and far from humane. Any labelling scheme must fully reflect all those aspects.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, it is important that any labelling is completely accurate; it has to be transparent, and any discriminatory matters have to be carefully thought through, as the noble Baroness rightly said. She mentioned CO₂ gas stunning, which is used in around 90% of pig slaughters and is incredibly cruel. It is one reason why we included it in the animal welfare strategy; it is a method of slaughter that we would also like to see phased out.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, one of the biggest challenges for animal welfare in the south-west of England is the sheer distance that animals have to travel to slaughterhouses, due to the closure of many abattoirs over recent years. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that local abattoirs are supported and that new abattoirs can open across the western counties?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have every sympathy for the noble Earl’s concerns about the closure of small abattoirs and the distances that animals have to travel. I was previously the president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which had a specific campaign on that, so I understand the issue. The Government have provided grants to support small abattoirs from closing. There are a number of difficulties—including the challenge of having trained staff in abattoirs and people who want to do the job—but we are working closely with the FSA on how we can move forward.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, what is the position as regards imported meat, both in relation to halal and in meeting other animal welfare requirements, either from a third country or via the EU? Are we yet in a position to label that meat as meeting our very high domestic animal welfare standards?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

All trade deals, whether for import or export, are expected to meet the animal welfare standards that we set in this country—that is what we expect as our standards. When we move forward with the proposals in the animal welfare strategy, labelling will clearly be part of it.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, on the slaughter of sheep and goats in halal, there is another solution. There are modern methods of stunning for sheep and goats that are non-lethal but render the animals unconscious before killing; they are wholly consistent with Islamic requirements for halal certification and are supported by the Food Standards Agency. They are based on well-established practices in New Zealand, where all sheep are stunned and their meat is compliant for halal certification. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the universal adoption of similar measures in the UK? They would enable, first, the export of sheepmeat and, secondly, UK consumption of sheepmeat in processed products and in public provision such as in schools and hospitals which is both from stunned animals and halal certified.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, gives me the opportunity to mention the demonstration of life protocol for sheep and goats. I know that he is a very strong proponent of this. In fact, his support was instrumental in establishing the protocol, which is based on the New Zealand model. I am glad to confirm that the Government very much support this. The demonstration of life protocol provides assurance for Muslim consumers that the stunning of sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements. The protocol protects the welfare of the animals involved while also supporting any opportunities for trade. The Food Standards Agency oversees the monitoring and enforcement of animal welfare in slaughterhouses, and it also supports the protocol. So the Government will consider ways they can encourage halal slaughterhouses to use this protocol.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, data from the Food Standards Agency revealed that in the last decade 27% of inspections of slaughterhouses permitted to perform religious non-stun slaughter concluded with a rating of improvement necessary or urgent improvement necessary. This compares with just 10% of all other establishments. Can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to strengthen the enforcement of existing rules and standards? I refer the House to my registered interest as a livestock farmer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The official veterinarians in the Food Standards Agency are present in all approved slaughterhouses during slaughter operations. It is their job to monitor and enforce animal welfare requirements. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that some slaughterhouses carry out both stun and non-stun slaughters. It is difficult to attribute audit outcomes to one type of slaughter if both have occurred. It is difficult to link it specifically to a slaughter method. What we should be concerned about in government is consistently high standards in our abattoirs. That is something that we work with the FSA on.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, religious conventions change over the years. As we have heard, this is a very cruel practice. Has the Minister considered meeting religious leaders to see how animal welfare could be improved?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have in the past done exactly that and we will continue to look at how we can improve animal welfare by encouraging take-up of the demonstration of life protocol. As we look to move forward in discussing labelling of food production, we will work with stakeholders, which, of course, if it was impacting on religious practice, would include religious leaders.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned the American Veterinary Medical Association’s recent publication, which has been three times peer reviewed and shows a new understanding of shechita. Can the Minister confirm that shechita is within the legal definition of stunning?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We mentioned the demonstration of life protocol that is used in New Zealand, so there is no non-stun slaughter there, but it has an exception for shechita, which comes to the point that the noble Lord is making. As we discuss this issue further, clearly the issues surrounding shechita and halal killing need to be looked at within those religious communities’ expectations.

Environmental Improvement Plan 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, both for giving us this opportunity to talk about a very important issue and for his excellent introduction. I, too, welcome the EIP, in particular the concept of delivery plans. However, some of the delivery plans are delivering more than others.

I turn to a subject close to my heart for an example. There is no specificity—it is good to be able to say that on a Thursday afternoon—on the timing of the ban on peat in horticultural products. I remember that, when I joined the RSPB as chief executive back in 1990—35 years ago, in case your maths is not very good—we were campaigning for a ban on peat products. I used to go to the local garden centre and insist that its staff took all the peat-free or reduced-peat products out from the back of their compost displays and put them at the front. I did that for nine months until I was banned from that garden centre. I subsequently went around all the garden centres in Bedfordshire and was systematically banned from one after the other. We have waited for this for quite a long time—and that is just one example. We do not really have any clear targets as yet; across the piece, we need to go through this EIP systematically and see what more needs to be done to get targeting into it.

The second point I want to make is that some of the targets, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, are pretty immediate: the biodiversity ones, particularly on species abundance by 2030, and the 30 by 30 targets. The whole issue of ending nature declines by 2030 was always very ambitious. I am a great believer in ambitious targets, but we have not yet had confirmation of whether the delivery plans will actually deliver the target. It is work in progress and there is not long to go, so I hope that work can be expedited. Across the whole enterprise, there needs to be renewed pace and vigour.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also talked about cross-government commitment and this is incredibly important. Defra obviously has to be the cheerleader and the thinker in this, but it needs help right across government to be able to deliver. For example, SSSI condition can be delivered only by a huge variety of different landowners and land managers, yet we still have—I have spoken about this before—an outbreak of newt bashing in certain parts of government. We really have to get away from the nature versus growth dichotomy, which is unreal, and towards a system where we are talking about the real benefits to growth that nature recovery can produce.

Important in that whole process of getting cross-government commitment, apart from moving hearts and minds, will be implementing the legal duty on all Ministers to pay due regard to the environmental principles when proposing or revising policy. What is the implementation plan for making sure that the environmental principles are actively used across government departments? What training is there for civil servants, and indeed perhaps even for Ministers, in thinking about the environmental principles in their daily work, and what monitoring of their implementation will take place? I would say this, of course—I am on record as having said it before—but the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was absolutely splendid and should be adopted by the Government.

The fourth point I want to make is about land. Noble Lords cannot really expect me to talk on this issue without talking about the land use framework and the farming road map. It is slightly unnerving that, to my understanding, the farming road map will not actually have a map in it. It seems a bit strange that everybody else in various government departments is busy drawing up spatial plans and strategies but the farming road map will not necessarily have a map.

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

I had no idea.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I am glad to have identified something that the Minister will have to find out about. The whole business of the contribution of agri-environment schemes and the farming road map to the EIP is huge. Nature-friendly farming is fundamental: it will be key, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, to delivering goal 1, the restoration of nature, as will a proper land use framework. Goal 3, clean, resilient and plentiful water and nature-based solutions to those, will be fundamental. I know that water is a very important government priority: we really have to get the EIP to focus on that and get the land use framework and nature-friendly farming solutions implemented.

The land use framework should help the Government in their prioritisation of their own spend on biodiversity. I know that the latest timetable is for March, which is terribly close to local government and Scottish and Welsh elections. We can anticipate that there might be a little turbulence after those. I would hate there to be another Minister who wants to pore over the land use framework all over again when, in fact, in many government departments, spatial strategies are progressing apace.

I was going to talk about trees, but I am getting a bit close to the end, so I shall finish with farming and the farming road map. We really have to set out how the three environmental land management schemes we have currently will balance. How much will we see invested in each of them? What contribution will each make? We need to give surety to people who are going to put their heads above the parapet and take up these schemes that they will be there for the future—that they will be maintained and developed, and have predictable application windows—so that we can get landowners of all sorts, large and small, investing in these very sensible schemes, with the surety that they will not find them disappearing from under their feet. My last words, before I get cut off in my prime, are, in summary, to commend energy and pace to the Minister, because that is absolutely what we need in this important area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am quite tight for time. I shall do my best to answer all the many questions, but if there is anything that I do not cover, I will make sure I write to noble Lords with responses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond and to discuss how the environmental improvement plan will deliver the targets of the Environment Act.

The EIP, as noble Lords are aware, sets out the Government’s commitment to the ambitious statutory Environment Act targets. It is our road map on how we are going to improve the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it. It ensures that nature’s recovery is a key priority for this Government and is fundamental to our general approach, including growth, because we know that growth is not possible without a healthy and resilient natural environment.

Our EIP goes further than the previous one. It is a credible, clear plan with clear, prioritised actions to deliver the environmental outcomes of restoring nature, improving environmental quality, creating a circular economy, protecting environmental security and improving people’s access to nature. It sets out who is responsible for these actions across government and our wider society.

The EIP sets ambitious yet achievable interim targets. It is essential to have those as staging posts on our journey in order to deliver the targets that have been rightly described today as challenging. Each interim target will make an appropriate contribution to corresponding statutory targets over the next five years. We have increased the ambition of some of the interim targets since the Government’s last plan, including for air quality and to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats. We have also introduced new targets on farm wildlife and on invasive non-native species. We are maintaining our delivery trajectories for other targets and have adjusted others to ensure that they remain deliverable and credible.

On other targets, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the MPAs and whether the 5% flex was watering down that target. The flex is introduced largely to account for adverse impacts of offshore wind developments that have been consented to because they pass the habitats regulations or MCZ derogation tests. We think it is the best option to set an interim target that contributes towards the statutory target while aligning it with the changing MPA network that supports the Government’s clean energy mission. I hope that explains why we have done that.

Of course, setting clear targets and goals is simply not enough; we need to know exactly how we are going to reach them. I hope noble Lords will be reassured to know that for the first time we have published delivery plans for those targets. They clearly set out how actions contribute, who will deliver them and how progress will be measured. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked which actions will make the largest contribution to halting the decline of biodiversity. The delivery plans will set that out on a strong evidence footing so that we know exactly what is happening.

Driving environmental change and understanding the impact of actions being taken will obviously be complex and take time, so the delivery plans are designed to remain live and can be refined over time in response to emerging evidence, to policy evaluation and to any feedback that we get from stakeholders carrying out the delivery. We believe that this transparent and collaborative approach to communicating and adapting our plans is a major step forward. It is also central to our monitoring and our reporting of progress, which, again, is essential to keeping any delivery on track.

The EIP sets out more than 90 commitments. Each is associated with a delivery metric, and we will report on changes to those metrics in our annual progress reports, along with the latest evidence and changes to trends in our environmental indicator framework. The framework, which is also published online, objectively measures how the environment is changing across the 10 EIP goals.

Together, such approaches better enable external appraisal and will ensure that we learn and adapt appropriately as we move towards the targets. I am already very grateful to stakeholders, including the OEP, whose scrutiny and recommendations are helping to shape this improved approach. We have a clear plan and process, but we also know the scale of the challenge and are trying to match this with the right actions to get where we need to go.

SFI was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, so I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, just this morning at the Oxford Farming Conference, the Secretary of State set out how we are reforming SFI to make it simpler and fairer and to enable as many farmers as possible to benefit and help nature thrive. As someone who has a smallholding, I was particularly pleased to see that this is also targeted now at smaller farmers. At that conference, the Secretary of State also made clear that protecting the environmental foundations of farming is not separate from productivity but an essential part of it. All this will help us to meet our EIP targets, including doubling the number of farms delivering for wildlife. This follows the most nature-friendly farming Budget we have seen, to give farmers the support they need to produce food sustainably while protecting soil, water and wildlife.

Last year we had the highest amount of tree planting in 20 years, as I am sure my noble friend will be pleased to hear—over 10 million trees—and we have started planting the first of the three new national forests. We recently implemented the Water (Special Measures) Act. I have been asked about the water White Paper, and I confirm that it will be published very soon; watch this space.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about PFAS. The EIP includes a commitment to publish a PFAS plan in 2026, and that will set out how the Government are taking action to protect people and the environment from the particular harms and risks that this relates to. We are acting decisively to improve air quality. A circular economy is an important part of this. We are further reducing environmental harm by turning waste into opportunity and creating green jobs across the country—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly interested in this. We are boosting opportunities and, as the Minister for access to nature, I am pleased that we have a chapter in the EIP on how we will do this. I was pleased that we launched the first of the nine new river walks on Boxing Day.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of working together. It is important that we do this, as we will not make progress unless we have cross-government contributions in achieving these targets. That includes the land use framework, the farming road map and what we are doing across the department as well as across government. This is important. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, particularly talked about the importance of working with stakeholders and people who have to deliver. Only by government working hand in hand with communities, businesses, farmers, the public sector and the third sector can we achieve our target delivery.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a number of questions, and I will try to fit those in. If there is anyone else, I will come back to them. He asked what aspects of the new plan give me confidence around SSSIs —in fact, there were a few questions around SSSIs. I have an SSSI on my land, so I completely understand the challenges of site management. Natural England has improved its understanding of SSSI condition and the pressures and actions needed to restore SSSIs. It is making progress: it has a more strategic focus than previously and, over the spending review, it is looking to improve the evidence from each site. It is looking at a strategic landscape scale, with a greater focus on what happens on the land outside the site boundary as well as just within it, and at those implications.

The noble Lord asked how many SSSIs are on agricultural land covered by agri-environment contracts. It is approximately 40% at the moment. Additionally, Natural England has developed a conservation enhancement scheme to fund actions on SSSI land that is not eligible for environmental stewardship schemes. We want to continue to build on that work.

On national landscapes, we know we need to go further and faster in protected landscapes to meet our national targets, and we will ensure that protected landscape bodies, landowners and land managers have the tools and resources to achieve that. We will continue to work closely.

The PMB was excellent and very much in line with government ambition. The principles of it—to drive and strengthen action towards meeting natural environment and climate targets and objectives from both local and other public authorities—are absolutely at the heart of what we will achieve. I hope we can continue to talk to the noble Lord and bring in his expertise around that.

I seem to have run out of time. I am really sorry; I had lots of lovely answers to all of the questions posed by noble Lords.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Would it be possible for the Minister to tell us about peat?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have just been told that I can carry on because I have another five minutes; my officials will tell me when I need to stop.

I turn to the gene editing of ecosystems. We are supportive of that innovation. We have agreed the parameters for the new SPS agreement with the EU. The EU has accepted that there are a number of areas where it will have to look at our laws. This is something that we are discussing with the EU.

I turn to peat. To confirm, we are committed to ending the sale of horticultural peat and peat-containing products by the end of this Parliament. That is part of our ambition for this Parliament. We are working very closely with the sector to look at how we can make that transition.

The noble Baroness knows that I am very sympathetic to SUDS. It is worth reminding the Committee that we made immediate changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support the increased delivery of SUDS. Clearly, we need to continue to discuss that.

My noble friend Lady Young talked about the environmental principles and asked whether people, particularly officials, have training. The answer is yes. Our recent report on the implementation of the environmental principles, which was published in November, recognised that our tools are valuable and that we do provide training.

Is there anything else that I have forgotten? I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to the debate and assure them that we are committed to delivering the environmental improvement plan and to meeting the environmental targets.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

Motion agreed.

Flooding Interventions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

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

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

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

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 5th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welfare of Domestic Animals

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

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

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

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Trees (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

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

Motion agreed.