Farming Families

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for securing this important debate and all noble Lords who have taken part and made their contributions. I welcome the opportunity to speak further about the central role that family farms have in this country.

I know that the noble Baroness comes from a farming family—she has expressed that on many occasions—and that this is a subject very close to her heart. She has spoken before about the number of challenges that upland farmers face. As a resident in Cumbria and the niece of an upland farmer, I completely understand the points that she makes in this area.

The Government’s commitment to British farmers, including family farms, remains steadfast. We must not forget that farmers are the beating heart of our great country. Farming and food security are the foundations of a healthy and resilient economy, the local community and the environment, and it is the hard work of this country’s farmers that puts food on our tables and stewards our beautiful countryside.

I know that many farmers have found recent years very challenging. They have faced down major issues, such as the coronavirus pandemic. They have been struggling with extreme weather events, such as flooding, and huge rises in energy costs. They have been undermined by damaging trade deals and have endured poor harvests. I know how low farmer confidence has become as a consequence of these challenges, and that is why the Government want to restore stability and confidence in the sector.

Clearly, the APR announcement has been met with great concern in some quarters, but I also draw attention to the fact that, in the Budget announced last month, the Government committed £5 billion to the farming budget over two years, including more money than ever for sustainable food production. This enables us to keep momentum on the path to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector. Environmental land management schemes will remain at the centre of our offer for farmers and nature, receiving £1.8 billion for the financial year 2025-26.

Our three ELM schemes—the Sustainable Farming Incentive, Countryside Stewardship higher tier and Landscape Recovery—are all continuing. We now have over 67,000 live agreements across all our agri-environment schemes, including 24,500 Sustainable Farming Incentive and 35,100 Countryside Stewardship agreements. This enables thousands of farmers to be supported to produce food and support the environment. There are 56 Landscape Recovery projects, covering over 240,000 hectares.

In order to focus investment on ELM schemes and achieve that more resilient and sustainable farming sector, the Government are accelerating the end of the era of payouts to large and wealthy landowners simply for owning land. The fastest reductions in subsidies will be to those who historically received the largest payments. For example, the 4% who received more than £100,000 in subsidies in 2020 will receive no more than £8,000 in 2025. The majority of farmers, who received less than £10,000 to start with, will continue to see a gradual reduction in their delinked payments but will have ongoing access to funding through SFI and other schemes, which offer funding streams for farmers who have often been ignored, such as small, grassland, upland and tenant farmers.

Tenant farmers have been mentioned on a number of occasions, and I remind noble Lords that we have announced a commissioner for tenant farmers to work to support them in their endeavours.

What is more, the Government have announced that they will rapidly release £60 million through the Farming Recovery Fund. This will support farmers, including those operating family farms, who were affected by unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter. Around 13,000 farm businesses, including family farms, will receive an exceptional, one-off payment to help with severe flooding. The Government are also investing £208 million so they can protect the nation from disease outbreaks that threaten the industry, food security and human health.

We will continue funding the Farming Community Network to support tuberculosis-affected communities by putting in place a three-year contract, starting from 1 December this year. The support, which began in 2009, provides TB-affected farmers and their families with a national, free-to-access business and pastoral advice service.

I absolutely recognise that farmers face challenges on many fronts, and we will do everything we can to safeguard the mental health of people working in the sector. Access to mental health support can be very important to farming families, who can often find themselves isolated and sometimes struggle to ask for help. The Government are working to improve mental health and access to services. I pay tribute to all those who work to raise awareness of these issues and encourage farming families who are struggling to reach out for help.

All this support forms just part of the Government’s new deal for farmers. Besides these measures, the Government are working to cut red tape at our borders and get British food exports moving again, and to protect farmers from being undercut by trade deals. The Government will lower energy bills for farmers by switching on GB Energy; introduce grid reform to allow farmers to plug their renewable energy into the National Grid; use their own purchasing power to back British food, so that 50% of food bought in hospitals, army bases and prisons is locally produced or certified to high environmental standards; introduce a land use framework which balances long-term food security and nature recovery; introduce the first ever cross-government rural crime strategy to crack down on antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and GPS theft; and set up a new British infrastructure council to steer private investment in rural areas, including broadband rollout in our rural communities.

I turn to the points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, asked, as did others, why the Secretary of State said when in opposition that he did not expect the inheritance tax situation to change. Unfortunately, the Government have had to take tough decisions on tax, and on welfare and spending, to fix the foundations and deliver change, including a series of decisions on tax that protect the payslips of working people. This has been possible only by making changes to a number of taxes, such as agricultural property relief, which was previously available on all agricultural properties at a rate of 100%.

I appreciate the real disappointment felt by the noble Baroness and others in the Chamber at these changes, and I assure noble Lords that the measures have been designed to protect small farms. We know, as we have heard, that the current rules have been used by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax. Currently, the largest estates pay a lower effective inheritance tax rate than smaller estates. The latest figures show that the top 7%—the largest 117 claims—account for 40% of the total value of agricultural property relief. This costs the taxpayer £290 million. The top 2% of claims—which is 37 claims—account for 22% of agricultural property relief, costing £190 million.

I understand the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—that that there has been a great deal of discrepancy in the figures. Our figures are based on actual claims for APR and show that around three-quarters of claims each year are expected to be unaffected by the changes. Looking at asset value alone does not necessarily mean that the farm will be impacted, as it depends on individual circumstances. If anybody wants to look at the figures in more detail, they are available to view online and have been assessed by the independent OBR.

We do not think the current situation is fair or sustainable, which is why we have been making changes to ensure that larger estates contribute more than smaller ones. But we want to safeguard small family farms while also fixing the public services those same families rely on, so that they can pass the family farm down to their children just as previous generations have always done.

The Question specifically refers to the continuity of farming families. An issue that needs to be addressed is succession. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, mentioned it, although it was not generally brought up in the debate. Succession is a really important point, which is why we need to make farming a much more attractive business for people to move into. This has been the case for many years, and I am pleased that we are starting to talk about this within Defra and in government, with a long-term strategy for farming. For example, when my uncle wanted to retire, nobody from my generation wanted to take the farm on. We had seen how hard he had worked as a hill sheep farmer. We had seen that he worked part-time as a mechanic at the local garage to try to make ends meet. It simply was not attractive enough for us to decide that that was where we wanted to invest our future. Among the many discussions we have had on this, if we are going to secure family farms for the future, we need to make farming more attractive for new people who want to come into farming. The noble Earl also made a very important point about council farms, which have been sold off far too frequently. I wanted to make that point before I close, because it is important.

The noble Baroness asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met with the NFU. I can tell her that earlier this week, both Defra and Treasury officials met with farming sector representatives to look at this.

We recognise the valuable role that farming families serve in this country, and we are committed to working with farmers to enable the vast majority to pass the family farm down to their children. The new deal for farmers, and other support announced at the Budget, will support that.

I would like to make a final point. In opening the CLA’s rural conference, the Secretary of State for Defra said that he wants to listen in order to understand how government can make these changes easier to bear. I support him in that, and my door is open to anyone who would like to come and discuss this with me.

Water Bills

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woodley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce water bills for consumers.

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

My Lords, of course, no one wants to see bills rise. We are committed to tackling water poverty and holding the water sector accountable for its commitment to end water poverty by 2030. We are therefore pushing companies to ensure that sufficient support is available for customers who are struggling to pay their bills, while also challenging Ofwat to make sure that all company investments are affordable and that customers do not pay twice for upgrades.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, since privatisation, water companies have had 1,100 criminal convictions and have also paid out over £85 billion in dividends. They charge people for sewage disposal but dump millions of tonnes of sewage into our rivers and seas. This is fraud. Does the Minister agree that rather than hiking bills, these companies should give refunds to customers for making fraudulent charges?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend points out some of the disgraceful behaviour we have seen from water companies in recent years. We expect companies to invest their own money going forward. However, we recognise that new investment means that customer bills are likely to rise. It is Ofwat’s responsibility to independently scrutinise water company plans, ensuring that the prices companies charge their customers are fair and proportionate. Vital infrastructure investment funding is ring-fenced and can be spent only on upgrades benefiting customers and the environment. Ofwat must ensure that when money for investment is not spent, companies refund customers, with money never allowed to be diverted for bonuses, dividends or salary increases.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure me on the recommendation in the Frontier Economics report of 2021, commissioned by Ofwat, to stop developers passing on the cost of incremental upgrades and treatment works for major new developments? The fact that the recommendation has not been introduced is bloating customer bills, which is unacceptable. Will she ensure that the recommendation by Ofwat is introduced to reduce customer bills and make developers pay for connections for major new developments and the upgrade of treatment works?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I just said, when money for investment is not spent, it is important that customers are refunded. The department is having ongoing discussions with Ofwat, and I will certainly take back the noble Baroness’s question for the next discussions.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, water is an essential element in many businesses and industries, not least the farming and horticulture sectors. With ELMS not delivering in the way originally intended, farmers and growers are finding their incomes shrinking and costs rising. Can the Minister ensure that at least their water bills are not escalating?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are working very closely with water companies to ensure that bills do not increase unnecessarily. There are many challenges in the farming industry, and the Farming Minister is working across the piece to try to support farmers. For example, the farming budget was not reduced in the Budget this year.

On ability to pay bills, we know that all water companies have measures in place for people who struggle to pay for their water and waste services, and we encourage water companies to work with customers to apply for those whenever it is appropriate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this House debated the Water (Special Measures) Bill yesterday, and presumably the Government thought it might bring bills down for bill payers and taxpayers—yet it will not. Where is the justification for passing a Bill that makes it more difficult for people to pay bills?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not really understand the noble Baroness’s logic in thinking that it is going to increase bills. That piece of legislation is to ensure that water companies are better held to account and to drive behaviour change from what we have seen in recent years.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that in Scotland we have water in public ownership. Water rates are generally collected as part of the council tax, and the bands can vary from £155 to £465 per annum. Does the Minister agree that privatisation was the biggest mistake ever made about water? I hope that we can rationalise it throughout the UK in years to come.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There are different forms of water ownership around the world, some privatised, some nationalised and some slightly different. No one system is particularly shown to be efficient or to keep bills down—it depends on how it is run. We are determined to ensure that our water industry is run much better in future.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed that the Government voted against my amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Bill last night to prevent consumers being the funders of last resort to the water industry. Does the Minister instead wish to commit that consumers will never be called on to bail out losses in a water industry special administration regime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As we discussed yesterday in the debate on the Bill, the special administration regime is very much a last resort. Of course, we do not want to see customers bailing out water companies, which is why we are working very closely with Ofwat and the water industry to do everything we can to ensure that does not happen.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the cost of water is obviously important—but even more important is the quality of water. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking all steps to put an end to sewage dumping, for example, assuring the cleanliness of the water that we drink?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Drinking Water Inspectorate is responsible for the quality of the water we drink. Our water in this country is among the highest in quality in the world, along with 10 other countries, so the quality of our drinking water is absolutely immaculate. The issue we have is the quality of water in our waterways and watercourses—and that is the situation we are improving through the Bill that is going through at the moment and through the wider review that we will take part in shortly.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is it not incredibly naive for people to believe that water prices are not going to go up when this House has almost unanimously said that there needs to be huge additional investment to deal with water quality? The difference between a privatised system in England and a state system in Scotland is that the money will come from the private sector as well as consumers and not take money from the health service and other public services.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, what we are aiming to do at the moment is to increase investment into our water companies. Without that increased investment, which will need to come from private sources, as the noble Lord says, we cannot make the infrastructure improvements that we so badly need.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

The Minister has described the conduct of the water companies as “disgraceful”, but is it not the responsibility of Ofwat to sort out the water companies? In that case, what steps are the Government taking to make sure that Ofwat does its job as a regulator?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. We are very concerned about regulation over the past few years, which is why we are shortly starting our review into the water industry, which will also look at regulation, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, and whether that is the appropriate way to move forward.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government not only are taking immediate legislative steps to improve the water sector’s performance but have launched the biggest review of the sector’s operation since it was privatised.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for those supportive comments.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, all water companies have social tariffs to help reduce water poverty. I have relevant interests on the register. It would be extremely helpful in expanding the help to people who find it really difficult to pay their water bills if the Government could put pressure on Ofwat to ensure that water companies focus a greater proportion of their budget on helping people pay their water bills. Will the Minister do that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness says, there are measures in place for people who struggle to pay for their water and waste services. As a Government we are working closely with the water companies to encourage them to work with vulnerable customers and people who cannot pay their bills. It is very much the water industry’s responsibility to ensure that people can pay their bills, and as a Government we need to work with it to make sure that customers who need support actually apply for it. There are many ways in which water companies can do that, and we would work with them and with Ofwat to make sure that vulnerable customers are properly supported.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister yet again for her engagement at every stage of the Bill’s progress and for the significant improvements that have been made to it as a result. I will speak to my Amendments 11 and 58, to Amendments 4, 7 and 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Remnant, and to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.

Amendment 11 is a simple amendment that would give the Secretary of State greater influence over the drafting of the rules on remuneration and governance. We all know that it is the Government who will be held to account in this House and across the country for their record on water quality and pollution reduction. It seems only right that Ministers should have the ability to shape these rules. Indeed, given the importance of getting them right, Amendment 11 would make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments, giving Parliament its own role in approving these rules. I intend to test the opinion of the House on this, depending on the Minister’s answer.

Amendment 58 relates to limits on water company borrowing. I will not reiterate the arguments I made in Committee and, having listened to the Government’s concerns about the possible impact of a hard statutory limit on current negotiations between the sector and prospective investors, I have tabled an altered amendment here on Report.

It is clear to His Majesty’s Opposition that water companies have failed to take a sustainable approach to borrowing, and the current safeguards are insufficient. The amendment simply gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations under the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation, limiting water company flexibility and returns to shareholders when leverage becomes excessive. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for stating the current leverage ratios of the industry, and I agree with many of his comments, if not his amendment.

Nothing in the amendment forces the Government to do anything; we are merely seeking to give them the tools they need to deliver an effective limit on water company borrowing, given the inability of the regulator to do so historically. The Minister will no doubt tell us that borrowing will be considered in the wider review of the water sector, and we welcome this. However, in the meantime, Ministers need tools to take appropriate action now. If the Government do not feel that a borrowing limit is necessary, nothing in the clause requires them to act, but we on these Benches feel that it would be a missed opportunity to let the Bill pass without giving Ministers powers that they may need to ensure that water company borrowing is at sustainable levels while we await the conclusion of the Government’s review. Subject to the response of the Minister, I am also minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 58.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Remnant, which we spoke positively of in Committee, have a great deal of merit. They would ensure that board members are the individuals subject to the rules on remuneration and governance, as well as preventing consumers being inadvertently subject to these rules and other penalties as members of a water company’s board. This can be left to the company to decide.

Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to which I am also a signatory, complements my Amendment 58 on water company borrowing. Greater clarity on water companies’ financial engineering is important. Should he seek to test the opinion of the House, we would support his amendment.

Finally, following the Minister’s constructive response, I did not bring back an amendment on the requirement to provide training to employees on their specific legal obligations within the water industry both before and after the implementation of the Bill. I would be most grateful if she could confirm that the Environment Agency will give guidance to the industry on how employees will be informed of these legal obligations.

[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 back in the Chamber, continuing to debate a very important piece of legislation. I once again thank all noble Lords for their interest in the Bill and their constructive engagement. We may not always agree— I may not always be able to accept amendments—but it has been very useful to have good, constructive discussions, which have helped to inform the amendments. Before I start my response, and before I forget, I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked in his last question.

Amendments 1 and 5 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, consider the views of environmental groups. I fully support his intention to increase the voice of environmental experts and company decision-making processes. However, we do not feel that these are necessary amendments to the Bill, and I shall explain why.

Environmental issues are already a key consideration in company decision-making. Water companies have a range of environmental obligations that they are required to meet, from ammonia limits to phosphorus reductions, and actions related to those obligations. If they break the law, regulators must enforce against them. Ensuring that these obligations are properly met is why we are giving the commission the opportunity to do a full review of regulation.

I agree that we need a step change from water companies. I remind noble Lords that, after only seven days in office, the Government called in all water companies to negotiate and require them to update their articles of association—the fundamental rules that govern each company—in order to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary and fundamental objective. These updates will place customers and the environment at the heart of business decisions, and we expect the majority of companies to have updated their articles of association by the end of the year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Remnant (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister; I do not mean any discourtesy. I thank her for clarifying that the provisions relate to the time from 1 April 2024. Despite what she has said, I am still concerned about the retrospective element. My understanding is that that would affect the bonus arrangements for the year from 1 April 2024 to 1 April 2025 and would also impact the three-year LTIP arrangements entered into on 1 April 2024 for the following three years. But it will not impact LTIP arrangements entered into as long ago as 2022 or 2023 but which still have the financial year beginning in 2024 as part of those three years. From what the Minister has said, my understanding is that the retrospective element will not go so far back as to apply to LTIP arrangements entered into in 2022 and 2023. If she could confirm that, I would be much happier.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Just to reiterate, Ofwat will look closely at the impact this will have on long-term incentive plans. I cannot give the noble Lord any firm detail on the specific question he asks, because Ofwat is currently looking at this. Perhaps this is something we could pick up so that I can understand his specific concerns in more detail, and we can feed those into Ofwat’s current discussions. At the moment I cannot give him any more firm information than I have already given. If the noble Lord wants to continue this discussion so that I can feed it back to Ofwat, I shall be happy to do so. I do not know what else I can offer at the moment, because I cannot give the noble Lord a firm answer.

I am going over time, but I shall look quickly at what else I need to say. Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would ensure that Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance came into force within six months of Royal Assent. Ofwat will be responsible for developing and implementing those rules but, as the Secretary of State will already be consulted through the process, we do not believe there is a need for a statutory instrument to be laid to bring the rules into effect.

We think that allowing Ofwat to set rules in this way, rather than through legislation, will enable those standards to be more easily amended where it is appropriate to do so in the future. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord. Ofwat does intend to implement the first set of rules following its statutory consultation, so this is not something that is going to drag on. We are keen for the rules to be in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

Amendment 57, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sikka, is about involvement in Ofwat’s board. We believe that it is the responsibility of Ofwat to determine who is on its board and who has voting rights for board meetings. There are already a number of ways in which consumers can feed into Ofwat’s regulatory work.

Finally, Amendment 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, is about water company borrowing. At sensible levels, debt can be an appropriate way to fund investment for essential infrastructure in the longer term. Ofwat is already taking steps to monitor debt levels as part of its report on financial resilience. Companies will need to access additional debt and equity to support the price review 2024 investment programme. I do, however, agree with the noble Lord that more can be done to ensure that debt levels are more closely monitored in future, and I would like to reassure him that, as he expected, that the independent commission will look at this.

Following our meeting, I also know that the noble Lord understands that this is a critical point in time for the water industry and its investors, and we have previously discussed the importance of ensuring that we do not jeopardise water companies’ ability to secure investment before Ofwat’s final determinations are made at the end of this year. Today, Barclays reported in the Times on the deterioration in investor sentiment following the publication of the draft determinations.

I therefore trust that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, is reassured that the Government take this issue very seriously, and that he and other noble Lords understand that introducing further rules on borrowing through this Bill is not appropriate for the water industry at this time. That is what I want to stress—“at this time”.

I have run out of time, but I thank noble Lords. This has been a long group and a lot has been discussed. I hope that they will feel able not to press their amendments.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I am still certain in my own mind that the environmental voice needs to be louder in decision-making in this industry in future. I was considerably reassured by the Minister explaining how environmental considerations are central to so much of the current structure; however, one has to admit that, in practice, that has not been very evident.

I must admit that I became a bit concerned when the Minister was commenting on Amendments 6 and 7 and board representation. She emphasised more than once the importance of the consumer voice on boards, panels and committees, and she never mentioned the environmental voice. I must say that I then slightly worried about the reassurances I had previously received from her. However, one has to be pragmatic about these things. I think that my amendment is important, and I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for apparently being prepared to support it. I noticed that the Conservatives, the Official Opposition, did not comment on it and therefore, with great regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving this amendment. In Committee, we discussed the implementation of the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. As my noble friend has said previously, the last Government accepted the recommendation of a sustainable drainage systems review to implement Schedule 3. We share my noble friend’s concerns about the impact of additional run-off from developments. If the Government seek to deliver the homes we need for the next generation and to drive the economic growth they promised, we need to get sustainable drainage right.

Although I understand that the Government have concerns about whether these amendments should be in the Bill and which department should be responsible for this policy area, I hope they will listen carefully to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s concerns and be able to reassure her. However, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but we will not be able to support Amendment 43.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for continuing to raise this important issue, and for tabling her Amendments 3 and 43, which speak to the implementation of Schedule 3. I thank her for her passion and persistence on this matter—she has never let it drop, which is important because this stalled 14 years ago. I also thank her for taking the time to meet me and my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, the Minister in MHCLG, to discuss this matter in some detail and to look at how we can improve delivery.

On Amendment 3, the standards introduced under Schedule 3 would be designed specifically for relevant approval bodies to use when determining applications for sustainable drainage. As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, such applications would be submitted mainly by developers, not water companies—obviously, for SUDS, that is who implements the developments. Because of that, the Government do not consider Schedule 3 standards to be appropriate to use when we are establishing the rules on remuneration of pay prohibitions. That is why we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment.

Amendment 43 is the important, indeed critical amendment in this group. As I have previously said, the Government are strongly committed to requiring standardised SUDS in new developments. We are not looking to renege or backtrack in any way. We are committed to this; it is about the most effective method of delivery.

There are specific outcomes that the Government want to achieve. We want to see an increase in quantity, with more SUDS being built, but we need to see better design qualities that do what we want them to do. We need effective adoption and maintenance, to ensure the new SUDS being built are long-term and keep their quality for the long-term. We need an increase in sustainable drainage in more developments. We need to ensure that, when we are improving the design, they are designed to cope with our changing climate; that is critical, as we are seeing more and more water, often followed by drought, which compounds a lot of the problems. We need to make sure that anything we bring in delivers wider water infrastructure benefits by reducing the levels of rainwater entering sewers, which noble Baronesses have mentioned, and helps improve water quality, while enabling economic growth and delivering the biodiversity and amenity benefits that we need.

Surface water run-off was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. It is important that we look at how we tackle all aspects of drainage and surface water. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, mentioned her house in Devon. We live in a very old stone-built house in Cumbria. Our house has also flooded in the past. There is much that we need to work on in this area. I am also very aware that there are occasions when new build, if not done properly, can have a knock-on effect on houses that have never flooded before. There is a big picture question in the planning system around how we approach this and tackle it most effectively.

While I am on the subject of surface water, the noble Earl asked about the amendments coming up on nature-based solutions. That is absolutely part of the package of how we tackle this going forward. He asked whether all the areas that we are looking at will continue to be input into the review. Anything we have discussed here that is still outstanding or of concern will absolutely be looked at and will be within the scope of the review going forward.

Having said all of this—the noble Baroness knows this because we discussed it with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage—we believe that our ambition for SUDS delivery can be achieved in different ways. It can be achieved through improving the current planning-led approach, and using powers through that route, or by commencing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, as the noble Baroness requested. If we are going to get this to work in the most effective way possible, and get the kinds of results that we need, we need to work hand-in-glove with the MHCLG. Ultimately, this is about development and developers, and getting them to make the right kind of connections and drainage decisions in new developments.

As we discussed, we are looking at planning reforms that can deliver improved sustainable drainage. The National Planning Policy Framework is out for consultation at the moment, until the end of the year. We have asked specific questions around SUDS, from Defra, in that consultation. If noble Lords are interested in inputting to that, it is currently open for consultation.

The MHCLG is looking at the best approach to this, through the NPPF consultation, and there is going to be planning and infrastructure legislation coming up. That is why we cannot accept the amendment at the moment. There are a number of delivery paths. We want to deliver this and we want to deliver it well, so we need to get the delivery path correct. That is why we are unable to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, she failed to respond on the case study on capacity and on the cumulative impact. I am afraid that in this Bill the Minister is making water companies liable and responsible for something that the developers are responsible for by not putting SUDS in place. That is just not acceptable.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

I do not quite understand the last point of the noble Baroness. On the basis that it comes through planning, the whole point is that it then becomes the developers’ responsibility and not that of the water companies.

On the case study, I will definitely take that back to the Department. I am very happy to do that—I am sorry that I forgot to answer that question. Obviously it was picked up from the previous debate, but I will raise it and see where we are with that. I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness about what is happening, if that helps.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister, but without labouring the point, the case law showed that there is sufficient legislation now for capacity to be an important key point of planning decisions. It could save an awful lot of work going down the track if that were there, but it is simply unused. If that is the case, it is simply a matter of ensuring that it is enforced or that local authorities and planning departments can use it. That could save an awful lot of time.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely important point. I am more than happy to pick this up, look at it and write to her on how we propose to move forward. I am so sorry: the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked another question, but I cannot remember what it was.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It was on cumulative impact. I quoted what the noble Baroness had said about the cumulative impact on development, and I am trying to understand why we are delaying implementing Schedule 3. What is the cumulative impact and regulatory burden that the noble Baroness is so concerned about?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The main issue, for me, is to look at how we get developers to implement what we need them to be implementing as far as sustainable drainage is concerned. We know that that is the right way forward and we have said that we want to increase it. When we are working with developers, we need to get them to want to do this, to be part of moving forward in the planning system and to improve drainage systems on the basis that, ultimately, it helps everybody when it comes to flooding and sewage overflows.

Clearly, there is a cumulative impact if you are developing in an area that already has a lot of development. We already know that there are issues around this. We need to get it right, so we need to consider the cumulative impact when SUDS are being designed. I have said that we want to improve design, to make sure that it is effective and works for the long term. As part of that, we also need to look at how it is managed. It is all part of that.

Developments do not just get built and then that is it, they are on their own. As I said, there are areas—certainly near where I live—where development has taken place and the cumulative impact on the other developments nearby has been negative; it has not been good. We need to ensure that we consider that, so we make sure that any systems we bring in will work properly.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

From the Minister’s last remarks, we are in fact saying the same thing. All I am asking the noble Baroness to put into this Bill is the requirement to report in six months’ time on where we are on the implementation of SUDS. So, if the Government have decided that they do not want to go down the SUDS path and want to go down the planning path, she will know that within six months. I do not intend to press Amendment 3 to a vote, but I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 43, which will come later.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

12: Clause 2, page 4, line 28, leave out “Before section 95” and insert “After section 205”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment moves the provisions about pollution incident reduction plans to a different part of the Water Industry Act 1991, in consequence of the Minister’s subsequent amendments extending Clause 2 to the water supply network.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee noble Lords across the House made it clear that, although they were supportive of the new requirement for water companies to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans, they wanted further assurances that the measures in the plans would be duly implemented. I have listened carefully to the points raised in Committee and to the views shared on this issue during a number of very constructive meetings with several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell, among others, and I thank them for their time and consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked for further explanation as to why we believe annual reporting is more appropriate than more regular reporting for pollution incident reduction plans. The measures in these plans are typically programmes of ongoing maintenance that will need to continue on an ongoing basis. Examples include regular cleaning of wet wells at sewage pumping stations to remove detritus that could lead to blockages or replacing rising main sewage pipes. We want companies’ focus to be on delivering the measures they have set out in their plans rather than on preparing reports for publication to talk about delivery. More regular reports also may lead to a focus on the wrong metrics to show progress for progress’s sake rather than the work necessary to reduce pollution incidents.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and other noble Lords, I am pleased to propose a group of amendments to enhance and strengthen Clause 2 of the Bill. I turn first to Amendments 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 22, 25, 27 and 31, all tabled in my name, which will expand the scope of pollution incident reduction plans to encompass water supply system-related incidents. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, specifically raised this in Committee when she tabled an amendment which would require that water-only companies as well as water and sewerage companies produce pollution incident reduction plans. She made very persuasive points which we listened to carefully and, on reflection, we agree that including water supply incidents in scope would strengthen these plans. While pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system are less frequent than incidents attributable to the sewerage system, they have the potential to be equally serious. I thank the noble Baroness for drawing our attention to this in Committee. Such incidents could include a burst clean-water main leading to erosion and then silt pollution in the watercourse or the addition of chlorinated or fluorinated water into the watercourse.

The amendments tabled in my name will mean that water companies will have a duty to develop and publish measures to reduce pollution incidents attributable to the water supply system as well as the sewerage system. This duty will apply to all relevant companies, including water-only companies as well as water and sewerage undertakers. We believe this will support the overall intent of Clause 2 in further reducing the frequency and impact of pollution incidents from the water sector. I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and all who spoke in support of this topic in Committee for their constructive approach.

I now move to Amendments 29, 34 and 35, also tabled in my name. These amendments create personal liability for chief executives to ensure that pollution incident reduction plans are published and implemented in line with the requirements set out in the Bill. A key aim of this Bill has been to hold water company executives to account for pollution caused by the water industry. As a core part of their role, water company executives should be acting to minimise pollution incidents and ensuring that their infrastructure is fit for purpose and resilient to pressure, including from climate change and population growth.

This is why Clause 1 of the Bill will enable Ofwat to ban bonuses for executives when water companies fail to meet environmental standards. But we want to build on this by making chief executives personally liable for the production of pollution incident reduction plans. This will mirror the personal liability which accompanies the duty for directors of a company to publish accounts and a company report under the Companies Act 2006. This will emphasise that minimising pollution incidents is a central aspect of a water company chief executive’s role. Under this group of amendments, the chief executive must personally ensure that the company produces a plan each year which meets all legal requirements. The chief executive must also personally approve the plan before it is published.

If the company fails to publish a compliant plan by the deadline each year, the chief executive—as well as the company—will have committed an offence. The regulator will be able to prosecute against this offence and, if the courts find the chief executive guilty, they will issue a fine.

To ensure that this measure is proportionate, imprisonment will not be available as a sanction. Furthermore, we have provided a defence to ensure that chief executives are not penalised if non-compliance arises due to circumstances that are—I emphasise—genuinely out of their control.

Through bringing forward these amendments, we will ensure that the production and publication of pollution incident reduction plans is overseen at the highest level, reflecting the importance of water companies bringing forward measures to meaningfully reduce pollution incidents.

I turn now to Amendments 19, 32 and 37, tabled in my name. In Committee, noble Lords made it clear that they wanted to see a clearer mechanism to ensure that water companies implemented their pollution incident reduction plans. We have listened very carefully and now propose a group of amendments to further ensure that companies implement the measures in their plans.

However, before I describe these amendments, I would like to recap why we do not think imposing a direct duty for water companies to implement the plans—as is proposed in Amendment 15A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—is helpful. First, at present, it is rightly the responsibility of companies to produce these plans and to decide the steps they will take to reduce pollution incidents. A direct duty to implement the measures in the plans could therefore result in companies setting enforceable duties for themselves. This would create a confused regulatory system, which could ultimately make it more challenging for the regulators to enforce legal requirements for pollution reduction.

For example, regulators would need to disentangle measures that water companies have put in their plans from pre-existing regulatory duties. This could make investigations and enforcement action more challenging and add complexity and confusion to the regulatory system.

Secondly, a direct duty may inadvertently reduce companies’ ambition. To manage the risk of enforcement, companies might be persuaded to make a commitment only when highly confident they could deliver.

Thirdly, this direct duty may force companies to continue implementing measures, even when they have realised it is not the most effective way to reduce pollution incidents. Companies should have the flexibility to learn and iteratively improve their approach. Sometimes, this may mean companies ceasing implementation of a specific measure and taking a different approach. Therefore, we do not think it is appropriate to create a legal duty for water companies to implement the measures they have set out in their plans.

I will now turn to the government amendments themselves and explain how they will ensure that water companies reduce pollution incidents and are held to account for delivery of their plans. First, this group of amendments introduces a duty for companies to produce an implementation report alongside their annual plans. Companies will be required to set out where they have and have not implemented the measures they planned to implement in the preceding year. Companies must then set out the reasons for any failure to implement their plans and the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future.

This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to scrutinise the extent to which companies have implemented their plans. Requiring companies to set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future will ensure that companies cannot continue to make the same excuse year after year.

Secondly, we are also amending the Bill to ensure that the environmental regulators take into account companies’ track records in implementing their plans when undertaking regulatory activities. This means that the regulator will consider the extent to which the company has implemented its plan when considering its enforcement response to a pollution incident, or when planning its schedule of investigations. This may well mean that a company will face more severe enforcement action for a pollution incident if it has failed to sufficiently implement those plans.

I hope the House will agree that, collectively, these amendments represent a significant strengthening of the Bill, and will ensure that companies are firmly held to account for implementing the measures outlined in their pollution incident reduction plans.

I will conclude by speaking to Amendments 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28, 30, 33, 36, 38, 60 and 63. I am delighted to move this suite of amendments to extend the application of the provisions introduced by Clause 2 of the Bill to Wales. Upon reviewing the requirements imposed by Clause 2 of the Bill, the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales have requested that Clause 2 be extended to apply in Wales. This was announced by the Deputy First Minister on 16 October and these amendments seek to deliver on that request.

I look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with our counterparts in Wales, and indeed with all of the devolved Governments, to tackle shared problems relating to the water industry and water quality more broadly.

I once again thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and input to discussions around the new requirement to produce pollution incident reduction plans, and hope that noble Lords agree that these amendments will significantly improve and strengthen this new requirement. I move that these amendments form part of the Bill.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

On behalf of these Benches, I thank the Minister for listening to the cross-House comments made on the pollution incident reduction plans in Committee. The whole House welcomes the fact that the Government are bringing forward these plans. They can be an important contribution to dealing with the sewage crisis which we have seen for too long; water companies have let the public down.

On that point, it was a disgrace in the last week to see that United Utilities—which has been so responsible for all the sewage pollution that has gone into Windermere, as we referred to in Committee—has increased its dividend to shareholders. It is an absolute disgrace, so these measures cannot come soon enough.

We thank the Minister for listening to the very real concerns we had on two fronts: first, that water companies were excluded from the provisions in the way that water and sewerage companies were not. Although they are a smaller number of the 16 and may be proportionally less important, they are still very important. We thank the Minister for that.

On a slightly broader point, we hear what the Government said on not accepting the amendment proposed in Committee, about adding “and implement” into the Bill, which I see that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, has brought back today. We are satisfied with the numerous amendments the Government have brought forward to address the two main points: first, that the plans will have to be annually and publicly reported, so we can see what the companies are doing. As the Minister made very clear, it is not just what they have done; they have to make absolutely clear what they have not done and what they are going to do about it, so that we the public—and indeed the regulators—can hold them to account.

The second point, which the Government have moved on significantly—which we very much welcome—is that the chief executives have become personally liable for the production of both the plans and the reports and have some legally binding responsibility which can translate into sanctions, which we believe are strong enough. We thank the Government for bringing forward these pollution incident reduction plans and for listening so constructively to the comments which were made. This is a major improvement to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this group, and in particular I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for their support for the government amendments. Our amendments will ensure that water companies develop robust and comprehensive pollution incident reduction plans and will also guarantee that they are held accountable for delivering the measures outlined in the plans. Once again, I thank noble Lords for helping the Government to improve the Bill in this respect, and I look forward to working with them as the Bill progresses. I beg to move.

Amendment 12 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

13: Clause 2, page 4, leave out line 29 and insert—
““Pollution incident reduction plans
205A Duty to prepare and publish plans”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s previous amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

16: Clause 2, page 4, line 35, leave out “sewerage”
Member's explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for moving the first amendment in this group. I shall speak to my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s Amendment 55 as well as government Amendments 42 and 48.

Amendment 55 is a powerful, concise amendment, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Gascoigne on his commitment to, and passion for, making the case for nature-based solutions within the water industry. My noble friend’s amendment has two parts— both are important for the future of nature-based solutions in the water sector. The first would require water companies to give due consideration to nature-based solutions for meeting their statutory obligations. The second would prevent the regulator blocking the use of nature-based solutions.

The Minister has two amendments in this group that make significant additions to the Bill around the use of nature-based solutions. Amendment 42 requires undertakers to explain the contribution from nature-based solutions. Amendment 48 is a broad amendment that could also contribute towards nature-based solutions being used for their wider benefit to nature restoration. I am most grateful to the Minister for her constructive engagement on my noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment, and for these government amendments. It is clear from these discussions that the Minister cares deeply about nature recovery.

However, I ask the Minister to clarify the approach taken by Ofwat to the use of nature-based solutions within the water and sewage industry. I am aware that £2 billion of investment is included within the draft determinations. However, we on these Benches wish to be reassured that, where suitable and at no additional cost to consumers, further nature-based investment is possible within this determination and beyond. To echo my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, we would also like reassurance that nature-based solutions will be used not just in drainage and sewerage but throughout the water supply and treatment network, including catchment restoration for flood prevention, drought mitigation and water quality.

I am sympathetic to the intentions of Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This would appear to be captured within our Amendment 55 as a specific case but also potentially within the government amendments. The water companies are perfectly positioned to stimulate nature restoration at scale and without using the public purse. We welcome these government amendments and look forward to the Minister explaining how impactful she believes they will be.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for the discussion on this group, for their amendments and for the thoughtful consideration that we have had since Committee on these issues regarding the environmental duties of water companies and the regulators.

Amendment 26 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and Amendment 55 by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, would require water companies to consider further opportunities to use nature-based solutions. I thank noble Lords for meeting me to discuss these amendments and nature-based solutions more broadly.

One thing the Government are clear about on these amendments is that water companies need to be encouraged to increase their use of nature-based solutions. In line with that, I am very pleased to see that Ofwat has proposed an allowance of over £2 billion for investment in nature-based solutions in the draft determinations at price review 2024. Alongside this, Ofwat has been clear, publicly, that it remains open to companies to identify where additional nature-based solutions can be delivered. We very much support this approach.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, mentioned the catchment approach. Again, that is something we are very supportive of. If we are to make a real difference in our water quality, and our approaches to our waterways, we need a whole-catchment approach.

Ofwat’s £200 million innovation fund aims to grow the water sector’s capacity to innovate. Since 2020, the fund has awarded funding to 93 collaborative projects where water companies work with different sectors to solve the water sector’s biggest challenges. The main- streaming nature-based solutions to deliver greater value project is one example that is working to overcome barriers to the adoption of nature-based solutions.

What I am trying to get across is that the nature-based solutions the Government are supporting are not just about what is in the Bill; it goes much broader than that. That is important, because we need to look at this approach right across the board. I hope that helps to reassure noble Lords and answer some of their questions.

The regulators have, for example, recently approved several new and innovative nature-based solutions. One example is the use of sustainable drainage systems in Mansfield to manage flood risk. That is a £76 million scheme and includes over 20,000 sustainable additions to the built environment in the area, including rain gardens, planters and permeable paving, creating the equivalent of 23 Olympic-size swimming pools of storage and protecting 90,000 people from flood risk. Again, this is about much more than just what is in the Bill. There is further funding proposed for nature-based solutions alongside this—for example, reed beds and wetlands—and the Government are also supporting water companies trialling nature-based solutions for groundwater-induced storm overflows. There is a lot of work going on in this area.

Having said that, we recognise the strong support in this House for the Government to do more to ensure greater use of nature-based solutions across drainage and sewerage systems specifically. I am therefore pleased to table Amendments 42, 61 and 64, which require sewerage undertakers in England and Wales to address how nature-based solutions have, or will, contribute to the resilience and development of their network within their drainage and sewerage management plans. I thank noble Lords who have expressed their support for these amendments today.

Drainage and sewerage management plans are the key planning mechanism for the entirety of the sewerage undertakers’ wastewater network. This new requirement will ensure that water companies consider the use of nature-based solutions at the very start of the investment planning process. In this way, they embed solutions into delivery.

We intend to commence this new requirement very quickly—two months after Royal Assent—and it will apply also in respect of the next round of drainage and sewerage management plans, which will be published ahead of the 2029 water price review. Sewerage undertakers will need to demonstrate that they have addressed the use of nature-based solutions in their draft, and final, drainage and sewage management plans and will be held to account if they fail to do so, because there is no point in bringing forward amendments if they are not going to be delivered as swiftly and as effectively as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, asked whether the review would look at things such as adaptation and further environmental matters around reservoirs. Absolutely: the review has a very broad scope in these areas. I remind the House that in our manifesto we pledged to build new reservoirs, because we know how critical they are.

I hope that noble Lords agree that these government amendments will support the future exploration, development and delivery of nature-based solutions by adding this requirement into existing planning frameworks.

I turn to Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, for introducing it on her behalf. It looks to improve public access to real time and operational water company data. I will explain why the Government do not support the amendment; I had a discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about this. I know that the noble Baroness has questioned this, but we believe the amendment would duplicate existing requirements for transparency from water companies.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

27: Clause 2, page 5, line 31, leave out “sewerage” and insert “relevant”
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a group of amendments extending Clause 2 so that it covers the water supply network as well as the sewerage network.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, first an apology: in my excitement in the last group on the government amendments, I forgot to refer to my register of interests, including as a landowner across a number of river catchments and an investor in several natural capital-related technology companies.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for moving his amendment. I recognise how hard he has worked to improve the Bill, in consultation with the Government. We agree with the spirit of his Amendments 39 and 40 in that we also want more transparency from water companies on pollution incidents. This is an important principle that runs through the Bill, and I hope that the Government will listen to the noble Lord’s argument and seek to strengthen transparency in the water sector where this is appropriate.

I also thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his Amendment 41. While we do not agree with it, we do agree that water companies should take some and more responsibility for the resilience of their power supplies. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can offer in reassurance.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for tabling their Amendments 39, 40 and 41, which speak to the publication of data from monitoring networks and emergency outflow permits. I also thank the noble Lord and the noble Duke for the time they took to meet with me between Committee and Report to discuss these topics and the wider industry that they were concerned about.

Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, was supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We agree that it is essential for companies and the regulators to have a clear understanding of the cause of discharges from emergency overflows. That information is important to ensure that the regulators can assess the compliance of emergency overflows and for companies to invest in the right improvements to prevent discharges from reoccurring.

It is important to note that all discharges from emergency overflows should be reported as pollution incidents. Once the Environment Agency has been notified of a pollution incident, it will request follow-up information as to the cause of the incident and any remedial action being taken.

For some discharges, establishing the cause may be straightforward. However, for more complex or more serious incidents it may take longer to identify the cause. When more serious incidents occur, the Environment Agency may need to complete on-site visits and investigations into the cause of the discharges. Since it will not necessarily be known at the time of the incident occurring how long these investigations will take, it is not practical to set a date by which the cause will be identified.

Furthermore, Clause 2 will also require companies to provide information on the causes of pollution incidents annually, as the noble Lord referred to from our discussions, as part of their pollution incident reduction plans. That is to ensure that water companies are transparent about the causes of pollution incidents and the measures they have taken to reduce the likelihood of further incidents.

Requiring water companies to publish a date by which they would inform the public of the cause of an individual discharge would likely result in water companies either rushing investigations to meet an arbitrary deadline or setting themselves lengthy timelines that they know would be achievable. Following our discussions and what I have said now, I hope that the noble Lord understands why we consider the amendment unnecessary and that he will be content to withdraw it. I am of course always happy to discuss matters with him further.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I am sympathetic to the reasoning given, but will the Minister take on board that this means the citizenry may not know for a year why there was a spillage in their area?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am happy to take that on board and back to the team for further discussion.

I turn to Amendment 40, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank him for proposing it, as the Government agree that it is important that water companies make information about emergency overflow discharges as easy to access as possible.

Clause 3 explicitly states that information on discharges from emergency overflows will need to be both readily accessible and understandable to the public. That duty will be enforceable by Ofwat, which will be able to access the underpinning raw data from emergency overflows to inform its enforcement responsibilities under the Water Industry Act.

Water companies have already begun to publish information on storm overflow discharges in near real time, ahead of the Water Industry Act duty coming into force in January next year. Furthermore, Water UK, in collaboration with water companies, is shortly due to publish a new centralised map of storm overflows—as referred to by the noble Lord from our discussions—which is designed to present real-time discharge data from all storm overflows in England on one website. I am sure that he will be delighted to hear that we are making good progress on this. The Minister for Water received a demonstration of the website only yesterday, and the Government understand that it is due to be published shortly.

A similar approach is intended to be followed for monitoring data for emergency overflows to meet Clause 3 requirements. In addition, if needed, guidance could be issued from the Government or the regulator to the sector to further support the implementation of the emergency overflow publishing duty. Therefore, since the industry is already planning to centralise data on sewage discharges on one website, the Government do not believe that an amendment to mandate publication on a centralised website is necessary.

The noble Lord asked a number of very specific questions. If I have not answered any of them, I am happy to come back to him in writing with more detail.

Amendment 41 is in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I thank him for raising this important issue. The Government are clear that emergency overflows should be used only as an absolute last resort. We are talking about emergency overflows here, not storm overflows. Emergency overflows are different from storm overflows. They operate in response to an emergency event at a sewage pumping station, whereas storm overflows are designed to operate in combined sewer systems during heavy storm events. Discharges from emergency overflows should therefore only occur in much more limited circumstances.

As previously explained, environmental permits for emergency overflows already require companies to put in place strict protection measures to prevent, as far as possible, discharges due to power failure. That can include back-up generators or duplicate power supplies.

The Environment Agency will consider enforcement action if a company operates an emergency overflow and it can be proven that the discharge could have been avoided if the company had complied with the protection measures set out in its permits. Electrical power failure is an acceptable reason to discharge only when it is fully—I repeat, fully—outside the water company’s control and not due to any failure on its part to maintain protection measures.

The unintended impact of the amendment could be that we fail to provide for discharges that are outside a company’s control and that are necessary to protect upstream homes from flooding—for example, if a back-up generator failed or did not last long enough. For these reasons, we do not believe this amendment is necessary and are concerned about the unintended consequences.

Having said that, I appreciate that the noble Duke feels strongly on this point, so I extend an invitation to him that I hope he will take me up on. I offer him to join me on a visit to see some of the overflows in person, to enable him to look at the varied scale and types of infrastructure and protections that are already in place, to help him understand and, I hope, to put his mind at rest. I am sure that the noble Duke has never had an invitation from a noble Baroness to look at a sewage plant before and that this is an exciting first for him.

I once again thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement on the important matters of data transparency across water industry monitoring networks and the permitting of emergency overflows.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

The Minister is right that I am delighted to hear about the centralised provision of information, and I eagerly anticipate her reply to my six questions. I am bitterly disappointed that I have not also been invited to go with her to a sewage farm. What has the noble Duke got that I have not? I do not know and I do not want to know. Anyway, I wish them joy. I thank the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

42: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Nature-based solutionsIn section 94A(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (matters to be addressed in drainage and sewerage management plans), after paragraph (e) insert—“(ea) the use that is to be made of nature-based solutions, technologies and facilities within the undertaker’s drainage system and sewerage system,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a sewerage undertaker’s drainage and sewerage management plan to explain the intended contribution of nature-based solutions, technologies and facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for introducing this group. I also take the opportunity to thank him for his tireless commitment to clearing up the water industry. I have no doubt that the fact that we are considering this Bill in this Chamber at this time owes much to his hard work.

In government, we made progress on work to ensure that fines charged to water companies would be reinvested into the infrastructure of the water sector to reduce pollution and tackle flood risks. Given the very clear concern of the public about the health of our rivers, lakes and beaches and the impact of pollution, it seems only right that the proceeds of fines levied on water companies should be invested in tackling pollution, so we support the spirit of Amendments 46 and 47 in principle.

While there is clearly disagreement on how best to achieve the goal of reinvesting the funds raised through fines on water companies, we hope the Minister will listen to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and ensure that proceeds from water company fines are reinvested in the sector.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their suggested amendments and the points raised in relation to penalties and the water restoration fund.

First, I will talk to Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. While I acknowledge the intention behind this amendment, which seeks to strengthen Ofwat’s enforcement powers, we do not believe that automatic penalties are appropriate for the obligations which Ofwat is responsible for enforcing. Ofwat’s role as the economic regulator is distinct from the role of environmental regulators and from the permitting regime for environmental activities. Offences that may be subject to automatic penalties and outlined on the face of the Bill, such as pollution control, abstraction, impounding and drought, fall within the remit of the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales. Extending the enforcement of these areas to Ofwat would therefore duplicate the responsibilities of the regulators and create more complexity in the current system.

Furthermore, Ofwat’s investigation and enforcement activities relate largely to breaches of core licence conditions, which are highly complex matters that are not fixed to singular assets or permits but rather systemic failings right across the company’s operations. Investigations often require significant and detailed evidence to be gathered, potentially from a number of sites, to establish whether a breach has occurred. This can take months to conclude and does not lend itself to an automatic penalty.

Ofwat has existing appropriate powers to impose financial penalties. For example, the Water Industry Act 1991 enables Ofwat to take enforcement action, including imposing financial penalties on companies if they are in breach of their statutory duties or licence conditions.

Finally, I remind the House that the independent commission will consider the roles and responsibilities of the water industry regulators and how we can ensure our regulators operate as effectively as possible. This is something that may be discussed in some depth by the commission. The Government will therefore not accept this amendment, but I hope the noble Duke feels reassured on the points about automatic penalties.

I will take Amendments 46 and 47, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, together. I very much appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but we do not believe it is necessary to define a mechanism for spending the money received through fines in law. A water restoration fund was launched in April this year, and this arrangement does not require legislation. As we have heard, the water restoration fund serves as a mechanism to direct water company fines and penalties into water environment improvement projects. We feel that defining a water restoration fund in law would instil inflexibilities regarding the scope of the fines available to include within the fund and how the money gathered from fines could be spent. We believe that retaining flexibility is important to ensure funding programmes deliver value for money.

As for the devolved elements of the noble Duke’s amendment, water is a devolved policy area, so it is for the Welsh Government to determine the extent to which a water restoration fund should apply in Wales.

What has come across in the debate, and what came across strongly in Committee, is the recognition that investment in the water industry will be absolutely critical to improving the existing poor standards. The Government are continuing to work with His Majesty’s Treasury on the continued reinvestment of water company fines and penalties in water environment improvement. We are working with the Treasury on this specific issue because we recognise its importance. As this is ongoing work and discussion, we will not be able to accept the amendments today. I thank noble Lords for the debate, and hope that they have been reassured by my comments.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. The point of Amendment 45 was only that I was advised by the Public Bill Office that I had to table it to make Amendment 47 make sense—parliamentary drafting not being one of my specialities. However, the underlying point, which I share completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is that we want to see all the fines levied on the water industry reinvested in ensuring improvements to the clean water environment. That is what we are all trying to do. I suspect that the Minister would support that, in theory, and I wish her well with her discussions with His Majesty’s Treasury. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

48: Before Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement for Ofwat to have regard to climate change etcIn section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991—(a) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) In exercising or performing any such power or duty in accordance with those provisions, the Authority must also have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving compliance by the Secretary of State with the relevant environmental target duties, where the Authority considers that exercise or performance to be relevant to the making of such a contribution.(4B) The “relevant environmental target duties” means—(a) the duty in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(b) so far as the exercise or performance concerned relates to appointment areas wholly or mainly in England, the duty in section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (other environmental targets);and for that purpose an “appointment area” is an area for which an appointment is held under Chapter 1 of Part 2.”;(b) in each of subsections (6A), (6B) and (7), for “(4)” substitute “(4A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to the achievement of Secretary of State’s targets on climate change and other environmental matters where relevant to its functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 51 and 52, which seek to leave out Clauses 10 and 11 from this Bill. These would also have the effect of rendering unnecessary Amendment 50 of my noble friend Lord Remnant.

Our concern on these Benches is that the consumers are left as the providers of funding of last resort to the water industry. In the event of a company going into special administration and there being losses incurred by the Government, these clauses allow the Secretary of State to recover those losses by putting consumer bills up above the levels that have been determined by Ofwat—not just customers of that undertaker but also of others.

This does not seem fair or just. Surely the ultimate responsibility resides with the Government who created the system of regulation that must have failed in this scenario. I intend to test the opinion of the House on my amendment; we do not believe that the Government should grant themselves this power.

I would also like to briefly address Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We on these Benches agree with her that a bailout of creditors or shareholders by the Government would be completely wrong. It is not for the Government to make professional or retail investors whole when their investments have gone wrong. However, we are unconvinced that this amendment needs to be in the Bill, given that there does not appear to be any mechanism where the Government could be called on to bail out investors. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House that this is the case.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for the constructive discussion on the important topic of ownership and management structures of water companies. I turn first to Amendment 50, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I understand his concern about the aspect of the clause that allows for socialisation of shortfall recovery. We had some discussion around that, as he mentioned. However, I reassure him again that this element is necessary for the shortfall recovery power to function effectively and safeguard the interests of taxpayers and water customers.

We do not expect to have to use this power—the noble Lord mentioned that we had talked about this—and I stress that it would be utilised only if it were not possible to recover all the funding provided by Government over the course of a special administration; that is, in the event of a shortfall. It is only at that point that Ministers would decide whether to exercise the shortfall recovery power. Water sector stakeholders, including the Consumer Council for Water, would be consulted about any decision to exercise the power. It is therefore not entered into lightly.

All water customers benefit from the use of a special administration regime, as it ensures that services continue in the event that a water company fails. This power already exists within special administration regime frameworks for other essential service sectors, such as energy, where there is a well-established principle of socialising these costs across the sector.

The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, asked specifically about why we think the powers are needed, so I will provide an example. There may be an occasion where government funding, provided during a special administration regime, contributes towards water sector infrastructure—such as a reservoir—that goes on to benefit several different water companies. In other cases, a particularly small water company, with a limited number of customers, may enter special administration. In this scenario, it is vital that a decision can be made about recovering a shortfall from more than one company, to ensure fair allocation of costs and to prevent customers of a single, small company facing unmanageably huge bill increases.

In all scenarios, a failure to deal with a shortfall fairly, or to prevent impacts unduly falling on a single company, risks increasing the cost of capital for the whole sector. This is because investors will price in the risks of excessive shortfall costs falling on a single company. The ability to recover a shortfall from multiple companies is therefore necessary both to ensure that it is possible to recover government funding in the event of a shortfall and to safeguard the sector from any wider cost impacts. I reiterate that we see it as very unlikely that this will ever happen. For this reason, the Government will not accept the amendment.

I turn next to Amendment 53 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. While I thank her for her engagement on this clause, the Government must reject this amendment because it would jeopardise the main purpose of the water special administration regime, which is to ensure the continuation of water and sewerage functions in the event of a water company insolvency or failure.

The role of the special administrator, once appointed, does not include a power to cancel debt, so does not serve to bail out water company creditors or shareholders. When a water company exits from special administration, via either a rescue or a transfer, the special administrator determines the level of repayment to creditors in accordance with the statutory order of priority. The level of repayment that creditors and shareholders may expect will be in accordance with the order of repayment clearly set out in statute. Any power to cancel debts outside of a restructuring plan agreed as part of a special administration, or a scheme where there is built-in court supervision, would be a material departure from long-established insolvency principles of fairness and treating creditors equally according to their rights. I hope that the noble Baroness understands why the Government must therefore reject this amendment.

I will turn next to Amendment 54, also tabled by the noble Baroness, and Amendment 56 tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka. He mentioned dividends. I assure him that Ofwat is able to stop the payment of dividends if they would risk the company’s financial resilience, and can take enforcement action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. I just wanted to make that point clear.

Amendments 54 and 56 are already covered by the existing legal framework for insolvency and special administration regimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, specifically asked why a SAR can be used in only financial circumstances. However, that is not the case. A water company can already be placed in special administration on performance grounds where it is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties, or an enforcement order, that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence. Both the amendments would limit the powers of the Secretary of State and Ofwat by forcing their hand to take specific action, thereby limiting their ability to respond appropriately to individual situations. As part of an application to the court for a special administration on performance grounds, the Secretary of State and Ofwat must consider all aspects of a company’s performance and enforcement record, including its record of criminal convictions. Under the current framework, a company must take actions to address performance issues, including those involved with poor performance. Any failure to do so would form part of any assessment by the Secretary of State, or Ofwat, of the appropriateness of that special administration in the first place. Special administration must be a last resort, and proportional and appropriate to the circumstances. An automatic threshold for special administration, such as outlined in these amendments, would limit the ability of the Government or regulators to act. It would also likely undermine the confidence of actual and potential investors, and bring instability to the wider sector.

The Government are already taking action to strengthen the regulatory system through the recently launched independent commission into the water sector and its regulation. The regulators’ roles and responsibilities, including on enforcement, will be reviewed as part of this. We expect that recommendations from this review will form the basis of future legislation. The rigid approach in these amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from exercising their powers to respond to the details of individual cases. For this reason, the Government will not accept these amendments. However, I hope that noble Lords are reassured by my explanation.

Regarding Amendment 59 tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, I have already spoken at length about the costs of nationalising the water sector. It would require a fair price to be paid to shareholders and debt holders. This would come to over £90 billion. I know that noble Lords have disputed this figure, but it is based on Ofwat’s regulatory capital value figures for 2024. I have also spoken about the benefits—or lack thereof—of nationalisation.

Research commissioned by the Consumer Council for Water, an independent organisation that represents customer interests, found that a substantial change to the industry and company ownership would not address the main problems experienced. We also see a variety of ownership models in the UK and internationally, with clear mixed performance. For these reasons, the Government have been clear that nationalisation is not on the table.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, said, it is okay for the railways but not for water. If it were within the remit, at least we could get some accurate figures. At the moment we do not have accurate figures. Also, a recent poll said that 82% of the general public would like water out of private hands and in public ownership again. That means that this Government are going against the grain.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I appreciate what the noble Baroness is saying, but the Government are clear: nationalisation is not going to be within the scope and we are not going to change our position on that. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, tabled Amendments 51 and 52. The special administration regime is not new to the water sector and, as I have mentioned, it is normal practice in the provision of public services. SARs exist for a variety of other sectors, including energy, transport and financial services. Although Governments have had the power to place water companies into special administration for over three decades, it is important that we regularly update legislation to reflect the modernisation of law and experiences across other sectors. There is a high bar for the imposition of a special administration regime and we want to make it clear that the Government and Ofwat will always act to protect consumers as a priority.

However, if a SAR occurs, government funding would be required to cover the costs of a special administration, including both operational and capital expenditure—for example, for ensuring that statutory environmental obligations were met as well as paying the cost of the special administrator. I reiterate that we expect most of these costs to be recouped either through the proceeds of a sale or through the repayments agreed as part of a rescue at the end of a SAR. If there are insufficient funds to cover repaying government, there is a risk of a funding shortfall. The Defra Secretary of State does not currently have the power to require this shortfall to be repaid. This is unlike in other sectors, such as energy, where the relevant Secretary of State has flexible powers to recover a shortfall in funding.

The introduction of the mechanism is required to ensure that the costs of any water industry SAR could be recovered appropriately, in line with special administration regimes in other regulated sectors. Without this power there is a risk that, in the event of a shortfall, taxpayers’ money would be lost. The Government are clear that any intervention that would increase customer bills would always be considered very seriously and used only as a last resort. I hope noble Lords agree that this power is therefore essential to protect taxpayers’ money in the event of a SAR and I move that these clauses stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

60: Clause 13, page 19, line 18, at end insert “, so far as relating to undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England;”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments extending Clause 2 to Wales.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 23 October be approved.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the second instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 November.

Motions agreed.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

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

My Lords, this instrument adds three substances, UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor, to the assimilated persistent organic pollutants—or POPs—regulation in response to the adoption of these three substances as POPs under the United Nations Stockholm convention. The UK is a party to the convention and is therefore obligated to reflect in UK law the listing of POPs under the convention.

In addition, this instrument makes a number of other technical changes to the annexes of the POPs regulation. These include changes to waste concentration limits, specific exemptions and unintentional trace contaminant levels—or UTCs—for some POPs. The amendments, in brief, update and clarify the way that some articles, substances or mixtures containing some POPs can be used, manufactured, placed on the market or disposed of.

This legislative change is permitted by use of the powers available within Articles 7, 15 and 18 of the assimilated EU regulation on POPs. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument.

POPs are substances recognised as being particularly dangerous to the health of humans, wildlife and the environment. This instrument preserves and adds to the current regime for managing, restricting or eliminating POPs in the UK. Some of the regulations in this amending instrument are needed to implement the UK’s commitments under the United Nations Stockholm convention on POPs. The majority of amendments are informed by updates to the Stockholm convention and, in some cases, following updates made to the Basel Convention guidance on the management of POPs waste, and following consultation.

Let me turn now to the detail of the instrument. At the 11th meeting of the conference of the parties held last year, a decision was adopted to add three new substances called UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances for global elimination under the convention. This decision was communicated to parties by the UN depository in February 2024. This instrument adds these new POPs to the list of substances that are prohibited by law from being manufactured, placed on the market and used in GB.

Secondly, the instrument provides some exemptions from the prohibitions by allowing the unintentional presence of these three substances at trace levels. These limits define the concentrations at which UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor can lawfully be found in a substance, article or mixture where they are unintentionally present and found in minimal amounts. Dechlorane plus and UV-328 will also be listed alongside time-limited exemptions for their continued use in specific circumstances. These exemptions are available following agreement by the conference of the parties to the Stockholm convention.

This instrument will make a number of further changes to Annexe 1 of the POPs regulation, including the addition of a UTC level for two POPs that are already prohibited in GB. It will also make amendments to the UTC limits and specific exemptions listed for the substance PFOA, including a provision to phase out or remove exemptions which are no longer required, and tighten the requirements regarding a specific exemption for use of PFOA in PTFE micropowders.

Annexes 4 and 5 of the POPs regulation relate to the treatment of waste containing POPs. This instrument will add or update waste concentration limits for several POPs. In practice, these limits specify the concentration at which waste containing POPs must be diverted from landfill to high-temperature incineration or other appropriate disposal to ensure that the POPs content is appropriately destroyed. Importantly, this includes the introduction of a limit specifically targeted at firefighting foam mixtures containing PFOA, a substance in the PFAS group of chemicals, to ensure environmentally sound disposal of any remaining stockpiles of these foams.

This instrument will update the maximum concentration limits for a number of POPs and add decaBDE, a brominated flame retardant, to the list of PPDEs in annexe 5 of the POPs regulation. Maximum concentration limits set the threshold at which waste handlers can apply to permanently store certain wastes in designated landfill for hazardous waste or salt mines, where it can be demonstrated that destruction is not the environmentally preferred option. The instrument will also add two new European Waste Catalogue codes to the provision: one for fly ash from peat and untreated wood, and one for soil and stones.

Policy development informing this instrument was subject to a public consultation in 2023. In the public consultation, we also stated our intention to prohibit the three new substances once they were adopted for listing under the convention, to implement our international obligations. There have been various opportunities at both domestic and convention level for UK stakeholders to submit information regarding the potential prohibition of UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor, and their potential adoption for global elimination under the Stockholm convention.

A de minimis impact assessment was carried out. This concluded that there is no indication that the amendments in the instrument are expected to have an impact on businesses, beyond one-off familiarisation costs, and that this instrument is not expected to disproportionately burden small businesses.

The Environment Agency is the delivery body for the POPs regulation for England, and Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are the delivery bodies for Wales and Scotland respectively. They have been involved in the development of this instrument and have no concerns in relation to implementation or resources.

The territorial extent and application of this instrument is Great Britain. Under the Windsor Framework, the EU POPs regulation applies in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland were engaged in the development of the instrument and have consented to it being made on a GB-wide basis.

In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in this instrument are needed, in part, to implement requirements of the Stockholm convention by adding new POPs UV-328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor to the list of substances that are prohibited in GB by law. Other amendments included in this instrument ensure that the POPs regulation is adapted to scientific and technical progress in our understanding and treatment of POPs. The draft regulations will allow the UK to implement the Stockholm convention requirements to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs.

I hope noble Lords will support these measures and their objectives, and I commend the draft regulations to the House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction. I understand why the changes to these regulations have been brought forward, in order to take account of changes to scientific and technical progress, and to stay in line with amendments to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The UK is a party to this critical convention, and it is important that we ensure that the country and the public as a whole are protected from toxic substances.

The four qualifications for substances being classed as a POP are that they are persistent, toxic, bioaccumulative and subject to long-range environmental transport. This SI makes amendments to the lists of substances in annexe A of the convention. The SI lists these substances as UV 328, dechlorane plus and methoxychlor. The instrument also lists unintentional trace contaminant UTC limits for those substances, and adds two new POPs to this category which are already prohibited under the ordinary POPs regulations: hexachlorobenzene and pentachlorophenol. There are other substances named which are covered by the SI, but I readily admit that, not being a chemist or a scientist, some of the detail is outside my experience.

Paragraph 5.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to certain POP waste being permanently stored in designated hazardous waste landfill or salt mines when destruction is not the environmentally preferred option, as the Minister referred to. I assume that the salt mines referred to will be depleted and never brought back into use. Can she provide reassurance on this matter?

The SI also expands the scope for three offences under the POP regulations of 2007, but neither the Explanatory Memorandum nor the SI says what the penalties for the offences are. Can the Minister provide clarification on this?

An eight-week public consultation took place from 3 March to 23 April 2023. There were 58 responses. Of those, 14—24%—were from industry associations, 16% were from large businesses of 250 or more employees, 16% were from local authorities, 9% from charities, 5% from small and micro-businesses of less than 50 employees, 3% from medium businesses of 50 to 249 employees, 2% from NGOs, 2% from a government body and 2% from a consultancy. There was also 9% from “other”. I wonder who the “other” were, as the website did not say. This is a very wide range of responses on quite a specialist area. The consultation response and the Government’s responses are very detailed and are on the website. I am therefore satisfied that those who will have to implement these regulations know what is likely to happen.

The regulations come into force 21 days after the day on which they are made, which I imagine will be one day next week. Can the Minister confirm this? This is a very specialist subject, but it is important that toxic substances receive adequate regulation. I believe the SI does this and I am happy to support it.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee and for opening this debate. We wholeheartedly support the Government in their work to build on our strong track record of tackling pollution and effectively managing substances that are persistent pollutants.

These regulations amend EU regulation 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and Council on persistent organic pollutants to alter the rules for the management of certain substances under the persistent pollutant regime. It is important that the Government have the right rules in place for the management of substances that can pollute our environment over many years because they break down slowly. We welcome these regulations.

What assessment have the Government made of our pollutant regulation regime since they took office? Can the Minister confirm whether they have identified any areas of pollution where Ministers intend to change our existing regime or whether they feel that it is currently satisfactory? Can she give some idea of current trace levels of these persistent pollutants and how they compare with the limits in this instrument? Further to that, can she reassure this Committee that these new limits will ensure that none of these pollutants can be intentionally introduced in manufacturing, except for the specified products?

The Minister set out exemptions for the use of these chemicals. Can she explain why these exemptions are necessary given the awful long-term consequences of allowing any production of these chemicals and compounds? Finally, what steps are the Government taking to monitor the levels of “forever chemicals” in our environment to ensure that these levels are within a safe range?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their support for this SI. It is very much appreciated. This was a small but perfectly formed debate on something complex but nevertheless important, because these draft regulations ensure that existing legal provisions for the prohibition and restriction of the manufacture, placing on the market and use of POPs will be extended to the new substances, and they also amend the annexes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

Has the Minister any more information on trace limits as a result of historic manufacturing of these persistent pollutants, compared to the limits in the instruments? That would be interesting and I completely understand if that might need a letter rather than an answer now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an extremely important point, and it is probably part of the research currently being carried out in this sphere. I will check and we will get back to anyone with any outstanding questions.

Motion agreed.

Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, it is estimated that more than 360 million single-use vapes were placed on the UK market in 2023. These devices are designed to be used a small number of times and are often referred to as disposable. Once used, which may be after a matter of hours, they are commonly thrown away. Research by Material Focus estimates that 5 million single-use vapes are thrown away every week. That is equivalent to eight per second.

They are often littered. They blight our parks, playgrounds and streets, and they introduce plastics, nicotine salts, heavy metals and lithium-ion batteries into the environment, harming biodiversity, soils, and our rivers and streams. Alternatively, they are thrown into black bins where, at best, they end up in landfill or are incinerated—at worst, they cause fires when they are crushed in bin lorries.

Last year, it was estimated that 700 waste fires were caused by batteries hidden in electricals such as vapes. This generates pollution, damages waste infrastructure and risks the safety of waste management workers, firefighters and the public. To give a personal example, a friend of ours has a medium-sized haulage business, and he lost virtually all his lorries last year through a fire caused by single-use vapes, which pretty much destroyed his business. So they can do enormous damage, and it is important that we tackle this problem.

Research by Action on Smoking and Health shows that the rise in single-use vapes has happened concurrently with an increase in young people vaping. Although vapes can play an important role in smoking cessation, adults who do not smoke and children should never vape. We must do what we can to prevent children from being targeted. Without action, it is estimated that, by 2030, the number of single-use vapes placed on the UK market could rise to over 1 billion per year. We must therefore take steps to stop the misuse of resources and protect our environment.

My department is leading a drive towards a circular economy to minimise waste, prioritise circular product design and retain the value of resources for as long as possible. It is estimated that, last year, 40 tonnes of lithium from single-use vapes were thrown away. This is enough lithium to power 5,000 electric vehicles. Single-use items such as these play no role in a circular economy, so we must act now to ban the supply of single-use vapes in England.

Before I turn to details of the legislation, I acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Its report highlighted several points of interest, particularly the links to youth vaping, which I referred to earlier, and whether we will monitor market developments following the implementation of the ban. We work closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to understand the types of products notified for use, and we will continue to look at this in future.

The committee highlighted correspondence received from Green Alliance, which strongly supports the ban but questioned the timeline for implementation and enforcement. We want to introduce the ban as soon as possible, but we must allow a minimal but reasonable transition to allow businesses time to run down stocks and adapt activities. That is why the ban will come into force on 1 June next year. Effective enforcement is critical, and we will work closely with enforcement agencies to understand how we can best support them.

I turn to the details of the legislation. This ban is introduced through powers in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Part 1 of the legislation sets out the meaning of a “single-use vape”, which is

“a vape which is not designed or intended to be re-used”

and which includes any vape that is not rechargeable or refillable.

The ban applies to England only, but my officials have worked closely with the devolved Governments, who are bringing in equivalent legislation. We are grateful to our colleagues in the devolved Governments for their collaboration to ensure that, from 1 June next year, there will be a UK-wide ban.

Parts 2 and 3 of the legislation introduce offences and enforcement provisions. Enforcement of the ban in England will be carried out through local trading standards officers, and the powers in the legislation have been developed in partnership with them. The regulations provide new civil and criminal sanctions and provide powers to test or seize illicit products and issue fines as well as stop or compliance notices. Where a compliance or stop notice is not complied with, a further fine or jail sentence may follow.

Lastly, Part 4 of the legislation covers requirements for guidance, as well as setting out review clauses.

Vapes can play a role in helping adults to quit smoking, but there is no reason for these products to be single use. Given the harm caused, we must take this simple but important step to ban these products.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has set out the rationale for the introduction of this SI very clearly.

Single-use vapes are extremely popular among young people. Encouraging young people not to start smoking has to be a key aim of any Government. It is something of a rite of passage to gather with your friends for a chat and a smoke or a vape. Preventing experimentation with cigarettes is the first priority. Then, it is about encouraging young people away from vapes—especially single-use ones—when they may have switched to vaping.

I am grateful to Green Alliance for the briefing that it provided on this subject, and to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Since 2023, 7.7 million single-use vapes have been bought every week—twice the number in 2022. Vapes are easily discarded, causing plastic-containing litter. They also contain other hazardous substances such as nicotine, which has previously been used as a pesticide. The batteries in vapes are a potential fire risk; the Minister gave a good example of that.

Although the lithium contained in the vapes discarded in 2023 would have made 5,000 electric vehicle batteries—the Minister referred to this—recycling them is problematic. Young people and others are not going to take their used vapes to a recycling point. The vapes are going to be discarded where they are, sometimes in a litter bin but often just thrown on the ground. A ban on single-use vapes will ensure that the lithium is put to a better use.

The Government’s recent Budget introduced a vaping products duty, which will be introduced in October 2026 —that is two years away—and is to be £2.20 per 10 millilitres of vaping liquid. This will increase the cost of vapes and will, I hope, discourage their use. Cheap, reusable vapes are as easily discarded as single-use ones, so increasing the cost of reusables must be part of the strategy in moving people away from vaping. The ban on single-use vapes will come into force in June 2025, as the Minister said, which gives enough time for retailers to reduce their stocks and for users to become accustomed to buying reusable vapes.

I fully support this SI but I have a couple of small queries. Paragraph 9.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum talks about the

“impact on the public sector as local authorities are regulators and therefore responsible for enforcement”.

The last sentence of the paragraph reads:

“Funding will be provided to support enforcement”.


That is an encouraging statement. Although it does not say what the funding will be, having a statement that it will be provided in the Explanatory Memorandum is to be welcomed.

I turn now to the SI itself. Regulation 14 states that, at the end of a three-year period, the Secretary of State must conduct a “review of the operation” of the Schedule. As with any change in legislation, a review of how the change has had an impact on those affected by the SI is key to ensuring that changes keep pace with public behaviour.

Paragraph 1(1)(a) in Part 1 of the Schedule indicates that a fixed monetary penalty of £200 will be paid to the regulator for a breach of the regulations. Later on, paragraph 16 in Part 2 of the Schedule, which is headed “Offence”, states:

“Where a person on whom a stop notice is served does not comply with it, the person is guilty of an offence and liable—


(a) on summary conviction, to a fine, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, or both; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or a fine, or both”.

Imprisonment for 12 months or two years is quite a jump from a £200 fine. It is likely that I have not understood how what seems like an on-the-spot fine of £200 can escalate to imprisonment; I would be grateful if the Minister could help me with this.

Green Alliance has asked three questions. First, given the exponential growth of single-use vapes, can the Government expedite the ban to before 25 June? Also, how do they plan to limit further growth in the use of vapes between now and then?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this instrument. I declare my interest as a user of multiuse vapes for well over 10 years and that I have not smoked for well over 10 years. It is right that the Government are building on our work to deliver regulatory measures that not only restrict the sale of single-use vapes but put in place systems for proper disposal and recycling.

In government, we allocated £3 million of additional funding for trading standards to support the seizure of illegal vapes. This funding was aimed at tackling the importation and sale of non-compliant products. I urge the Government to honour this commitment and ensure that this funding is not only maintained but effectively used to support enforcement operations. Can the Minister give that undertaking today?

This April, my Government created a specialised illicit vaping enforcement team, Operation Joseph. Will the Minister update the Committee on the progress made by that team? I would hope that making the sale of all single-use vapes illegal will make these unregulated vapes easier to identify and control. However, there is a risk that it will drive previously legal users to supply channels that breach the law. What additional steps will the Government take to control this potential black market?

As we regulate single-use vapes, we must also address the growing issue of battery waste. The batteries in these devices, whether single-use or rechargeable, present an environmental hazard if not disposed of properly. Without proper recycling systems in place, these batteries can contaminate the environment with toxic chemicals as well as presenting the dangers the Minister highlighted with her friend’s haulage operation. Many consumers are unaware of the environmental dangers posed by batteries disposed of improperly. Public awareness campaigns are crucial to educate the public about how to dispose of batteries safely and where they can drop them off for recycling. What measures are the Government taking to improve the level of recycling of batteries, particularly those from electric vehicles, whether they be cycles, scooters or cars?

Finaly, I emphasise that our regulatory efforts must not undermine smoking cessation efforts. Vaping has been shown to be a crucial tool for helping people reduce or quit smoking. It is essential that any regulation focuses on eliminating the environmental harm caused by single-use vapes while ensuring that safer alternatives remain available to those who rely on them to quit smoking. I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement of the relative merits of multiuse vapes as regards smoking in her introductory remarks.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I shall go through some of the questions, and I thank noble Lords for their support for this ban.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the date of 1 June for implementation. We need to act swiftly but we have to be practical, as she said, about how we bring this in and allow businesses sufficient time to run down their stocks and adapt what they are doing. That is why we think that six months is a reasonable transition period. It is also a standard transition period in line with international obligations. But we are not just going to do this and leave it for six months. We will use the lead-in time to put in place guidance for businesses, to ensure that there is support for local authority trading standards officers and to communicate details of the ban among stakeholder networks and the public. The idea is to use that time effectively to ensure that, when the ban comes in, it is adhered to and is as effective as possible.

The noble Baroness also asked about funding for enforcement. While I cannot give a specific figure for funding, enforcement will clearly be critical. There is no point having legislation if you do not have anything to enforce it with. We need to consider enforcement for single-use vapes alongside other types of illicit vape, because there is a black market in other kinds of vape as well. We will look at how we can work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and other relevant enforcement bodies to understand the best way to make sure that the ban is enforced. That is work we will be doing between now and 1 June.

On enforcement, the noble Lord and, in particular, the noble Baroness asked about the £200 fine up to a prison sentence. It is important to say that imprisonment would apply only in cases of persistent non-compliance. It would be the very top end, if someone is continually refusing to comply after they have broken the law on a number of occasions.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about the black market. We are discussing with local authority trading standards how we can best support them on black market issues, particularly around underage and illicit tobacco and vapes. There will also be a focus on intelligence sharing between enforcement agencies such as Border Force, HMRC and trading standards to ensure that agencies understand what they need to do to stop this activity and that they work together and share information.

The noble Lord asked about improving the recycling of batteries. At the moment, we are considering proposals to reform batteries regulations. We want to set out some new steps on how we go forward with this, so we will keep noble Lords informed.

On success in tackling illicit vapes, which the noble Lord asked about, in April 2023 the previous Government announced £3 million of investment over two years to enhance work on illicit vapes enforcement, which was led by National Trading Standards. I am sure he is very aware of that. The current actions and activities include intelligence sharing on illegal products and sales, market surveillance and ports enforcement, because we need to be able to catch them when they come in. There is also Operation Joseph. When we know more detail, we will be happy to share that information with noble Lords.

I think I have probably covered everything. If I have missed anything out, I will get back to noble Lords. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Biodiversity Net Gain

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the implementation of the biodiversity net gain provisions.

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

My Lords, it is almost nine months since biodiversity net gain became mandatory for most developments. We are pleased to see stakeholders embracing this opportunity to deliver much-needed development while improving the environment at the same time. Officials are monitoring implementation closely and engaging with sectors, including developers and local authorities. We have updated guidance to provide clarification on areas of concern and will continue to refine the policy to ensure that it achieves intended outcomes.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She may know that analysis has shown that only 7% of planning applications are identifying a need for biodiversity net gain, which is massively lower than all of us, including the Government, expected. I am very pleased to hear that officials are monitoring the situation, but will they be reviewing the exceptions, some of which are proving to be rather large loopholes, to ensure that biodiversity net gain builds nature’s recovery and the sustainable homes that we need?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is referring, I assume, to the exemptions in place for applications that have no or a very limited impact on biodiversity. That was brought in to ensure proportionality and to keep the planning system moving. However, Defra is working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to review planning statistics and specific applications.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I am currently involved in negotiating with a developer on biodiversity net gain. This involves boxes of huge and very expensive files, which have to be redone every time Defra changes the metric and locks the land into a commitment of 30-plus years. The developers tell me that their traditional landscaping required under planning often exceeded what is required under biodiversity net gain. Can the Minister give us any data on what real net gain is being achieved?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, this is still fairly new for planning applications. It came in only eight months ago, so we are considering how we move forward. I do not have data on that to hand, and I am not sure we would have it available at present, as it has been only about eight months, but I will check and get back to the noble Lord.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, the last Government improved biodiversity monitoring, setting targets to prevent species loss and create half a million hectares of habitat by 2042. Given the important role nature-based solutions play in improving biodiversity, can the Minister confirm that the Government will encourage the use of such solutions to tackle pollution from our water sector?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes an extremely important point. Of course, it is very important that we use nature-based solutions to tackle all kinds of pollution, not only water-based ones. We are very keen to see such solutions implemented.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the Government inherited in their departmental diary a provisional date of November 2025 by which to include biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects. Will the Minister confirm that they will go ahead with that on that date? I encourage them to do so.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm that we are planning to consult very shortly on applying biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—without any broad exceptions.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, in all the planning applications in the biodiversity net gain provisions, are the Government paying attention to the importance of corridors that allow nature to travel between different building sites? Otherwise, it gets too isolated and dies off.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right—corridors for wildlife are incredibly important. Many developments have to give due regard to removing hedgerows, for example, in order that they do not stop routes for wildlife such as dormice. It is extremely important and, on all developments, Defra is working with MHCLG to ensure that the environment is taken into full consideration.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The Minister has spoken about biodiversity and infrastructure projects. How about marine biodiversity? Can the Minister set out the Government’s position on enhancing the regaining of marine biodiversity?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that restoring marine biodiversity is very complicated. In many ways, it is more complex than restoring biodiversity on land; it is a very challenging subject. Clearly, we need to look at the marine conservation zones to see what they can do, and to work internationally on this because it is a broad international area. The Government are reviewing this at the moment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, last harvest, the UK’s wheat production fell by 30%—from 14 million to 10 million tonnes. One of the reasons was that so much land had been taken out of production for environmental schemes. We have heard that land for BNG must be locked away for 30 years. What assessment has been made of the long-term impact on our food security of locking land away for a generation, making it unavailable for food production?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord looks in detail at our land use frame- work when we put it out for consultation shortly. That is one of the things we want to look at, and it is why we are doing the framework: we need to balance our need to produce food against environmental considerations—where we plant our trees, build our houses, and so forth. I look forward to a good debate on that subject.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister going to ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are looking at bottom trawling at a site-specific level because there are different challenges in different areas. As I said, marine conservation is complex and has to take many things into account. There is quite a lot going on in this area and, if the noble Baroness wants to know the details, I am happy to send them to her or to meet to discuss this further.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, in the light of the implementation of the biodiversity net gain provision, and given the need to ensure that assessments are done by competent people and that landowners are paid a fair price for their credits, so that they can deliver on their commitments, how are His Majesty’s Government ensuring that the LPAs are equipped to handle the additional burden on their planning officers, and will additional planning officers need to be recruited?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Yes, the Government have committed over £35 million in ring-fenced funding to local planning authorities to help them prepare for and implement biodiversity net gain. We have confirmed funding up to the end of next year and further funding will be in the next review.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

As we have some time left, may I ask the Minister to look into why farmers in the higher-level environmental protection scheme—the HLS—are being excluded from joining the SFI scheme, both of which she will be familiar with? I have been asking Defra for months why Ministers are not being advised of this discriminatory approach and I have yet to receive an answer.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am happy to go back to the department on this. We are going to open up the high-level applications next year, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, and we are also looking at what we do with the legacy payments. I am happy to discuss this issue with him further, because we are making quite a lot of decisions on how we move forward.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, is not the answer to the question from the noble Lord on the Conservative Benches that if we do not have biodiversity and nature recovery, we will not have an agriculture industry in 30 years’ time?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is really important that we get the right balance between food production and environmental considerations. It is an important thing for any Government to take forward, and we are taking it very seriously. That is partly why we are doing the land use framework—to ensure that we deliver properly on both areas.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 May and 12 September be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 5 November.

Motions agreed.

Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.

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

My Lords, this instrument amends the Ivory Act 2018 to extend the prohibition on dealing in ivory from an elephant to include ivory from the following four magnificent species: common hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal and sperm whale. Walrus was included in the original consultation. However, the SI does not include walrus as it will continue to be protected under existing regulations on trade in seal products.

The UK is committed to protecting these species, whose conservation status may be threatened by the trade in their ivory. All four species are listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which regulates their trade internationally. Hippopotamus and sperm whale are listed as vulnerable on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature red list.

The objective of this instrument is to help conserve populations of the four additional species. The Act will prohibit commercial activities concerning trade in their ivories in the UK. This will prevent transactions involving items made of ivory from these species contributing to markets, which then create a demand for ivory, driving poaching and the illegal trade.

Extending the ban to these species will also make compliance and enforcement of the Act simpler and more effective, and will reduce opportunities for laundering ivory. It sends a strong signal that ivory should not be seen as a commodity for financial gain or as a status symbol.

This instrument also amends the Schedule to the Ivory Prohibitions (Exemptions) (Process and Procedure) Regulations 2022 on prescribed institutions to correct the names of some of the institutions prescribed under the Act. Lastly, it amends the Ivory Prohibition (Civil Sanctions) Regulations 2022 to make consistent the references to service of notices relating to civil sanctions. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in favour of any measures to preserve the rich tapestry of species on this planet, particularly those threatened with extinction. However, we have some concerns, not with the objective of this SI and the Ivory Act more broadly, but with some of the consequences of its drafting.

The SI extends the definition of ivory to include whale teeth and narwhal tusks. Although we agree with the banning of selling of modern items manufactured from these sources, there is no modern market for whale teeth or narwhal tusks. Old pieces of art, such as inscribed sailor’s knives or mounted narwhal tusks, will fall foul of these regulations and will have to be landfilled.

As we have heard already from my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Carrington, there is virtually no import or export trade in whale teeth or narwhal tusks. In 2022, there were no commercial imports of sperm whale teeth, and just two teeth were exported. Narwhals are not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s endangered list.

While it could be argued that this legislation is an important aspect of our soft power, it is debatable whether this soft power has worked. It has not had much influence on the EU, which bans the import and export of ivory but allows it to be traded within the EU. Will the Minister please clarify to the Committee what outcomes she foresees from this decision? Will she outline why these measures have been implemented and say whether she can see that they may have unforeseen and unintended consequences?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for raising important points. As described earlier, extending the Act to these four species demonstrates UK leadership in support of international conservation efforts, setting an example at home to encourage similar actions globally. It makes the existing ban more effective and adds protections to four species that will complement those already in place internationally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

I was involved with this the first time around, back in 2018, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said, it seems to have taken an awful long time to get here. I wonder whether, like me, she had a stuffed narwhal on her desk—which my grandchildren have now chosen to play with. From our perspective, it is good to see these regulations in front of us.

This measure is part of a comprehensive package of UK leadership to tackle the illegal wildlife trade and reduce poverty, including through our Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund, which has allocated £57 million to 173 projects across 60 countries. These projects are reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, strengthening law enforcement, establishing effective legal frameworks and promoting sustainable livelihoods.

I turn to answer some of the questions, and hope that we do not have another vote in the middle this time. I will look first at the consultation and stakeholder engagement that took place ahead of this. There was a call for evidence in 2019 and a public consultation from 17 July to 11 September 2021 on extending the Act to other species. The consultation received 997 responses and a clear majority supported an extension to these species. The previous Government published their response to the consultation in May last year.

There is a conservation risk to each species as exhaustible natural resources, which includes the trade in their ivory, both legal and illegal, and how this relates to their conservation status and other threats that they face. There was a clear demonstration in the proportion of respondents who supported this option and the comments submitted that commercial exploitation of species that are endangered or accepted as being in need of protection from the threat posed by trade in their parts violates public morality. So that was the consultation and its outcomes.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked specific questions around the effectiveness of the Act. One was how many elephants had been saved to date. This is a cross-cutting policy, so it is not possible to say what impact the Ivory Act alone has had. For example, the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund is a grant scheme that funds actions to tackle illegal wildlife and poverty reduction in developing countries. These projects contribute to reducing the demand for illegal wildlife products, strengthening enforcement and establishing effective legal frameworks, and promoting sustainable livelihoods through innovative approaches, partnerships and evidence-based interventions that protect endangered species, including elephants. So I cannot be specific, but it does play a role.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked for more information about why we are not extending it to walrus. As I said, walrus were included in the original consultation but are not now, because they continue to be protected under existing regulations on the trade in seal products. Under these regulations, seal products, including walrus ivory, can be imported and placed on the UK market for sale only in very limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions. You can bring seal products to Great Britain and sell them only if they qualify under the Inuit and other indigenous communities exemption and have a seal catch certificate. This is an attestation document that proves that the item is exempt and that the seal products are certified as coming from a traditional hunt carried out by the Inuit or other indigenous communities. The hunt must be carried out for and contribute to the subsistence of the community, and must consider the welfare of the animal. I hope that goes some way towards answering the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, around the fact that we work with indigenous communities on these pieces of legislation.

Further questions from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, were to do with trade and why we decided to add these species. The main problem is that international trade in these species needs to be regulated to ensure that it does not threaten the species’ survival. The UK is also a net exporter of ivory from these species, and we are concerned that it fuels global demand and the market for these ivories.

[Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)]

The Minister is, I think, getting slightly confused about what I asked. I was not asking whether ivory is being exported; clearly, it is not now, because it is banned. But narwhal tusks are not banned and there is no evidence that they are being exported or imported. Also, the evidence we have is that, in 2022, no sperm whale teeth were imported and two were exported. What I am saying is that, distinct from the ivory market—we can probably dispute that—the products covered specifically by this SI are exported or imported in such small quantities as to have no effect on international trade at all.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I still think that there are issues around the fact that these species are endangered. We should be covering them in existing legislation that could have an impact on them in future. It is important that that is covered.

The noble Lord asked about exemptions, so let me come on to them. If an item is 100% ivory, it can be kept or follow the exemptions in Section 2 of the Act, of which I am sure he is very aware. Several other countries have closed their domestic ivory markets so, again, it is not just the UK looking at this as an action.

I should say that I have some information about narwhal ivory, which has just come through—apologies. In the 10 years between 2009 and 2019, commercial imports and exports of narwhal ivory totalled 33 items, while those of sperm whale ivory totalled 203 items. I hope that helps clarify the matter.

It might be helpful, as this issue came up a bit, for me to remind noble Lords what the exemptions to the ivory ban are. There are five exemptions, which will apply to all species once this instrument has gone through: musical instruments made before 1975 with less than 20% ivory by volume; items made before 3 March 1947 with less than 10% ivory by volume; portrait miniatures made before 1918 with a total surface area of no more than 320 square centimetres—and we have another vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just going through the exemptions to the Ivory Act and had just finished talking about portrait miniatures. Also exempt are items a qualifying museum intends to buy or hire and items made before 1918 that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value. I mention that because it has come up quite a lot during the debate, and for clarification because it is some years since the Act came into play.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked a specific question about people going on holiday, small items and so on. This fits with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about indigenous peoples. To be clear, the Act bans imports for the purposes of dealing. Individuals who are visiting communities outside the UK can purchase items from them directly and bring them into the UK as personal possessions as long as they meet the requirements under CITES. That provides clarification on that point.

With that, I hope I have answered most questions; I will check and come back to noble Lords if I have not.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I think the Minister said that narwhals are an endangered species, but we believe that they are not endangered; there are around 80,000 mature adults in their population. If the Minister could come back to us at some point, it would be much appreciated.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I clarify that all four species being added to the Act are listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. I hope that helps to answer the noble Earl’s question.

Motion agreed.

Budget: Implications for Farming Communities

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register, including as a farmer. The removal of half of inheritance tax relief over £1 million under agricultural property relief and business property relief is an attack on all family-owned businesses. Working family farmers are the least able to afford this tax due to high asset values and low incomes. How can the Minister defend this tax to the family farming community and all family businesses, where investment, entrepreneurship and aspiration are now undermined?

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

My Lords, we understand farmers’ anxiety at changes to agricultural property relief. However, the vast majority of those claiming relief will not be affected by the changes. The latest data available shows that the top 7% of claims for agricultural property relief in 2021-22 accounted for 40% of the cost of the tax relief, with the top 2% accounting for 22% of the cost. Most families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have always done.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, farmers in Northern Ireland greatly appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has met the devolved Minister on a fairly regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues. When she next meets the Minister of Agriculture, the Ulster Farmers Union and the agricultural producers in the region, will she discuss the need for tax amelioration measures to provide for succession planning, to encourage young people into farming and protect farm families? There is a unique issue in Northern Ireland which needs to be addressed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness said, I meet the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland regularly and met the Ulster Farmers Union very recently, as well as the noble Baroness, to discuss these issues, and I know that my officials meet various organisations regularly to discuss them. I will be back in Belfast towards the end of this month and hope to meet the Ulster Farmers Union again shortly. As she pointed out, tax and succession planning is incredibly important. There is an issue with getting young people into farming, and I recommend that people talk to professionals about what is available to them for tax purposes going forward.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, a sustainable supply of food is essential for the country. The farming community is key to achieving this goal. The perception that farmers are wealthy is erroneous. Farmers have seen their income shrink as a result of the slow implementation of ELMS, and now they face the prospect of having to sell off or dismantle family farms to pay inheritance tax. The appalling headline “We can’t afford to let farmers die tax-free” is a gross distortion of the truth. What is the Minister doing to reverse this impression?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned in my answer to the first question, most family farms will not be affected. The latest data shows that the top 7% of claims for agricultural property relief accounted for 40%. Regarding food security, we have made the largest ever investment in sustainable food production through the environmental land management schemes and are securing long-term food production through them. As part of the Budget, we announced £60 million for the farming recovery fund to support farmers affected by unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter, which the previous Government had not paid.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, UK farming suffers a chronic lack of productivity and an ageing cohort of farmers. They have been encouraged to hold on to their farms by virtue of agricultural property relief and the inheritance tax benefit of dying in situ. APR reform may therefore improve matters by encouraging earlier transfer to younger generations. However, it will unduly punish those elderly farmers who have estate-planned with APR in mind. What will the Government do to ensure that those elderly farmers who are terribly stressed by this reform and who will not survive seven years are not unduly punished?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes an incredibly important point. We are aware that this is an issue. I stress that farmers will be able to access 100% relief for the first £1 million and 50% relief thereafter. That means an effective 20% tax relief rate and that an individual can pass up to £2 million, and a couple up to £3 million between them, to a direct descendant inheritance tax free. It is important that we make that clear. However, I stress again that there is financial advice out there. Many businesses and individuals take tax advice. I encourage all businesses, including farms, to do so.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest; while I no longer have agricultural land, members of my family do. Last year, on 20 December, the NFU issued a press statement which stated that Steve Reed, then shadow Defra Secretary, had assured the NFU that Labour had no plans to change agricultural property relief. The then NFU president said that

“it’s good to see Labour has listened to our concerns and recognised the importance of keeping this policy”.

Did the NFU misunderstand what Mr Reed said? Was Mr Reed unaware of the Chancellor’s plans? Had those plans been concealed from Mr Reed—or was the NFU being misled?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, I cannot comment on the detail of a meeting that I did not attend. However, the Government’s commitment to supporting farmers and rural communities is unwavering and we have demonstrated this by committing £5 billion in the agricultural budget over the next two years. That is the biggest ever budget for sustainable food production and nature’s recovery.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, can the Minister help us a little? The Treasury figures state that fewer than 25% of farm businesses will be affected by the changes to APR on inheritance tax. However, the NFU estimates that up to half of all working farms could be impacted by the new tax rules. Why is there such a large discrepancy? Can she help us to understand what is going on?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There are two things here. People are looking just at the first £1 million and not at the opportunity for individuals to pass further tax reliefs on, of up to £2 million for one individual and £3 million for a couple. Also, there has been confusion around the data given out by Defra and the Treasury. The Treasury data shows that around 500 estates a year across the UK would be impacted to some extent and about 25% of the total number of estates currently making use of APR. What the Defra data shows is the asset value of farms in England so, by looking at that data, people have assumed that more farms would be impacted. But you cannot draw a straight line between asset value and what it means for inheritance tax, because the number of claims—how many people would be impacted by the change—is affected by many things, such as who owns the business, the nature of the ownership, how many owners there are, how they plan their affairs, and so on; this is where you have some of the confusion.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, can I congratulate the Minister and the Government on ending this unfair treatment of farmers? This is not about farmers; it is about landowners. As we know, millionaire landowners have been buying up land to avoid taxes, and it is about time the Government caught up with them.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate the concerns that farmers have. I think they should look accurately at the figures. My noble friend makes an important point that some large landowners have been using the APR relief as a tax loophole.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, I meet the Minister in Northern Ireland regularly. The noble Lord says that most of the farms are very small. My understanding is that the buildings—the actual farmhouses themselves—are not included, so that should not have an impact; but if I am wrong, I will clarify that to him. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, was very keen to ask about tenant farmers. We are having close conversations with the Tenant Farmers Association. I know that the Farming Minister met George Dunn yesterday, and if she would like to discuss the tenant farming aspect further with me I would be very pleased to do so.