Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 19 March 2026. They reflect the Government’s commitment to securing strong outcomes for nature recovery while supporting sustainable economic growth, as outlined in the Corry review. The regulations are a practical example of that approach in action.

The UK’s wildlife trade regulations give effect to our international obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES exists to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants is legal and sustainable and does not threaten the survival of species. The United Kingdom has long played a leading international role in strengthening the convention and combating illegal wildlife trade, and we continue to do so.

Domestically, CITES controls are implemented through a strict licensing framework administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Every year, approximately 60,000 permits are issued to businesses and organisations engaged in legal and sustainable trade—ranging from the pet trade to horticulture, cosmetics, zoos, museums and orchestras. While modest in overall scale, this activity supports diverse livelihoods and interests across the UK.

However, parts of the current system are complex, duplicative and rooted in processes designed for trade within the EU. These regulations therefore modernise this framework. They retain strong protections for endangered species while removing unnecessary administrative burdens where risk is low, improving efficiency for businesses and regulators and strengthening enforcement where needed. The instrument amends four pieces of assimilated EU law and revokes one that is no longer required. Taken together, the amendments strengthen conservation protections while allowing the digitisation and modernisation of administrative processes.

The reforms reflect a precautionary, risk-based approach and have been informed by consultation with environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives, enforcement bodies and the UK’s scientific authorities. This ensures that protections for species at risk of overexploitation not only remain firmly in place but are enhanced where the evidence supports doing so.

Let me now outline some of the key changes. First, for some low-risk species, the current system goes further than it needs to. Export permits issued by the exporting country confirm sustainability. Import permits issued by the UK authorities add a further layer of due diligence. For the most threatened species, that extra layer of scrutiny is absolutely right and will remain. However, for lower-risk species, these regulations will allow a lighter-touch import notification instead, meaning that we will keep oversight and traceability while cutting out unnecessary duplication and delay for legitimate businesses. Low-risk species will be identified based on the best available scientific evidence; examples of this could include some species of artificially propagated plants from highly compliant destinations. These will also be kept under close review if risks or trade patterns change.

Secondly, the regulations streamline our Article 10 certificate system, which supports how we control domestic trade in the most vulnerable species. Many UK businesses legally breed CITES-listed species or produce derived goods for export. At present, that can mean the need for an Article 10 certificate and a separate export permit. In clearly defined cases, to be outlined in guidance, these regulations will allow an export or re-export permit to serve as an Article 10 certificate for a limited six-month period; this will reduce duplication while, at the same time, keeping any necessary safeguards in place.

In addition, the regulations will introduce a targeted exemption from Article 10 controls for three low-risk Mediterranean tortoise species when traded domestically. These species are widely and legally captive bred and are not found in the wild in the UK. The existing controls were designed to protect wild populations elsewhere in Europe but, in a Great Britain-only context, they now deliver limited additional conservation benefits. Importantly, all import and export controls will remain fully in place, ensuring continued protection against illegal or unsustainable trade.

Thirdly, the regulations will deliver practical improvements for touring orchestras and travelling exhibitions. By recognising certificates issued by other countries and allowing agents to apply on behalf of performers, they will remove unnecessary duplication and support cultural exchange without weakening important conservation controls.

Fourthly, the regulations set out clear criteria for the temporary designation of ports of entry for CITES specimens—for example, to support urgent conservation or animal welfare cases. These provisions cannot be used for commercial trade and apply only where the necessary expertise and safeguards for effective checks are in place.

We estimate that these changes, as well as the other proposed amendments in the regulations, will reduce the number of permits issued by up to 30% each year; that is in the region of 20,000 fewer permits being issued every year. This will generate significant savings for businesses and the regulator, contributing to the Prime Minister’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulation by 25%.

The regulations will also strengthen enforcement for cases of non-compliance by extending the use of civil sanctions. We will apply civil sanctions to six additional existing offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations and the Customs and Excise Management Act. These offences include using, obtaining, trading or transporting CITES specimens without valid permits or using false, altered or misused documentation. This fills a gap between issuing a warning letter and a criminal prosecution, allowing regulators to respond proportionately while maintaining a strong deterrent. Criminal sanctions will continue to be used where they are deemed proportionate to the infraction. Statutory guidance will be published prior to the civil sanctions being brought into force, ensuring that their application is both consistent and fair.

In conclusion, these regulations will strengthen our implementation of international obligations, uphold high standards of species protection and animal welfare, and ensure that regulation is targeted where it is most needed. The Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders to support effective implementation and ongoing compliance. Taken together, they strike the right balance between rigorous protection and practical delivery, safeguarding nature while allowing legitimate and responsible activity to proceed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose as we race towards the end of this Session. Everyone should be able to enjoy our natural environment. We have a duty to ensure that future generations inherit a world defined by biodiversity, not decline. It is important, therefore, that we look beyond administrative modernisation to its practical impact on the protection of endangered species. The United Kingdom has the potential to demonstrate great leadership in conservation, but that leadership depends on maintaining our strong, credible and enforceable standards. We on these Benches have consistently argued for a fair deal for the environment, including a commitment that trade and imports should not undercut our very high standards of animal welfare and environmental protections.

Against that backdrop, I have some concerns about the direction taken in these regulations. First, there is a shift towards ministerial discretion. The regulations provide for additional measures and restrictions to be set out through guidance, rather than being clearly defined in legislation. Although flexibility may have its place, the use of guidance in areas of environmental protection raises issues around transparency, consistency and accountability. Clear, statutory rules provide certainty for enforcement bodies, businesses and the public. If greater reliance is to be placed on this guidance, we must have reassurance that it will not weaken oversight or reduce clarity in practice.

Secondly, on the simplification of permit and certificate requirements, efficient systems are important—no one would wish to impose unnecessary administrative burdens, and we welcome the progress on that—but simplification cannot create unintended opportunities for exploitation. Changes affecting so-called low-risk movements, including for certain Annex B specimens, for example, require careful scrutiny. Even limited relaxations in documentation can, if not properly designed and monitored, create openings for the illegal wildlife trade, whether in exotic pets, hunting trophies or wildlife-derived products such as fur.

Thirdly, the regulations do not address a long-standing concern raised by conservation organisations: the absence of a clear domestic offence covering the trade in wildlife that has been illegally sourced in its country of origin. Without such a provision, there remains a risk that the UK could be used, however unintentionally, as a market for products that have contributed to environmental harm elsewhere. If the Government are serious about tackling biodiversity loss globally, this is an issue that needs attention.

More broadly, it is important that any changes to this framework do not result in the UK falling behind comparable international standards. Our approach should be to maintain and, where possible, strengthen protections. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, how will the Government ensure that the increased use of guidance provides the same level of transparency and legal certainty as provisions set out in legislation? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the risk that simplified permit requirements for Annex B specimens, as I explained earlier, could be exploited; and what safeguards will be in place to prevent abuse? Thirdly, will the Government either reconsider the case for introducing a domestic offence, covering the trade in wildlife illegally sourced aboard, or commit to reviewing this issue within a defined timeframe? These are not small, technical matters—they go to the heart of whether this framework will operate as an effective tool for conservation.

Finally, although I recognise the intention to streamline the system, I look forward to us being reassured that these changes will maintain robust protection, support enforcement and uphold the UK’s reputation as a responsible actor in global wildlife conservation.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this SI forward. This is a complex and wide-ranging area. It is about protecting our country’s health as much as it is about animal welfare. It involves scientific authorities, Border Force and police inspections, and compliance checks.

Let me begin by saying that we support efforts to reduce administrative burdens and costs, as well as attempts to simplify the system without undermining it. CITES was designed with membership of the EU in mind. We now have the freedom to amend it to our own needs and tailor the framework to meet specific challenges, using our own expertise at Kew Gardens and the JNCC. I note that the Government consulted on these changes with both conservation groups and businesses, all of which deserve a fair hearing.

I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to a few specific changes on which I would appreciate some assurance from the Minister. This SI enables the Secretary of State to determine which specimens require an import notification, rather than an import permit, for those deemed “low-risk”. We welcome the shift to risk-based controls, but can the Minister outline what criteria will be used and how often the risk categories will be reviewed? Does the import notification still give authorities the same oversight and ability to trace specimens? That could be particularly useful if a specimen is deemed to be a higher health risk at a later stage.

Travelling exhibition certificates from other countries will now be recognised as a result of this legislation. It is absolutely right that we prevent unnecessary duplication, but can the Minister provide further detail on which countries will benefit and how their certification processes differ from ours?

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the enforcement approach and fully addressing my questions in that area, but it is currently not a criminal offence in the UK—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out—to possess or trade wildlife that was illegally sourced in its country of origin. So what steps are the Government taking to track down the original perpetrators of these crimes, as well as to support buyers in identifying and reporting illegal wildlife trading? Can the Minister indicate whether the SPS agreement and other related negotiations with Europe are likely to have any impact on the implementation of these regulations—or, indeed, to overrule any of them?

Finally, we have previously debated the impact of invasive non-native species on our own ecosystem, including the pernicious effect of grey squirrels on successful tree-planting and red squirrel populations. It is critical that no additional burden is created. It would be helpful to have an assurance that, in the extremely unlikely event that an endangered species were to escape into the wild in the UK and breed successfully, aggressive control of that species would be possible in order to prevent it becoming invasive.

I appreciate that this is a complex framework. We agree with the aim to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is clear that an appropriate balance must be found, so I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on the points that have been made.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords both for making some important points about the legislation before us and for contributing to the debate.

As I set out earlier, these regulations are designed to modernise an important regulatory framework so that it works effectively for the UK, supports legitimate trade, and keeps protections firmly focused on the species and risks that matter most. The idea is for them to deliver practical improvements but noble Lords clearly have some concerns, so let me cover some of the issues that have been asked about.

Questions were asked about the new powers, including those for the Secretary of State. The idea is that the regulations will allow the UK to improve its implementation of CITES and the environmental protections it holds.

The new powers are to require the Secretary of State to publish formal lists where import suspensions or additional measures are in place. In some cases, these are already being applied in practice for endangered species: examples are strict controls on rhinos, tigers and bear bile. The powers are tightly defined and will be used only for purposes that are consistent with the CITES convention and the wildlife trade regulations. Any changes to this have to be informed by scientific advice from the UK CITES scientific authorities and are limited to the application of import suspensions or additional measures where there is a clear conservation or welfare justification. I hope that helps with some of the transparency around the Secretary of State’s role.

This is not going to reduce parliamentary scrutiny because the circumstances and conditions under which changes can occur are clearly set out in the legislation, and that legislation is subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. Publishing lists will provide transparency and legal clarity without requiring new regulations each time it is updated. That will enable Parliament and stakeholders to see very clearly what applies at any given time while also allowing the system to respond more quickly to any urgent conservation risks. We recognise the interest in updating wider wildlife legislation, but I make clear that this statutory instrument is specifically focused on the implementation of the UK’s obligations on trade in endangered species.

The issue of environmental and animal welfare protections was raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The crucial and necessary core protections for endangered species and trade will remain unchanged. That includes requirements for higher-risk trade, scientific non-detriment findings and enforcement checks at the border. The proposed reforms are deliberately targeted and evidence led. They have been informed by the consultation that the noble Lord referred to, and by advice from UK scientific authorities. They will focus regulatory effort where conservation risk is highest while removing the duplication of administrative requirements where there is little evidence of conservation benefit. The idea behind a risk-based approach is that it allows us to respond more effectively to changing trade patterns and scientific evidence without lowering those standards or protections. Again, no changes are being made to the welfare assessments that are required as part of the CITES applications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about risks opening up. I will say why the Government have taken this approach, particularly around annex B import permits. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or just duplicate paperwork. These changes do not weaken protections because import permits will remain firmly in place for high-risk species and activities. Core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply. A low-risk list will be developed but it will also be kept under review, based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence, and all annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, while the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight in order that we can respond quickly to any changes in risk.

On enforcement capacity, Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the UK border and the police enforce CITES controls inland. The amendments in this statutory instrument will support their efforts by bringing in civil sanctions and other changes. The idea is to provide a much larger range of tools that can be used so that efforts can be far more targeted to tackle any illegal wildlife trade.

Domestic wildlife crime was mentioned. Birds of prey prosecution is a national wildlife crime priority, and there are strong penalties in place for offences committed against not just birds of prey but other wildlife. Through Defra, we fund the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which helps to prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats and directly assisting law enforcement in its investigations. Defra funding for the NWCU for the financial year 2026-27 is £530,000. In addition to that, we are providing funding to Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture to develop DNA forensic analysis for the police and other organisations.

On illegal wildlife trade, we are fully committed to global efforts to address the drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, including environmental crimes such as illegal wildlife crime. We have an annual allocation in Defra of £150 million a year, which will run from 2026-27 to 2028-29. A significant portion of that will be used to continue to support the biodiversity challenge funds.

I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the SPS agreement, but I hope that it is moving forward and we will be able to give more clarity on that later in the spring or in early summer.

On invasive species controls, I work very hard with the invasive species team—we had a meeting last week. We are determined to increase Defra’s ability to tackle invasive species. In particular, we have a target to stop new invasive species coming in and taking hold in this country. We are working very hard on that.

I hope I have addressed all the issues that were raised and that noble Lords will approve the instrument. I thank noble Lords for their support.

Motion agreed.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 March be approved.

Relevant document: 56th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I declare an interest as I am in receipt of delinked payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to delinked payments in England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, it delivers our commitment to phase out these subsidies by the end of the seven-year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers; 2027 will be the last year of delinked payments.

A regret amendment has been tabled expressing concern about the impact on farmers. The Government are committed to supporting our farmers and the vital role that they play. We will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient for the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential so that we can fund our other schemes which help us to achieve this.

Delinked payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability. They do not support the healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water that is needed to produce good food. They do not promote innovation and do not provide good value for money.

The reductions to delinked payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership, with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of farms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with higher reductions to amounts in the higher payment band. We announced the reductions last June to help farmers to plan.

The money released from delinked payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026-27 to 2028-29 through the farming and countryside programme, and up to £400 million from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and peatlands. This includes increasing annual funding for the environmental land management schemes, from £1.8 billion in 2025-26 to more than £2 billion by 2028-29. This means that we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to support them to help restore nature and boost farm productivity. Some 50,000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land are now managed under our environmental land management schemes.

Earlier this year, we announced plans for our new sustainable farming incentive offer, which will ensure that more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements will be introduced to make SFI26 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long-term food security.

Last September, the new Countryside Stewardship higher tier opened for applications to those who have been invited to apply, have received pre-application advice and have completed any preparatory work. Landscape recovery projects that were awarded development funding in rounds 1 and 2 are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course.

The latest round of the environmental land management capital grant offer will open in July this year, backed by £225 million in funding. That is 50% more than was available in 2025. We have also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants for 2026-27. Such grants can help the sector access cutting-edge technology and techniques, such as robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers grow more food. This funding forms part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and trial new technology as part of the UK’s modern industrial strategy.

We will be spending up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice. We are working with Dr Hilary Cottam to develop a place-based approach for upland communities. We have also extended the farming and protected landscapes programme for another three years, until March 2029. We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We have established a farming and food partnership board, which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, building on the recommendations in the Farming Profitability Review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters.

We have also been engaging with farmers and stakeholders on a 25-year farming road map, which will set up the Government’s long-term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead. This Government want farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient, while contributing to food security and nature recovery. The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Sorry, I was so fascinated—I was pondering the thought.

I thank the Minister for setting out with such clarity this statutory instrument and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing forward his regret amendment, which has created an opportunity for a much broader-ranging and, I think we can agree, interesting debate. It has been an absolute privilege to be here for the last speeches by, for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Inglewood. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on various issues—sometimes we did not agree on one or two of them, it must be said—and with my colleague on the Conduct Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is a fairly typical in-the-background public service to protect the reputation of this place, for which he should be thanked and we should be enormously grateful. It is fitting that we have heard from so many experts, particularly on this area.

On the regulations before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long-term foundation in our view for supporting agriculture. We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform cannot mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. In a way, the question before us tonight is not whether the change is needed but whether this stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those most affected; we have heard evidence that it is not.

The first concern is the pace and scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change, yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available. For businesses operating on tight margins, that creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long-term planning. A transition, as we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining the very resilience it is expected and hoped to build.

Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going. I appreciate that the Minister set out some of this in her opening remarks, but the NFU—I thank it for its briefing—has made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes. It says that there remains a lack of clarity, and in some cases confidence, about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.

Thirdly, there is the impact on different types of farm. Smaller and family-run farms are often less able to absorb sudden changes in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support will become unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. We have heard already about the economic consequences of that.

There is the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. We believe the shift away from direct payment is justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focused system, but that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers participating fully in new schemes, we risk weakening farm viability and environmental progress at the same time. The position of these Benches is therefore balanced; we support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support, but we share the concerns of this Chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.

I have three brief questions but, as we are nearly at the end of the Session, if the Minister wishes to answer in writing, I would be more than happy to receive that. First, what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms being pushed into financial difficulty? Secondly, can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? Thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? I particularly refer the Minister to paragraph 78 of the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that we ask her

“about the financial impact of the transition to the new support schemes, especially on small farmers”.

These are very practical questions.

In closing, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. It has been an absolute honour working with him on opposite Benches. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal Motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue—I reminisced more fondly than he did. Having these kinds of amendments and ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is critical for the issues we have heard about this evening, so I thank him for raising this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of broad concerns have been raised that I will do my best to address now. For any outstanding specific questions, we will look at Hansard and ensure that we write to noble Lords with more detailed responses.

The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way to support our farmers, protect food security or restore nature. We should continue to invest in the environmental land management schemes and the range of grants and other support for farmers which deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity.

Concerns were raised about farm profitability and the impacts on farmers of the phasing out of direct payments. I will go over some of this. We recently published our 2025 farming and countryside programme evaluation report, which sets out an assessment of the impacts of the first three years of phasing out direct payments. It includes a detailed look at the key transition channels for the sector, which include rents, diversification income, income from agri-environment schemes and productivity improvements.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Flood Prevention and Drought Resilience

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

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

The sustainable farming incentive will continue to support flood prevention and drought resilience. The streamlined SFI offer for 2026 includes actions that slow the movement of water during periods of heavy rainfall, keep soil covered and increase organic matter, which improves the soil’s ability to retain water. Applications will open in June this year for small farms and those without an existing environmental land management revenue agreement, and in September for all farms.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome that Answer and the information. I also welcome the department’s recently published independent report on flourishing uplands, which highlights graphically the tensions between farmers and environmentalists. It makes no economic sense at all for productive farmland to be flooded when farmers are providing 62% of the UK’s food. In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that there is a positive role for farmers to play, particularly in the uplands, in flood prevention and drought resilience? Will she therefore make sure that not just the SFI but all forms of environmental payments will look to putting livestock back on the land and making farmland productive and, at the same time, contributing to flood resilience and drought resilience?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: it is important that we recognise the role that farmers, land managers and landowners have in supporting the Government’s ambitions on flood and drought resilience, and that this should be delivered through any way that is practical and possible, while at the same time looking at continuing to support farm profitability.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government consider adopting the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management’s recommendation requiring large corporates to disclose climate-related and nature-related risks in their supply chains, and to align that with the UK’s sustainability disclosure requirements, using the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures? Will they also use that transparency to direct more private investment into flood prevention and drought resilience on farms?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes some really good points. The Government are keen to look at how we can encourage more private funding and support for much of the work that needs to be done, whether that is in the climate sector or in nature restoration. I completely take on board the points she has made.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, action under the ELMS budget, such as establishing buffer strips along watercourses or restoring peatlands, can improve biodiversity while naturally reducing flood risk, and would be important to consider, particularly with our changing weather patterns, which result in persistent rainfall during the winter and periods of drought over the summer. Can further thought therefore be given to storage ponds for such water to help with food security, farm production and overall resilience in our farming sphere?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Storage ponds are incredibly important. In where I live in Cumbria, for example, the West Cumbria Rivers Trust has been working closely with landowners to do exactly that—to look at storage ponds and balancing ponds, because they have an important role to play in flood management on land.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there are 28,000 agri-environment agreements which cease either this year or next, and the applicants must wait for agreements to expire before they can start a new SFI application. We can imagine in terms of sustainability and the welfare of our farming community that those who have such environments need assurance that they will be able to apply and to continue delivering the outcomes without a break in their payment. Can the Minister give such an assurance?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned in my initial response, the window for all applications will open in September. We are also trying to give a bit more stability around the SFI. The aim is to completely minimise any changes from now onwards, because farmers need stability to support long-term planning. Having said that, there may be changes because we have targets that we want to reach and outcomes that we want to see, but the right reverend Prelate makes a good point.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, flood prevention still requires affordable insurance to back it up, because floods still happen when you try to prevent them. The eligibility criteria of Flood Re mean that for the outbuildings of small farms, if the farm office is inside the farmhouse, the farmhouse is not eligible for Flood Re. Flood Re’s eligibility criteria in this respect were set 10 years ago—is it time to look at them again?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I know the challenges around Flood Re and insurance that the noble Earl is referring to. The issue we have with the kind of outbuildings the noble Earl describes is that they are registered as businesses in the insurance field. As I am sure he is aware, businesses are not eligible for Flood Re. There are complications around including businesses in Flood Re, and I do not think that the Government are likely to change their position on that. Having said that, we need to consider how we look long-term at flood insurance for businesses so that it will be possible to insure them in these cases in the future.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register as a farmer and landowner. The Government have stated that each farm can have only one SFI agreement, even if that agreement does not reach the £100,000 cap. Given the ever-increasing importance of flood prevention and drought resilience, will the Minister commit to allow related SFIs to be exempted from these rules and stacked on other SFIs without a cap?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is not something I can confirm today, but I am more than happy to take that back to the department and to discuss the different options.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister is obviously aware, all these schemes will require funding contributions from the farms in question. That will probably rule out most small farms, so we are discussing medium to larger-sized farms. The Minister mentioned sustainability, long-term planning and profitability, but these are the very farms that will be hammered by the family farm tax, which, as well as destroying jobs and family farms, will prevent money going into these schemes. I suggest that, if she wants to rebuild credibility and trust with the farming community, she and other Ministers should now call for this policy to be reversed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that the Government made some changes to the inheritance tax policy. We are continuing to listen to farms and farm businesses. I am sure noble Lords know that we have a small holding; I am very aware of the challenges for small farms and know a number of small farmers where we live. It is important to look at how we get farms into profitability—that has to be the focus—which is why I was so pleased to see the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. The Government are looking to introduce many of her recommendations.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is not transferring resource support to smaller farmers and tenant farmers the right thing to do to stop rich billionaires getting funded, rather than the farmers who are trying to provide food?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have already said, when the new SFI offer opens, it will be targeted at small farms. It is important that we look at how we support all farmers to ensure that they can support us with our aims on food stability and security.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the arbitrary cap on SFI, which was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, militates against economies of scale and driving the farm productivity and profitability that the nation needs and the land use framework requires?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The most important things we can do to move forward on farm profitability and to support farms are, first, to listen to them and, secondly, to look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, says in her report. It is an extremely impressive, comprehensive report on how we improve farm profitability. We should listen to someone with her expertise and experience on how we move forward to increase farm profitability.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

Can the Minister say whether the SFI will provide support for on-farm reservoir projects aimed at mitigating environmental impacts from drought at the catchment scale?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The SFI26 offer has 71 separate actions, of which 35 are designed to support flood and drought resilience. It is incredibly important that we recognise the huge damage that drought can cause to our farmers. The new SFI offer, in looking very carefully at both flooding and drought, recognises the long-term implications of climate change for our farms and food production, which is important as we move forward.

Plastic Pollution Reduction

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce plastic pollution; and what plans they have to set binding targets for that reduction.

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

My Lords, this Government have taken decisive action to tackle plastic pollution. We banned single-use vapes from June 2025 and will ban plastic wet wipes from spring 2027. We have introduced extended producer responsibility for packaging, implemented simpler recycling reforms, and our deposit return scheme launches in 2027. In addition, we will soon publish a circular economy growth plan for England, which will include opportunities for the chemicals and plastics sector, and we are actively pursuing an ambitious global plastic pollution treaty.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the Minister very much—a lot of that is very encouraging, but at the moment only 9% of plastic waste is ever recycled. The majority is incinerated, landfilled or exported to other countries with weak regulation. The industry treats the plastic packaging tax as a routine cost. So can the Minister explain how strong the extended producer responsibility will be, because, if we do it fully, we can get companies to change the content of plastic, making it better for society and better to recycle. For instance, in the USA, a box of Subway wrappers at the moment costs the company $50, and if the EPR were fully implemented, it would be $49. However, if it used a natural polymer, the EPR would drop to $5. So, much as with the sugar tax, we can get people to reformulate if we do it fully and hard. That, I am not sure about yet.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point. If we are going to bring in such reforms, we have to make sure that they will do what we want them to do, and therefore we have to work very closely with business. The EPR for packaging is now live and, from year 2 of the scheme, packaging disposal fees will be modulated so that more readily recyclable packaging will cost less and harder-to-recycle packaging will cost more, because that is the direction we want to drive things in. We are trying to create a direct financial incentive for businesses to reduce non-recyclable plastic packaging and switch to more recyclable alternatives. As part of that, clearly, we need to monitor how well it is operating and how well we are delivering it. It is important to take into account what the noble Baroness talks about within that process.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that eight out of 10 of the top councils for recycling in England are led by the Liberal Democrats? Would it surprise her to learn that Green-led councils are not even in the top 20? Mid Suffolk, the Greens’ only majority council, comes in at 162, and when they controlled Brighton, it was one of the worst in the country.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am quite shocked to hear that the Greens are not as good as we would have expected them to be. I am sure the noble Baroness opposite may have something further to say on that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Actually, that is just mean and I am going to say something else. I am sure the Minister knows that there is accumulating medical evidence of the damage to human health done by microplastics—impaired immune systems, cell damage, affected metabolic systems and so on—so getting this done quite quickly is important. Will the Minister make a recommendation to No. 10 to take on the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, as an adviser, because she seems to know what she is talking about?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I certainly agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, knows what she is talking about. She has spoken authoritatively and knowledgeably on this for many years. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right to talk about microbeads and microplastics. As I said, we will publish our circular economy growth plan fairly soon. We need to ensure that we tackle the issue of microbeads and microplastics.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, disused fast food containers contribute significantly to litter and plastic pollution, as we know. Can the Minister review the definition of “natural polymer” used in the plastic packaging tax to accelerate the use of natural polymers beyond cellulose—the only natural polymer defined in the tax—in food packaging, to make it more fully recyclable?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really good point. One thing that is often confusing about recycling and composting is definitions, what the material does and how it breaks down. She makes extremely good points, and I will take them back to the department.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, an enduring legacy of the last Government is potholed roads in every city, town and street. This can be fixed by partially replacing bitumen with plastic waste, which makes roads cheaper, smoother and more durable. Can the Minister say what proportion of plastic waste is recycled for road building and what plans the Government have to encourage its greater use?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what proportion is used, but I think it is really exciting. There is a huge opportunity here. I know it is something that the Department for Transport has been looking at; I know it is something that certain local authorities have been looking at, and I think it is something we need to investigate further.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, our country is reliant on exporting plastic waste, yet it has been reported that 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have closed down in the past two years. What steps are the Government taking to reduce exports of plastic waste and support investment and jobs here in the UK?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that plastic waste exports are subject to pretty strict rules that are set out in existing legislation, but it is important that we continue to review this because we need to make sure that we improve the way we manage our waste and our recycling. Our focus is on ensuring that the plastic waste that we export is treated appropriately and that there is a level playing field for domestic recycling. We are consulting on potential further reforms to the PRN system and looking at measures to create that level playing field between UK domestic reprocessors and exporters and, importantly, to reduce the risk of fraud and error.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, what progress are the Government making in revising school uniform policy to require PFAS-free alternatives so as to allow families to buy from suppliers that are known to avoid PFAS-based finishes?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that we published our PFAS plan in February. That sets out, for the first time ever, how government is going to minimise the harmful effects of PFAS. We need to look at how we can move to safer alternatives while continuing to monitor any detrimental effects. It is very important with clothes for children, for example, that we do not cause any harms.

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister able to tell us whether the Government are supporting the women’s institute’s splendid initiative on microplastics, which is a campaign to ensure that special filters are fitted to all washing machines to avoid the reproduction of these microplastic elements?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has taught me something: I was not aware of that campaign. The women’s institute is a splendid organisation, and I am very glad that she has drawn my attention to that. We are really keen to work in this area and to look at alternative ways, as I have just said, to reduce microplastics in particular, which obviously leach into the water system through clothes in washing machines. I will look into this further and I thank her for drawing it to my attention.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the biggest practical difficulties in all this is separating plastic from general waste? Are the Government going to get involved in incentivising the earlier separation of plastic from general waste?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. Of course, another issue is inconsistency across the country as to how that is done, which can confuse people when they are staying in other places. The key to resolving that issue is the work that we are doing with local authorities, because this is a local authority responsibility. The Government need to work with local authorities so that they have the resources and the powers that they need to make this work effectively.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, further to my earlier question about microplastics and human health, this could cost the NHS a huge amount of money, so it is quite an urgent matter. Will the noble Baroness take that message back to No. 10 as well, please?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the things we are doing is working much better across departments, including with the NHS, so I will ensure that it is aware of the noble Baroness’s concerns specifically on this issue.

Farming Road Map

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick]

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

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

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

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Trees (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg]

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

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

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

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

[A noble Lord]

She has already said that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 26 February.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion agreed.

Trail-hunting

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

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

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

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

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Prentis of Banbury (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Colgrain (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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