Animal Welfare Strategy: Rural Communities
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they intend to give to the interests of rural communities in any forthcoming legislation on cruelty to animals arising from its Animal Welfare Strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the animal welfare strategy sets out a comprehensive package of reforms which will improve the lives of millions of animals across England, at home, on farm, and in the wild. In developing any legislation, we will of course take into consideration the viewpoints of all those with an interest in or who are impacted by the proposals and consider the costs and the benefits to a range of stakeholders, including those in rural communities.
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Lab)
My Lords, Hunter by name, but not by nature. I am from the countryside and remain so. I startled my community by giving up meat decades ago, having read an early, in-depth investigation into food production. Standards have been greatly raised since then, and I applaud the Government in taking these further steps. What plans do the Government have in these considerations to avoid being distracted from their priorities, and not repeating Sir Tony Blair’s admission, despite my best efforts, of being insensitive to countryside interests? What plans do they have to ensure swift consultation with the rural community on the economic impact on their livelihoods and what support can be provided in any transition?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are obviously very aware of any potential impact of a ban on rural communities, including rural businesses. I can confirm that Defra will be starting a consultation which will look for views on how to deliver a ban—the ban is our manifesto commitment. That will enable people to give their opinion on any impacts, including on rural communities and businesses. We welcome all points of view, and we will consider them very carefully. Stakeholder engagement will, of course, be an important element of the consultation process and will ensure that everyone can give their view and present their evidence.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, has the Minister considered the future of foxhounds if trail hunting is to be banned? This a very real concern of those who live in the countryside.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am aware of the concerns around foxhounds. To reiterate, the consultation will look at all views and concerns. I urge people who have concerns around the future of foxhounds to take part in the consultation, so that point can be properly considered and discussed as we move forward on the manifesto commitment.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, our rural areas are defined by their communities, of which farmers are undoubtedly a very important part, both economically and socially. However, imported meat products, often produced at lower animal welfare standards, are threatening their ability to make a living. Will the Government therefore look at ensuring that imported meat products are clearly labelled so that consumers can make informed choices to support British farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the issues the noble Earl raised, I point him to two parts of the animal welfare strategy. First, we reference labelling. It is something that we will be looking at, not just on the issue he talked about but more broadly. There is a section on labelling. Secondly, we have a section on international impacts around animal welfare, which include trade. In the strategy, we recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to work internationally to champion high standards of animal welfare. That includes looking at how we manage our trade, because we have said quite publicly that we will not allow poor animal welfare standards to undermine our own standards here that our farmers meet.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government have neither plans nor intentions to ban hound trailing?
Lord Deben (Con)
Does the Minister accept that although we respect her position, the present Government are extremely unpopular in the countryside and that she is going to have to work extremely hard to make sure that rural people believe that this consultation is serious? So far, they do not, and she will have to work very hard indeed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not think that the ban on trail hunting is the major concern of most rural communities. Most rural communities, including the one I live in, are more concerned about the fact that they may not have a GP, that may not be able to access a dentist, that their digital connectivity is poor and they cannot get a mobile signal, and that the economy is struggling—we know that rural productivity is less than urban productivity. There are many issues that impact rural communities. To reiterate, anyone who has an interest in or concerns around the ban should take part in the consultation.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, we would all like to see the minimising of pain and distress to animals prior to slaughter, yet currently a substantial number of animals are slaughtered without prior stunning due to a derogation within domestic legislation, even though, as I understand it from speaking to a large halal slaughter house in my diocese, such stunning is acceptable within Islam. Will His Majesty’s Government work actively with our Jewish and Muslim friends to understand their religious needs and support the development of acceptable stunning methods and improve their uptake within those communities?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. I have previously met representatives from both Jewish and Muslim communities on religious slaughter. There is some acceptance of pre-stun slaughter for halal meat, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. We are discussing that within the department. I will continue to do so, because animal welfare has to be at the forefront when we look at slaughter.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the animal welfare strategy seeks to regulate British farming even further and suggests unilateral action on the use of pig crates and hen cages. Can we have a cast-iron guarantee from the Minister that the same welfare standards will be applied to all imported food, including bacon and eggs, so that our farmers are not unfairly disadvantaged? Also, if any hunt members have broken the law on hunting, prosecute them fully, but trail hunting has nothing to do with animal welfare and would penalise all legitimate hound trailing, which has been done in this country for over 200 years, including Cumbrian footpacks such as the Melbreak in the Minister’s old constituency and the famous Blencathra in mine.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I may have to disagree with the noble Lord around some of our opinions on hunting. However, on the issues that he raised about trade, which are really important, the UK’s trade strategy has set out that we will not lower food standards and that we will uphold our high animal welfare standards. All agri-food products have to comply with our existing import requirements in order to be placed on the UK market, which includes ensuring that imported meat products have been slaughtered to animal welfare standards equivalent to our domestic standards. We also recognise concerns around methods of production which are not permitted in the UK, and we will always look at whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and any impacts that may have.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, president of the Countryside Alliance and long-standing member of the RSPCA. In my rural community and many others, if you have dead stock on your farm or a badly injured animal which needs to be put down, you ring the hunt kennels, which operate the national fallen stock scheme and, 24/7, they send a trained and efficient member of staff to end the animal’s suffering and remove the body. If the Government were to persist with their ill-advised commitment to ban lawful trail hunting, which is not about animal welfare but about dislike of people, what are their proposals to replace the system for relief of animal suffering? It is currently carried out by the hunts, and I think none of those who are pressing for the ban have volunteered to do it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very aware that fallen stock is managed in that way. I am so sorry, but I am going to sound really boring today. A consultation will be starting shortly where all these issues can be fed in. I am very serious about this, and I want to do it properly, so I want to hear all concerns from all quarters.
Lord Trees (CB)
Given its mention in the animal welfare strategy, what progress have His Majesty’s Government made towards introducing a close season for the brown hare in England?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is a really important question, because this is an incredibly important issue, and I am personally very committed to doing that. We are looking for the best and earliest legislative opportunity to bring in a close season for the brown hare, and I am keen that we get that done as soon as practically possible.
Changing Weather Patterns and Floods
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 days, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the role of changing weather patterns in the occurrence of recent floods and flood warnings; and what steps they are taking to mitigate the impact of, and adapt to, heavy rainfall, including improved water storage and management.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the latest national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk was published in December 2024. This shows that climate-driven sea level rise and extreme rainfall will place a growing number of people at risk of flooding and coastal erosion. That is why the Government are investing at least £10.5 billion in England until 2036 to construct new flood schemes and repair existing defences, to protect communities from the devastating impacts of climate change.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer, which clearly illustrates that the Government see the urgent nature of climate change mitigations. On changing weather patterns, which are characterised by persistent rain during the winter period and drought during the summer period, what will the Government do to encourage farms to store water on their land, perhaps incentivising it through the ELM scheme, which, if done right, could improve soil health and retention and promote food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are committing the largest amount to ELM schemes in our country’s history. That is going to rise to £2 billion by 2028-29. Some of this funding will be used to invest in flood protection and to support farmers in tackling agricultural pollution. We want to focus our efforts on actions that have multiple benefits—for example, improving soil health, as my noble friend mentioned, so that soil can hold more water, which reduces flood risk, prevents pollutants entering watercourses from field run-off and improves crop health during drought. Natural flood management techniques provide multiple co-benefits. For example, near where I live, there has been activity around the River Cocker and Loweswater. There, the West Cumbria Rivers Trust and its partners have been involving local farmers to re-naturalise the river, create wetlands, and implement other measures that provide flood protection alongside improving water quality and enhancing the environment. I have seen with my own eyes, in my own community, how this can help.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it is not just the question of flooding. The increased rainfall will lead to increased run-offs and will put increased pressure on combined sewage systems, which will lead to excess pollution being poured into our seas and rivers, which is already at an unacceptably high level. This is a problem that is in-built to our infrastructure. What are the Government’s plans to address it in the long term?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important that we invest through the water companies in improved infrastructure. One problem in this area is that so much of our infrastructure is old and has not been updated, which is why we have so many issues with our sewerage system and run-off into our watercourses. The Government are committed to improving investment in that infrastructure in order to tackle some of the issues that the noble and gallant Lord rightly raises.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is an issue with storing water on farmland as it breaches the de minimis rule of the Reservoirs Act 1975. When does she plan to revisit that Act? Will she learn from Pickering’s Slowing the Flow and the work in Hull to use sustainable drains to store the water at source and save it for use in times of drought?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises some important issues. I am sure that, in referring to Hull, she is aware that the Minister for Water is a Hull MP and so is very aware of these issues. We are currently looking at our reservoir policy, because we need to consider how best to make use of the water that we have, future water storage needs and so on.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we have 89 flood warnings and 150 flood alerts in place today, and we extend our sympathies to all those impacted. The five wettest winters have all been since 1990. For every one-degree rise in temperature, the air can hold 7% more moisture. Climate change is a key driver of warmer, wetter winters. Is the key solution to this not an urgent return to the cross-party consensus on climate change and urgent action on adaptation, so that we can adequately address the climate emergency together?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As someone who spent four hours baling to try to stop her house being flooded last November, I am completely in support of much of what the noble Earl is talking about. We have to take climate change seriously. We know, as I mentioned in the Answer to the first Question, that the report has indicated clearly that these issues are only going to increase. We in the department are working with other departments—this is not just a Defra issue—on how we can better tackle climate change so that future generations are safe.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I have two questions. One is about new-build housing. As I understand it from the Planning Act, we have not enforced that new-build housing—especially that being built on flood plains, which is happening—must have flood defences. Responsibility for this is being handed back to the homeowner, and it is expensive: look it up online and you will see it is between £3,000 and £20,000.
Secondly, I know of many people who are finding insurance either hard to get or increasingly expensive because they are living in homes that are flooded almost annually. Are the Government dealing with this? Are they proposing anything like what happened in California, where the state more or less had to take over the insurance system in areas that regularly get burned?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, regarding development on flood plains, MHCLG is consulting on the new National Planning Policy Framework, which will introduce a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change to help ensure that local plans are informed by the latest evidence and that planning decisions support long-term climate adaptation and coastal management goals. That is part of those planning reforms.
Regarding flooding, as I mentioned, I have a house that is on a river. We have to use the Flood Re scheme, as other people do with insurance. That really is the most effective way to ensure that you can get affordable insurance if you live in a house that is designated to be at risk of flooding.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
For the first time ever in this House, I think, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Agricultural land covers 70% of the UK’s land area, meaning that the countryside is where most of our national capacity for holding water rests. With heavier rainfall becoming more frequent, small-scale on-farm reservoirs, attenuation ponds, leaky dams and other natural flood-management measures can slow the flow, reduce downstream flooding and improve resilience. As has been said many times, farmers are willing to do that work, but they need clear incentives and a stable funding framework. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, I too love a good argument, but on this occasion I am certain that the Minister and I will be in complete agreement that the Government will give farmers a key role to support on-farm water storage and flood management infrastructure.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In my response earlier to my noble friend I talked about ELMS, the environmental land management scheme, and I will provide a bit more detail about that. The Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme provides a number of ongoing actions to help create water storage and prevent flooding, including actions on arable land and grassland to mitigate flooding and create flood-plain storage. Capital grants are available to support natural flood management, which can improve soil health, as I mentioned previously. Together, the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, the sustainable farming incentive and the ELMS capital grant schemes provide support to help plan, plant and manage agroforestry systems, wood pasture and so on, which also helps to hold water.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, given that we should hold the water companies to account for the problems they cause, is it not time that we froze pay and dividends to water companies until they fix the infrastructure that they created, ending up with the problem that we have now?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend is aware that the Government are keen to stop any inappropriate payments to senior members of water companies where they have been seen to pollute indiscriminately.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, Flood Re is a temporary system that will run out in 2039 and is aimed only at domestic dwellings, which is a great disadvantage to owners of microbusinesses and small businesses in affected areas. It would be hugely helpful if Flood Re could be extended to those things. Could the Minister tell us what the prospects are for that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl is right. Flood Re has been very successful regarding residential properties but there has always been an issue around the fact that it does not extend to businesses or to multiple-occupancy dwellings over a certain number. I have in the past spent some time working with insurance representatives on what can be done to better support businesses. It would be complex to extend Flood Re to businesses, but that does not mean there is not a problem. As someone who lives in Cockermouth, where we regularly have problems like this, I am aware that we need to do more to consider how best to support businesses through flooding. I do not think Flood Re is the answer, but we need to explore what else is out there.
Construction Industry: Timber
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Timber in Construction Roadmap was updated and relaunched in February 2025. It sets out how we can increase the use of timber in construction. We are working in partnership with timber industries, government bodies and stakeholders to address the barriers to greater timber use. Our collaboration focuses on developing best practices, researching innovative timber products and increasing the circularity of timber construction supply chains.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this country imports 73% of the timber we need for construction, despite having one of the best climates in the world for growing softwoods. Natural England and the Forestry Commission have jointly expressed dismay that only 10% of our tree-planting over the last 10 years has been a productive softwood species we need and that our planting targets overall are unambitious. Given the many benefits of establishing new woods, including commercial softwoods, what will the Government do to rectify this disappointing situation? I know what the Minister has said about the action plan, but will she give us a guarantee that they can cut the regulations and red tape that are impeding many planting schemes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we import the vast majority of our timber and wood products, and this makes us the second largest net importer in the world after China. The Government believe that this needs to change. We want to increase the domestic timber market, and we are investing £1 billion in tree-planting and support to the forestry sector over this Parliament. As part of developing the new tree-planting programme, we have been working with our delivery partners and grant schemes to look at how we can increase conifer planting to support domestic softwood timber production.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that there is distinct reticence among the very big housebuilders to use anything that is not bricks and cement? What are the Government doing to encourage more prefabricated buildings with timber, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra mentioned, so that the cost of the buildings is reduced and the buildings are more environmentally friendly?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need to move forward by looking at how we can further support the use of timber in housebuilding and how we can support housebuilders in that process. We have already undertaken action, including through the modern methods of construction sector. We have reformed the planning system, and tried to unblock stalled housing sites and increase the supply of affordable homes. We have published a publicly available specification for residential modern methods of construction to give greater clarity around the insurance and warranties market, which is important in this space, and to support the delivery of quality homes. In December, we launched an expression of interest for ambitious local authorities to work with us and industry partners to develop pattern books of standard house designs. These will help support growth and investment, as well deliver homes more quickly.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, what measures are the Government introducing to promote the reuse of reclaimed timber in construction projects, as outlined in the 2025 timber road map’s circular economy commitments?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The road map was an important document on increasing the use of timber. As we go forward with our ambitious housebuilding programme, we need to ensure that the houses we build are as sustainable as they can be. The noble Baroness’s question about reusable timber has to be part of the discussion with housebuilders and the way we move forward.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, hemp is grown in this country and is a fantastic building material that is both carbon negative and sustainable, with fantastic insulation qualities. The French are the largest growers of hemp in Europe and use it an extraordinary amount in construction. Given that 34 miles of rope on HMS “Victory” was made of hemp, how have we let the French steal a march on us and what are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a very interesting question. Those of us who have been involved in working with the construction industry will be aware that there is a quite a large lobby for the use of hemp in this country—I am sure the noble Lord is aware of it. As we move forward with more sustainable building, we have to look at all options, and I am sure we can consider hemp as part of that.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, among other important issues, the 2025 national security strategy highlights the need to ensure our supply chains, energy and critical goods. However, the significance of homegrown timber is overlooked, despite the fact that it was declared an essential industry during the Covid pandemic. As we have heard, timber products are vital to construction, infrastructure, housing and logistics. Please can the Minister confirm that timber is now recognised as vital to national security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, we do not think the amount of imported timber is the way forward, and we have to change that. The noble Lord said that 10% is homegrown; our figures are that 80% is imported. It is important that we look at how best to turn that around. Importing huge amounts of end-product is not good for our national security, so it is important that we look at how we increase homegrown timber.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the work of Fera Science Ltd, in Sand Hutton near York, which examines the wood used in furniture and other products that brings unwelcome visitors to this country, in the form of little insects and beasties. Will she congratulate Fera Science on the work that it does, and would she have occasion to visit in the not too distant future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to congratulate Fera. It does excellent work. When I went to Forest Research, I saw some of the wood that had, shall we say, unpleasant visitors in it, so I know that both Fera and Forest Research do important work and help biosecurity in this country. I know the noble Baroness is keen for me to visit Fera and I will of course consider that.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the level of afforestation in Great Britain is about 13% and the average in the EU is mid-30%, so it is good to hear about planning for the planting of more trees. The biggest danger to tree-planting remains the grey squirrel. Recently, there was the welcome publication, at last, of the Grey Squirrel Policy Statement, which is the new name for the action plan. Can the Minister give the House some edited highlights of what the Government are doing about the grey squirrel problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Earl is always very quick to talk about the grey squirrel, and rightly so. As he says, we have recently published our plan on grey squirrel management—if any Members are interested, they can find it on the Defra website. At the moment, the main way people manage populations is through culling as best they can. We would prefer to have more humane ways of managing pests. As the noble Earl knows, we are now investing in the scientific research on contraceptives that is taking place. If we can crack that, it would make a huge difference, but I urge noble Lords to read the document.
Lord Swire (Con)
I was slightly concerned when the Minister talked about the standardisation of house design. I contend that one of the reasons people are so negative about development is the standardisation of housing estates and designs up and down the country. With that in mind, what more can be done to encourage people to build in the vernacular—thatch and cob, in my part of the world—and, at the same time, improve the knowledge and understanding of local planning officers so that they properly understand the needs and demands of local architecture in the differing parts of our great country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need some standardised pattern books. We need a fairly extensive housebuilding programme and we must ensure that those houses are built to a minimum standard of quality. However, I take the noble Lord’s point about the importance of vernacular building in certain places. It is my understanding that, within its planning advice, the MHCLG is looking at how it can best train planning officers as well.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to our high reliance on imports of timber, for both construction and furniture. We have certification schemes that are supposed to mean that timber meets environmental standards and does not abuse the human rights of indigenous people. However, it is often regarded as a tick-box exercise that is just not delivering. Are the Government going to improve those standards and make sure they are actually delivered?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Baroness is aware the UK timber regulations prohibit the placing of illegally harvested timber and wood products on the UK market and require the operators to exercise due diligence. The primary objective of the UK timber regulations is to tackle illegal logging and create demand for legally harvested timber, because we do not want to see it driving further deforestation. We are serious about how we manage that, but it is important to point out to the noble Baroness that we are committed to transitioning to a circular economy, in which resources are kept in use longer and waste is designed out. That will bring investment in green jobs and vital infrastructure. We are shortly going to publish our circular economy growth plan, and I urge the noble Baroness to read it.
Water Companies: Fines
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sikka
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many of the fines imposed by regulators on England’s water companies in 2024 and 2025 are yet to be paid in full.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, Ofwat has imposed fines to the value of £122.7 million on Thames Water. There is a payment plan in place, with the first 20%—that is, £24.5 million—paid last year. The remaining 80% is due by 31 March 2030 at the latest. Fines following EA enforcement action total £4.6 million, and we are not aware of any unpaid fines. Fines are only part of the enforcement toolkit, however, with over £164.6 million of enforcement undertakings announced over the same period.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is shameful that water companies, with nearly 1,200 criminal convictions, are permitted to negotiate the amount and timing of fines. Some will not pay the headline-grabbing fines announced in 2024 until 2030, while others will not pay any of the announced fines. No statement to that effect has been made to Parliament. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to indulge criminal organisations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I politely suggest to my noble friend that we do not indulge criminal organisations. We put in payment plans because it would not help a water company if we forced it to pay fines so that it went bust. I do not think that would help consumers at all. So we need to bring in sensible payment plans which ensure that we get the money back, but we are also bringing in tough, swift penalties to clamp down further on water companies. For example, we have increased enforcement powers to the regulators, we have given existing regulators the teeth they need to take tougher action against water companies, and the Environment Agency can now impose automatic penalties, and penalties to the lower civil standard of proof. We are looking to clamp down heavily on offenders.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Can the Minister say whether the directors are paying these fines, as opposed to the consumers, and if not, why not?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important that the water companies pay the fines in such a way that it does not impact on consumers and consumer bills, and the Government are certainly keen to enforce that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Can the noble Baroness explain what proportion of the fines paid to date have been used to improve the environment? Will she ensure that these fines can be used to help farmers prevent pollution from agricultural diffusion? At the moment, the sustainable farming incentive is paused, and in any event it does not yet cover agricultural pollution.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have announced that we are reopening the sustainable farming incentive, and we hope for a good response to it. The important thing to note about the fines is that currently, if they are from Ofwat, they go to Ofwat and then to the Treasury, and if they are EA fines they go straight into the Treasury. It is important that we have an agreement where we hypothecate the fines so that Defra can decide the projects where the fine money will make the biggest difference, and then HMT provides us with the money to do that. That is the important focus.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, we had the very cautious report from Sir Jon Cunliffe about water, and the Government followed that up with a fairly timid White Paper last week. Does not something much more drastic in terms of restructuring water companies need to happen so that they avoid this sort of fiasco in the future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Baroness about the White Paper being timid. I believe it sets out once-in-a-generation reforms that will really transform the water system for good and lead to a water Bill which Members of this House, including the noble Baroness, can help us make the best piece of legislation for the water industry that we have ever seen.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, to follow my noble friend’s question, the Government have announced that water company fines will help fund environmental restoration, including 100,000 new trees. To put that in context, a block that size would be only 50 hectares and cost £200,000. That seems a token effort. Will the Minister commit to more ambitious targets for the use of these fines in environmental restoration and tree-planting? I refer the House to my interest in developing new forests.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government have very ambitious plans for tree-planting, including three national forests, one of which has already begun planting and two are progressing well, so we are very keen. We understand the impact that trees can have in mitigating both climate change and flooding. We absolutely want to work with farmers to ensure that we can help and support them to plant trees in order to support their ambitions.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, fines were levied in August 2024 on Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water, and they have not been collected, as I understand it, because the companies have subsequently invested in infrastructure. Is that not like someone driving, injuring a person and then having the fine returned to them so that they can fix up their car and, possibly, sell it on for a profit? That would be unacceptable, as is the non-payment of these fines by water companies. Does my noble friend agree?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In March last year, Yorkshire Water agreed to pay an enforcement package of £40 million to address the failures that were found by the investigation at that time. That package is to prioritise work on some of the most problematic storm overflows in environmentally sensitive areas to ensure that they spill less than 20 times a year. Surely that must be our priority.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, it may have come as a surprise to many water bill payers that payment plans out to 2030 were agreed to pay fines. Will the Minister agree that when fines are imposed in future, a payment plan that goes with them should also be announced?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a helpful suggestion, and I am happy to take that back to the department.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Have the Government made any assessment of whether fines on firms, as opposed to fines on individuals, have any effect on the performance of the companies concerned? It strikes me that unless fines, at least to some degree, bear down on individuals, we are unlikely to see an improvement.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are working to ensure that the money that we get from fines is spent in the best possible way. We have had so many debates and questions around water from everybody in this House; what we need to do is tackle the problem for good and for the long term. We can talk about fines and about bonuses until we are blue in the face, but what we want to find is real change. That is what we are doing with the water White Paper, and what we will do with our water Bill.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lord, the Minister says that we do not want these water companies to go bust from paying these fines. Why on earth does the chief exec of Yorkshire Water get salary packages of multiple hundreds of thousands of pounds, which are often off the book and may not be publicly disclosed? Should we not look at limiting pay for these highly paid chief execs if their water companies are breaking the law and have been fined?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, water companies are private companies. It is not for the Government to interfere in how private companies operate, including their pay structures. However, having said that, we need a tough regulator to ensure that we are getting the best value from water companies.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Can the Minister indicate what proportion of fines are collected across society in general? The questions are related specifically to the water industry, and I understand why, but is it not the case that a very high proportion of fines across the whole of society are completely unpaid?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord has asked an incredibly wide-ranging and sweeping question. I am afraid I simply do not have those figures at my fingertips.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that this is a monopoly, and monopolies have no accountability? Until, as a previous speaker said, we get some direct accountability from chief executives, where they have to lose pay for bad performance, we will continue to have the problems we have with water authorities.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When the Water (Special Measures) Act passed, one of its key parts was around making chief executives much more responsible for the pollution that was happening on their watch. I am very pleased that we have got that legislation through. We just need to build on it. We need to make sure that water companies can no longer get away with the kind of behaviour they have been getting away with for years.
Yorkshire: Sustainable Water Management Solutions
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to supporting more sustainable water management, both locally and nationally. Specifically in Yorkshire, we are working with the Connected by Water partnership, which is looking at ways to manage water more sustainably to reduce flood risk and drought. A key part is the integrated floodwater management plan, which encourages sustainable drainage systems in new developments and collecting and reusing rainwater—and that includes treated wastewater—in order to reduce demand on water resources.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for her response. Noble Lords will be aware of the increased frequency and severity of flood events across the UK in recent years. Communities I serve in South Yorkshire are up to one-third more likely to experience flooding than the national average. Public First estimated last year that every pound spent on flood prevention saves £8 of costs in flood damage. So I warmly welcome the Government’s recent water White Paper, not least the section on infrastructure planning and development. I ask the Minister, however, what plans she and her colleagues across government have to include flood resilience measures in the Future Homes Standard.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Protecting homes is clearly very important. The national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk, published in January last year, shows that around 6.3 million properties in England are at risk of flooding. With climate change, we believe that this could increase to 8 million. So this is a really important point, and I assure the right reverend Prelate that it is a government priority. If we are going to solve these problems, this is about not just Defra but us working with the MHCLG and more broadly across government. We are putting forward the largest flood and coastal erosion programme in history, with £2.65 billion to better protect properties by March this year. We have started completing those schemes, and we will keep investing in this. It is a priority.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When we brought in the recent water Act, we expected water companies to respect what Parliament had passed, and to behave in the right way regarding paying themselves bonuses when they were continuing to pollute. We will do what we can to crack down on that and to change behaviour, but I am also pleased that we are looking to prioritise a further water Bill to continue to improve the situation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I pay tribute to the Slowing the Flow Pickering scheme, which has prevented the flooding of Pickering. I bring to the Minister’s attention the case of Gladman Developments v Lancaster City Council. It has set aside the sequential test and overruled what MHCLG was hoping for: that optional standards will be respected. Going forward, this will contribute to greater flooding until we have mandatory SUDS standards. Is this not causing the Government concern? There is an amendment to the English devolution Bill that I hope MHCLG might support.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, I cannot comment on the specific issue to which the noble Baroness refers, but we are absolutely committed to improving the implementation of sustainable drainage systems. The noble Baroness is aware that we have updated the national planning policy framework to do so, and we introduced new national standards in June last year. They made it clear that SUDS should be designed to cope with changing climate conditions and to deliver wider benefits. We want this to work, and we recognise that SUDS are an important part of combating future flooding.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, flood defences in Monmouth were built in 2020, survived a storm in 2022 and fell down in 2025. It seems that a lot of the concrete stuff that is built is not actually resistant in the long term. What are the Government doing to look at more nature-based solutions? Japan’s insurance industry funds only nature-based solutions such as bends in rivers, as it feels that they really do provide resistance. What percentage of our flood defences is going in that direction?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point, and that is why we now have a strategic objective to ensure that at least 4% of flood and coastal erosion risk management investment over the next 10 years is dedicated to natural flood management. This means that we will invest at least £300 million in natural flood management over the next decade—the highest amount so far during the floods programme. We are also prioritising projects by their benefits for every pound of government investment, because we know that natural flood management has historically attracted contributions from partners. Again, this will help to boost effectiveness. We are completely committed to continued investment in these natural flood management systems.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is this not another case of privatisation going wrong and the water companies taking massive profits out of the water system, leaving the Government with liabilities that are now costing a fortune?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right to raise this, and that is why we are prioritising a further water White Paper to sort these issues out.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the conditions described in the Oral Question are a result of climate change. The fact is that climate change is going to hit infrastructure—roads, railways and homes —in Yorkshire, and everywhere else globally, very hard. Is Defra explaining to the Treasury exactly how disastrous it would be to delay spending on climate change adaptation measures?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that we talk regularly about the importance of this not just to the Treasury but to other departments.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the Forestry Commission and the Woodland Trust have produced excellent research on the water-related benefits of tree planting, peatland restoration and rewetting wetlands. This demonstrates that reductions in peak flow rates during high rainfall events alleviate flood severity and that better water retention reduces drought severity and improves water quality. How will the Minister bring together the water companies, the insurance industry and infrastructure owners, as the beneficiaries of these nature-based solutions, to fund true catchment-scale investment not just in Yorkshire but all around our country? I declare my interest as a landowner.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned in response to the earlier question, we know that natural flood management attracts contributions from partners, including private partners, and that is something we must do. As the noble Baroness has just said, flooding has a big impact on climate change. We are not going to solve this unless we bring everyone together—the Government, infrastructure developers, the private sector and so on.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, the Question refers to water management, particularly in relation to protracted droughts. Does the Minister agree that one of the problems is the huge amount of water—billions of litres every year—that is lost from the system through leakage? Leakage is mentioned in the White Paper, but does the Minister agree that greater priority must be attached to reducing water leakage in our system? In a period when there are great difficulties with water production, we must prevent the current high rate of leakage.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely, and that is why Defra’s strategic policy statement sets out that we expect Ofwat to challenge water companies to halve leakage across the industry by 2050. We also want more investment, because that will also help to solve the leakage problem. Alongside that, we are working to ensure the rollout of 10.4 million smart meters over the price review period 2025-30. If that is successful, it is likely to lead to better detection of leakage across England and Wales so that we can better target where the leaks are.
Water White Paper
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement repeat this evening. Some proposals in this White paper are indeed most welcome, including the scrapping of Ofwat—something we have long called for—but it falls short of the fundamental reforms water customers are so desperately in need of. True reform demands root-and-branch change within the water companies themselves, because until profit is no longer their driving force, shareholder payouts will continue to be prioritised over investment and the urgent need to end the scandal of sewage in our rivers and seas. We therefore advocate a move towards mutuality, not the costly nationalisation that others propose but a shift to public benefit companies, a model that has proved so successful elsewhere, particularly in the United States.
I have a few questions. How can the Government claim there will be nowhere to hide when the White Paper rules out structural reform, including changes to ownership and profit extraction? What action is being taken to stop water companies evading the bonus ban, given evidence to the Public Accounts Committee only recently that they have reclassified such payments as “retention incentives”, even in the past year?
If this is truly the biggest overhaul since privatisation, why does it fail to confront the broken ownership model which has enabled pollution, underinvestment and profiteering for decades? Did the Government consider alternative models, such as mutuality, and, if not, why not at this stage, when the current funding system so clearly prioritises shareholders over customers, in turn using huge debts to fund dividends?
What guarantees can Ministers give that a new regulator, potentially more than a year from being operational, will be able to deliver immediate improvements, rather than the risk of extended regulatory failure? What assessment has been made of the cumulative impact of historic underinvestment and excessive dividends in today’s water bills, and how will this White Paper address that inequity? How will the Government work with farmers to tackle agricultural pollution in genuine partnership with them, rather than the slight blame culture that currently exists? Will Ministers commit to ending the sewage cover-up by requiring full publication of sewage volume data, not just the spill duration, as is the current system and the one we had under the last Government? Given record sewage dumping and rising bills, what measurable standards will define this White Paper as a success if river and coastal water quality, for instance, continues to decline?
Finally, and no great surprise from me, when will we see the necessary legislation on our precious chalk streams, which have a very welcome inclusion in this White Paper but which were promised urgent action when we were discussing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? There continues to be a danger that it will be too late for the chalk streams.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interest and their questions on the water White Paper, which we published and laid in Parliament on 20 January. The White Paper outlines how we will work together with water companies, investors, communities and the environment to transform our water system for good, because we need to ensure a sustainable water system for future generations.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked why it had taken so long and when we were going to see change. As noble Lords know, we have already taken action. We brought in the Water (Special Measures) Act and took action to ring-fence water company investment. The transition plan will be published later this year, which will provide a road map for implementing the changes. We will bring forward a new water reform Bill during this Parliament, alongside which we will make progress with reforms that do not require primary legislation. That will include a shift to a supervisory approach to regulation, with dedicated teams with an understanding of how each company operates. There will be the piloting of regional planning approaches across the country. The water reform Bill will be a priority for the department going forward.
The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned the extension of environmental permitting to cattle. As the White Paper sets out, we are considering extending environmental permitting beyond pig and poultry to cattle, because cattle are a significant source of water pollution. However, we are working closely with the NFU and others, because we need to take a balanced approach to that issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned Ofwat and regulation. We have already done something on this, with the Water (Special Measures) Act, which shifted the burden of proof from the regulators to the water companies in order to enable automatic fines. The new regulator that will be set up will require us to change legislation. We feel it is really important to make sure that we get this right. The existing regulators will in the interim retain the powers they have until we have the new regulator in place.
The Environment Agency is carrying out record levels of funding and inspections, and is currently on track to deliver 10,000 inspections in the year 2025-26. We are going to issue interim strategic policy statements to the regulator as part of the transition plan, which will provide legally binding instructions on what the regulator’s priorities should be and how they should act during the transition period. We will reform the approach to the strategic policy statements and issue wider strategic guidance to provide long-term direction to the entire water system, alongside specific, measurable directions to the new water regulator.
The noble Earl asked when we are going to make appointments to the regulator and when it will be set up. We intend to make formal appointments to the board of the new water regulator at the earliest opportunity. We believe that providing early leadership will help the new regulator begin to develop its internal strategy, to build a new culture, which is very important, and to deliver the industry-wide approach from the start. As I said, during that transition the existing regulators will retain their full powers and responsibilities. We are considering the funding arrangements that will be needed. The new regulator will have the power to deliver its responsibilities in full and will balance the interests of customers, investors and the environment.
The noble Earl asked about accountability. Clear oversight and accountability will be an important design principle of the new regulator, and we anticipate that the regulator will be accountable to Ministers, and by extension to Parliament, in the way that it carries out its functions. We will consider how parliamentary accountability is handled through the legislation, any sponsorship arrangements and the framework agreement. We recognise the importance of appropriate independence, particularly for economic regulation, in supporting the credibility of the new regime and investor confidence, so we will ensure that there are mechanisms in place, including within the legislation itself, to protect regulatory independence. We will look at other relevant public bodies as we draw that up.
The noble Earl asked specifically about the water restoration fund. We are doubling our funding for catchment partnerships in order to bring together farmers and stakeholders to tackle agricultural problems. I am not in a position yet to say whether we will be continuing with the water restoration fund.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about bonuses, which I think everyone feels strongly about, particularly in the light of what has been happening recently with South East Water. We introduced criminality for water bosses who cover up illegal sewage spills and the power to ban unfair bonuses. Some £4 million in bonuses for 10 water bosses was blocked last summer. We absolutely expect water companies to follow both the letter and the spirit of the law, and Ofwat is considering what further action can be taken to ensure that companies are held to account. The water White Paper goes further in order to ensure that water companies have nowhere to hide on poor performance. That includes a new supervisory scheme, which will ensure that the regulator has a stronger grip on exactly what is going on in each company.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about mutuality and models of ownership. Mutual or co-operative ownership is not something that we are opposed to in principle. The White Paper says that, if a company’s owners propose changes to the ownership model, the new regulator will assess any proposals carefully against transparent criteria. But to take a company into mutual or co-operative ownership, either the current owners would need to propose this or the company would need to be bought first. We would therefore need to think carefully about how that transition would actually take place. We are not opposed to it in principle, but any mandatory changes in ownership would be costly and complicated, and would not deliver the material benefit. That is why it is important that it is the company’s owners who are proposing any such changes.
The noble Baroness also asked how the White Paper was addressing pollution; we talked about a number of issues there. As we have set out in the White Paper, there are several measures that we are taking to tackle pollution. Importantly, we are looking to strengthen collaboration in planning at catchment and regional level. This will help to identify lower-cost, higher-impact solutions to tackle pollution and include opportunities for farmers—which the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, was asking about—water companies and other stakeholders to work in partnership to ensure that the action taken is effective. We are also developing a new and strengthened approach to monitoring, because we do not want companies marking their own homework, as they have been doing for years. We are looking at how we can strengthen that.
We are shifting the emphasis towards tackling the root causes of sewage pollution by reducing the volume of rainwater and pollutants that enter the sewerage system in the first place and freeing up sewerage capacity for development and growth. I will give some examples of how we are doing that. We are building on the ban on wet wipes, which contain plastic, to stop sewers from getting clogged up so much. We have introduced a national standard for sustainable drainage systems which will help to improve drainage quality. That will be a requirement for all new developments and will have drainage implications beyond that through the National Planning Policy Framework. We are also committed to ensuring that funding looks at how to improve nature and the environment more broadly. This was mentioned when we talked about the PIB.
Overall, we need to improve transparency and ensure that the public can see what is happening in their local waters. That is important if we are to get back consumer confidence and boost protection for customers. We want people to see that this is serious action that we are taking to improve the water systems.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and the White Paper, as the Minister knows, and I am particularly pleased that the Statement refers in its opening paragraph to
“putting consumers and the environment first”.
We had a discussion in this House at the time of the Water (Special Measures) Bill on whether the environment was given a voice equal to that of consumers. I was always in favour of giving more voice to the environment, so I am pleased that the Secretary of State has recognised that.
I have mentioned many times in your Lordships’ House the necessity of a single, strong regulator, and I welcome this. That involves abolishing Ofwat and taking over parts of the work of the Environment Agency and other regulators. We must recognise that Ofwat over many years allowed the balance sheets of the water companies to be transformed by private equity-increased leverage. That was agreed by Ofwat without any regard to the consequences for the environment. Despite the Environment Agency always claiming that it does not have enough resources, it has considerable resources. The problem is that it never gave sufficient priority to controlling pollution in rivers and on beaches.
I have some questions for the Minister. Of course, we are all anxious to see all this put into effect. The White Paper was delayed. The Minister said that there should be some guidance later this year. I hope that there will be a new water Bill in the next Session of Parliament. Can she confirm that? Fundamentally, when can we expect to see the new regulator in operation? That is what we are all looking forward to and what the public now expect.
The Whip is making a face at me, but I think that I am allowed to ask a second question. Will the new regulator have sufficient budget to fulfil its very considerable responsibilities? We all want to see a favourable outcome to this policy in development.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Duke for his broad support for the White Paper. He has been a champion of improving the situation with our water systems.
He asked about the new regulator. We intend to make formal appointments to the board of the new water regulator at the earliest opportunity. We want to get cracking with this. I am not in a position to say whether the Bill will be in the next Session or when it will come, but I reassure the noble Duke that this is a top priority for Defra. We are working very hard to bring this forward as soon as we can.
We are considering the funding arrangements that we will need, but I assure the noble Duke that the new regulator will have the power to deliver its responsibilities in full. We want to make sure that any new regulator is able to do the job and do it well.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on producing this White Paper and on putting into effect the excellent work that Sir Jon Cunliffe did in his review.
The water industry has been an example of the worst of the capitalist system—not value creation but value extraction in a major way. Obviously, a major concern of any Government is keeping down the cost of living. My fear is that we will create a situation where the Government and the regulator are under pressure from the companies to allow environmental standards to be further weakened to make the finances add up and to save them from bankruptcy. Can my noble friend assure me that we will not tolerate any of that nonsense?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely; water companies have done an extremely good job of trashing the environment and causing pollution. This White Paper and the water Bill that we will be bringing forward are designed to stop that, to have a water system that people can trust and to have water companies that behave as we would expect them to behave. They have a responsibility for the environment. They should take that responsibility much more seriously.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, one of the areas that the White Paper does not even mention is the voluntary sector, particularly citizen science, which has been fundamental in calling water companies to account—in the Wye valley and other areas. As well as not mentioning citizen science, the White Paper does not mention either science or citizens, which is perhaps more worrying. What are the plans of the Government to keep this whole area of citizen science, which has been so positive in putting pressure on the water companies regarding water pollution and in motivating them to continue their work, and to somehow include this in the future? It is a resource that is wide, large, educated, willing and desperate to make sure that we have a better future.
Also, why is artesian water not mentioned in the report? In terms of long-term assets, it is one of the most important that we have. Although it is okay at the moment, it will be severely challenged in the future.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I think that much of what the noble Lord has talked about is what I need to feed back to the department. Obviously, this is a White Paper; it is not the final version of what any Bill must look like. The noble Lord makes some very important points, particularly on citizen science. I have a personal interest in this because before I ever came to this place, I was part of the Consultation Institute, which has worked in citizen science, so I appreciate what he is saying.
We have talked about working regionally. We have talked about working with stakeholders. We have talked about the importance of that local connection if we are to succeed in making the changes that we want. Citizen science—the noble Lord is absolutely right—can play a role in that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to the Front-Bench questions, the Minister said the Government are not opposed “in principle” to mutual or co-operative ownership. I am sure that will be delightful news to the Co-operative Party, which of course has been in an electoral partnership with the Labour Party since 1927.
That question of ownership is one we keep coming back to. The Minister also said that we will get a regulator with a tighter grip. But will that grip not be resisted and see coming against it the force of the damage of private ownership that the noble Lord opposite just referred to? The legal responsibility for the managers of private companies is to maximise returns to shareholders. That is going to come up against, as the Statement says, this reform being for customers and the environment, but those are set in opposition to the profit motive. Surely the only way we are going to get a water system that does indeed work for customers and the environment is if we have a public organisation managed for the public good.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about science and there not being a lot of it. One thing we are going to do is bring in a new chief engineer to bring more technical scientific expertise to the new regulator, which, just to come back on his point, is important.
On the modelling, the difficulty in moving away is how you are going to do it, because any new model needs to work. The evidence has shown that where there have been problems around the globe, the model has not been the problem; it has been the way that the owners have managed and dealt with the company and any problems that arise from that. I do not think we can just blame the model. We can blame the behaviour of the companies, the fact that there was not enough done to stop that behaviour sooner, and the way that the regulator has been set up—these are the problems we now want to tackle. Rather than just focusing on the model, we should focus on how we can restore confidence to consumers, how we can improve the environment and how we can set up a new system that makes sure this kind of behaviour can never happen again.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I am sure there is agreement around the whole House that the state of the water industry in this country at present is very far from satisfactory. In her remarks about the White Paper, the Minister referred to a whole number of possible initiatives and changes and regulations. Does she agree that, at the last resort, we as a society have to generate enough resources focused on these specific problems to actually bring about change? Is she confident that society will be able to generate those resources, because if not, various things are simply not going to happen?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It would be useful for me to perhaps have a cup of tea with him and understand specifically which resources he is referring to, because it could be very wide-ranging.
As I have said, we want to ensure that the new regulator is set up with the sufficient funding and resources to ensure that the water companies deliver what they are supposed to be delivering—what their contracts expect them to deliver.
As the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, pointed out, this is about a balance between proper consumer support, decent water and the environment, because consumers have been treated very badly by water companies over the years, as has the environment. We need to get that that right, and if those are the resources the noble Lord is talking about, that is absolutely what we are fixed on delivering.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, since there is time, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about science and citizen science, one thing that some of that sampling is starting to expose is the level of contamination from new areas of concern, such as PFAS, pesticide contamination and microplastics and nanoplastics. My reading of this report is that it does not seem to focus on the way in which new science is uncovering new concerns for public health and environmental health from those kinds of contamination. Is that something the Government are going to look at as they go forward with the new plans?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can completely assure the noble Baroness that these issues are being looked at outwith these proposals. These are concerns that we are taking very seriously in the department.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, as there is still time, I will ask one further question, if the Whip will allow me. The White Paper mentions cutting leakage. The previous Government had a target of reducing leaks by 50% by 2050. It seemed to me—I asked a question in the House of the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon—that surely that was not ambitious enough. Do this Government have an intention to change the target to something more ambitious than a 50% reduction by 2050?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The problem with targets is that half the time they are not met. With the water White Paper, we are looking at ways in which we can improve the infrastructure and get proper funding into it that is also for the long term, because there is no point in putting a plaster on it if it explodes later on, which is what has been happening all the time. We need proper investment to ensure that we do not have continued leakage. That is why we are bringing the new MoT checks on water infrastructure; that is, health checks on assets such as pipes, pumps and treatment works to stop them just being left to crumble. It is about getting ahead of problems before they come into place. That is the way we resolve issues such as leaks. Up to now, water companies have mended them as cheaply as possible by just doing a mend. We had it where we live in our village; they mended it, and then it started leaking somewhere else, and so it continued—you do not resolve the problem. It is really important that we are bringing in these MoT checks and a new performance improvement regime, so that if the water companies do not do what they have agreed to do, we can really crack down on them, because this is the way we need to move forward.
Large-scale Waste Crime
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling waste crime. The Environment Agency assesses all reports of waste crime and deploys its resources against the offending that poses the greatest threat, risk and harm. The Environment Agency recorded 176 active, high-risk, illegal waste sites at the end of March 2025. As with all criminal activity, understanding the true extent of waste crime is difficult due to its often covert nature.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, organised waste crime is out of control, and there seems to be a reluctance to expose its true scale. In the five weeks since the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report, more illegal waste sites were discovered than were previously known to the Environment Agency. Will the Minister commit to using remote monitoring and AI to survey the country and drive enforcement; hypothecate landfill taxes for cleaning up sites; and end the perverse practice of charging the Environment Agency landfill tax on the waste it removes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are committed to the introduction of digital waste tracking, and the analysis of data that this brings will enable us to provide a significant asset for regulators and enforcement bodies in the fight that we have against waste crime. Additionally, the Environment Agency is looking at other technology-based opportunities to measure the levels of waste crime. That could use the potential of satellite-type technology and machine learning. We are providing the Environment Agency with extra, targeted funds. My officials are also working with the Environment Agency and the Treasury on the implementation of the proposed Environment Agency levy, and we will be able to update on that in due course. Of course, we will also continue to work with the Treasury on the landfill tax policy and keep under continual review how best to tackle waste crime, including considerations around resourcing.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, fly-tipping is a blight to farmers across the country, with over 80% reporting to the Environment Agency that they are impacted by small-scale tipping and over 20% by large-scale offences. Ultimate responsibility lies not only with criminals but with householders who do not pay adequately to dispose of their waste and wash their hands of it. What efforts are the Government making to prosecute under the householders’ duty, and what number of successful prosecutions have there been?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Prosecutions take a long time to work through the legal system and the court system, but numbers are in line with other law enforcement agencies when we compare them with the number of interventions. Of course, prosecutions are only one part of the picture. Prevention and disruption work is just as important, because we need to intervene and stop criminal activity at an early stage or before it happens so that we do not have prosecutions coming in further down the line. It is important to say quite clearly that the Government do not believe that the status quo is working. We need to make changes because it is, as the noble Earl said, getting out of control. We are looking at the best ways that we can make changes to improve the situation.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, the status quo clearly is not working. Can the Minister explain how the Kidlington site, an illegal site that grew to over 10,000 tonnes of rubbish, was allowed to happen before any effective official action was taken? It would have taken more than 300 heavy goods vehicles to make those illegal deliveries.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Viscount and others know that the Kidlington situation was utterly appalling. It was, as he said, quite extraordinary that it was allowed to happen. It is important to recognise that it was exceptional. We need to concentrate on the fact that waste crime is more and more frequent. It is a serious criminal activity that blights our countryside, which is why, as I said, the status quo is not acceptable, and we are seriously looking at what we can do to make the improvements that are needed.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the Minister’s department has confirmed in Answers to a series of Written Questions from me that neither the Government nor local authorities have any responsibility for dealing with the disposal of material dumped by third parties on private land. Criminals are of course aware of this, and target fields and tracks off immediate public highway verges with impunity. Victims typically lack the money or expertise to remove illegal waste yet are told that it is down to them to deal with it. Does the Minister feel that this state of affairs is just? Do the Government have any plans to address it and give practical assistance to the victims?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we do not think the status quo is working. We need to look at how tidying up and tackling waste crime, both from the start and at the clearing up end of things, are properly resourced, and at how the criminals carrying out this illegal activity are caught and dealt with. As the noble Lord said, that is difficult because of the nature of where it happens but, again, we are working across government to look at the best way to tackle this, because unless we all come together across government, we will not resolve this issue.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Environment Agency may be good at prosecuting a known farmer who damages a river or a known factory which has a chemical spill, but fly-tipping style is now a national organised crime on a mega scale, costing the economy over £1 billion per annum, and it is beyond the competence of the Environment Agency to tackle it. In the Defra-led Joint Unit for Waste Crime there are also the police, HMRC and the National Crime Agency. I was interested that the Minister said that she has to do things differently and that the status quo is not an option, so will she now consider making the National Crime Agency the lead agency in that unit to tackle this growing national problem that is doing incalculable damage to some of our finest countryside and SSSIs?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are happy to look at all options for how to move forward, because the situation is unacceptable. On the Environment Agency’s role in waste crime enforcement, the total budget has increased by more than 50%—that is a £5.6 million increase from the previous year—which has allowed the EA to double the size of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, so we are investing financially to tackle this. It means that the EA has increased its overall front-line criminal enforcement resource in the JUWC and we have brought in more staff—I think the number is 43. We are investing significantly in how we are operating, but we also need to consider how we can make changes to improve the situation.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee which produced the report on waste crime. On 16 December, the Environment Agency wrote to the committee stating that 749 new illegal waste sites had been found in 2024-25, compared to 427 in the previous year. Clearly, the system is broken, not just failing. Two of the most devastating sites are in Kidlington and in Bickershaw, Wigan. Has work started to clear the Kidlington site? If so, at what cost to the taxpayer? Why is the same priority not applied to the Wigan site, given that it is near houses and a primary school and burned for nine days last July?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Environment Agency’s exceptional decision to progress works to entirely clear the site at Kidlington of waste followed new information and advice from the fire and rescue services that indicated that there was an increased possibility of a fire at the site, which is why it moved in to do it. It was the scale of that fire risk that set it apart from other illegal waste dumps in England. That is why it became an overriding public imperative. Regarding the other site, investigations and work are going on there, so it is difficult for me to comment specifically, but I am happy to look at what I am able to share with the noble Baroness and put it out in writing.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, there is waste crime in plain sight. For decades, England’s water companies have illegally dumped sewage in rivers, lakes and seas. Companies have nearly 1,200 criminal convictions, but their directors receive mega bonuses and rewards. Despite promises, no director has been prosecuted or disqualified from acting as a director. Can the Minister explain why the Government continue to indulge criminal entities and elites?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend knows that water companies are private companies. He also knows that we have a criminal justice system that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice work in. The law is there to be used when appropriate, and I would hope that it will happen.
Meat Labelling
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hoey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to ensure that labelling on meat states whether the animal was stunned before being killed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government encourage the highest standards of animal welfare and slaughter and would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. As set out in the Government’s animal welfare strategy, we are also committed to ensuring that consumers have access to clear information on how their food is produced. We will continue working with relevant stakeholders to explore how food labelling can support consumer transparency and promote animal welfare.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister. I know she is a genuine supporter of good animal welfare, which is why I was surprised that there was not a word in the strategy document that came out about the very cruel and barbaric way millions of animals are killed each year in a non-stun method. A lamb is shackled, pulled along and then has its throat cut, and takes up to nearly two minutes sometimes to die. It is just shocking, and all in the name of a religious belief. Even if this Government will not ban this kind of non-stun slaughter, will they at least commit to make it a legal requirement to label the meat to show whether the animal has been fully stunned? Will she make it a legal requirement for all government institutions, such as schools and hospitals, to label properly so that the public can have a choice and show their horror at the treatment of sentient animals?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said in my Answer, we encourage all animals to be stunned before slaughter. It is what we would prefer as a Government—clearly, as someone who strongly supports animal welfare, it is what I would prefer. We have to recognise the religious sensitivities around this issue, and we are looking at the best way to move forward regarding food labelling.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the Minister agree that, before any labelling scheme could be considered, there would have to be an assurance that it would be comprehensive and not discriminatory against religious slaughter of shechita and halal? While a recent study in the American Journal of Veterinary Research confirmed that
“religious slaughter induces swift LOC”—
or loss of consciousness—
“reinforcing its potential to minimize animal suffering”,
we know that animal welfare standards in industrialised slaughterhouses, using gassing and electrocution, are often very poor and far from humane. Any labelling scheme must fully reflect all those aspects.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, it is important that any labelling is completely accurate; it has to be transparent, and any discriminatory matters have to be carefully thought through, as the noble Baroness rightly said. She mentioned CO2 gas stunning, which is used in around 90% of pig slaughters and is incredibly cruel. It is one reason why we included it in the animal welfare strategy; it is a method of slaughter that we would also like to see phased out.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, one of the biggest challenges for animal welfare in the south-west of England is the sheer distance that animals have to travel to slaughterhouses, due to the closure of many abattoirs over recent years. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that local abattoirs are supported and that new abattoirs can open across the western counties?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have every sympathy for the noble Earl’s concerns about the closure of small abattoirs and the distances that animals have to travel. I was previously the president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which had a specific campaign on that, so I understand the issue. The Government have provided grants to support small abattoirs from closing. There are a number of difficulties—including the challenge of having trained staff in abattoirs and people who want to do the job—but we are working closely with the FSA on how we can move forward.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, what is the position as regards imported meat, both in relation to halal and in meeting other animal welfare requirements, either from a third country or via the EU? Are we yet in a position to label that meat as meeting our very high domestic animal welfare standards?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
All trade deals, whether for import or export, are expected to meet the animal welfare standards that we set in this country—that is what we expect as our standards. When we move forward with the proposals in the animal welfare strategy, labelling will clearly be part of it.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, on the slaughter of sheep and goats in halal, there is another solution. There are modern methods of stunning for sheep and goats that are non-lethal but render the animals unconscious before killing; they are wholly consistent with Islamic requirements for halal certification and are supported by the Food Standards Agency. They are based on well-established practices in New Zealand, where all sheep are stunned and their meat is compliant for halal certification. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the universal adoption of similar measures in the UK? They would enable, first, the export of sheepmeat and, secondly, UK consumption of sheepmeat in processed products and in public provision such as in schools and hospitals which is both from stunned animals and halal certified.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The question from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, gives me the opportunity to mention the demonstration of life protocol for sheep and goats. I know that he is a very strong proponent of this. In fact, his support was instrumental in establishing the protocol, which is based on the New Zealand model. I am glad to confirm that the Government very much support this. The demonstration of life protocol provides assurance for Muslim consumers that the stunning of sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements. The protocol protects the welfare of the animals involved while also supporting any opportunities for trade. The Food Standards Agency oversees the monitoring and enforcement of animal welfare in slaughterhouses, and it also supports the protocol. So the Government will consider ways they can encourage halal slaughterhouses to use this protocol.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, data from the Food Standards Agency revealed that in the last decade 27% of inspections of slaughterhouses permitted to perform religious non-stun slaughter concluded with a rating of improvement necessary or urgent improvement necessary. This compares with just 10% of all other establishments. Can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to strengthen the enforcement of existing rules and standards? I refer the House to my registered interest as a livestock farmer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The official veterinarians in the Food Standards Agency are present in all approved slaughterhouses during slaughter operations. It is their job to monitor and enforce animal welfare requirements. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that some slaughterhouses carry out both stun and non-stun slaughters. It is difficult to attribute audit outcomes to one type of slaughter if both have occurred. It is difficult to link it specifically to a slaughter method. What we should be concerned about in government is consistently high standards in our abattoirs. That is something that we work with the FSA on.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, religious conventions change over the years. As we have heard, this is a very cruel practice. Has the Minister considered meeting religious leaders to see how animal welfare could be improved?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have in the past done exactly that and we will continue to look at how we can improve animal welfare by encouraging take-up of the demonstration of life protocol. As we look to move forward in discussing labelling of food production, we will work with stakeholders, which, of course, if it was impacting on religious practice, would include religious leaders.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned the American Veterinary Medical Association’s recent publication, which has been three times peer reviewed and shows a new understanding of shechita. Can the Minister confirm that shechita is within the legal definition of stunning?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We mentioned the demonstration of life protocol that is used in New Zealand, so there is no non-stun slaughter there, but it has an exception for shechita, which comes to the point that the noble Lord is making. As we discuss this issue further, clearly the issues surrounding shechita and halal killing need to be looked at within those religious communities’ expectations.
Environmental Improvement Plan 2025
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, both for giving us this opportunity to talk about a very important issue and for his excellent introduction. I, too, welcome the EIP, in particular the concept of delivery plans. However, some of the delivery plans are delivering more than others.
I turn to a subject close to my heart for an example. There is no specificity—it is good to be able to say that on a Thursday afternoon—on the timing of the ban on peat in horticultural products. I remember that, when I joined the RSPB as chief executive back in 1990—35 years ago, in case your maths is not very good—we were campaigning for a ban on peat products. I used to go to the local garden centre and insist that its staff took all the peat-free or reduced-peat products out from the back of their compost displays and put them at the front. I did that for nine months until I was banned from that garden centre. I subsequently went around all the garden centres in Bedfordshire and was systematically banned from one after the other. We have waited for this for quite a long time—and that is just one example. We do not really have any clear targets as yet; across the piece, we need to go through this EIP systematically and see what more needs to be done to get targeting into it.
The second point I want to make is that some of the targets, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, are pretty immediate: the biodiversity ones, particularly on species abundance by 2030, and the 30 by 30 targets. The whole issue of ending nature declines by 2030 was always very ambitious. I am a great believer in ambitious targets, but we have not yet had confirmation of whether the delivery plans will actually deliver the target. It is work in progress and there is not long to go, so I hope that work can be expedited. Across the whole enterprise, there needs to be renewed pace and vigour.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also talked about cross-government commitment and this is incredibly important. Defra obviously has to be the cheerleader and the thinker in this, but it needs help right across government to be able to deliver. For example, SSSI condition can be delivered only by a huge variety of different landowners and land managers, yet we still have—I have spoken about this before—an outbreak of newt bashing in certain parts of government. We really have to get away from the nature versus growth dichotomy, which is unreal, and towards a system where we are talking about the real benefits to growth that nature recovery can produce.
Important in that whole process of getting cross-government commitment, apart from moving hearts and minds, will be implementing the legal duty on all Ministers to pay due regard to the environmental principles when proposing or revising policy. What is the implementation plan for making sure that the environmental principles are actively used across government departments? What training is there for civil servants, and indeed perhaps even for Ministers, in thinking about the environmental principles in their daily work, and what monitoring of their implementation will take place? I would say this, of course—I am on record as having said it before—but the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was absolutely splendid and should be adopted by the Government.
The fourth point I want to make is about land. Noble Lords cannot really expect me to talk on this issue without talking about the land use framework and the farming road map. It is slightly unnerving that, to my understanding, the farming road map will not actually have a map in it. It seems a bit strange that everybody else in various government departments is busy drawing up spatial plans and strategies but the farming road map will not necessarily have a map.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
I am glad to have identified something that the Minister will have to find out about. The whole business of the contribution of agri-environment schemes and the farming road map to the EIP is huge. Nature-friendly farming is fundamental: it will be key, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, to delivering goal 1, the restoration of nature, as will a proper land use framework. Goal 3, clean, resilient and plentiful water and nature-based solutions to those, will be fundamental. I know that water is a very important government priority: we really have to get the EIP to focus on that and get the land use framework and nature-friendly farming solutions implemented.
The land use framework should help the Government in their prioritisation of their own spend on biodiversity. I know that the latest timetable is for March, which is terribly close to local government and Scottish and Welsh elections. We can anticipate that there might be a little turbulence after those. I would hate there to be another Minister who wants to pore over the land use framework all over again when, in fact, in many government departments, spatial strategies are progressing apace.
I was going to talk about trees, but I am getting a bit close to the end, so I shall finish with farming and the farming road map. We really have to set out how the three environmental land management schemes we have currently will balance. How much will we see invested in each of them? What contribution will each make? We need to give surety to people who are going to put their heads above the parapet and take up these schemes that they will be there for the future—that they will be maintained and developed, and have predictable application windows—so that we can get landowners of all sorts, large and small, investing in these very sensible schemes, with the surety that they will not find them disappearing from under their feet. My last words, before I get cut off in my prime, are, in summary, to commend energy and pace to the Minister, because that is absolutely what we need in this important area.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am quite tight for time. I shall do my best to answer all the many questions, but if there is anything that I do not cover, I will make sure I write to noble Lords with responses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to respond and to discuss how the environmental improvement plan will deliver the targets of the Environment Act.
The EIP, as noble Lords are aware, sets out the Government’s commitment to the ambitious statutory Environment Act targets. It is our road map on how we are going to improve the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it. It ensures that nature’s recovery is a key priority for this Government and is fundamental to our general approach, including growth, because we know that growth is not possible without a healthy and resilient natural environment.
Our EIP goes further than the previous one. It is a credible, clear plan with clear, prioritised actions to deliver the environmental outcomes of restoring nature, improving environmental quality, creating a circular economy, protecting environmental security and improving people’s access to nature. It sets out who is responsible for these actions across government and our wider society.
The EIP sets ambitious yet achievable interim targets. It is essential to have those as staging posts on our journey in order to deliver the targets that have been rightly described today as challenging. Each interim target will make an appropriate contribution to corresponding statutory targets over the next five years. We have increased the ambition of some of the interim targets since the Government’s last plan, including for air quality and to restore and create wildlife-rich habitats. We have also introduced new targets on farm wildlife and on invasive non-native species. We are maintaining our delivery trajectories for other targets and have adjusted others to ensure that they remain deliverable and credible.
On other targets, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the MPAs and whether the 5% flex was watering down that target. The flex is introduced largely to account for adverse impacts of offshore wind developments that have been consented to because they pass the habitats regulations or MCZ derogation tests. We think it is the best option to set an interim target that contributes towards the statutory target while aligning it with the changing MPA network that supports the Government’s clean energy mission. I hope that explains why we have done that.
Of course, setting clear targets and goals is simply not enough; we need to know exactly how we are going to reach them. I hope noble Lords will be reassured to know that for the first time we have published delivery plans for those targets. They clearly set out how actions contribute, who will deliver them and how progress will be measured. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked which actions will make the largest contribution to halting the decline of biodiversity. The delivery plans will set that out on a strong evidence footing so that we know exactly what is happening.
Driving environmental change and understanding the impact of actions being taken will obviously be complex and take time, so the delivery plans are designed to remain live and can be refined over time in response to emerging evidence, to policy evaluation and to any feedback that we get from stakeholders carrying out the delivery. We believe that this transparent and collaborative approach to communicating and adapting our plans is a major step forward. It is also central to our monitoring and our reporting of progress, which, again, is essential to keeping any delivery on track.
The EIP sets out more than 90 commitments. Each is associated with a delivery metric, and we will report on changes to those metrics in our annual progress reports, along with the latest evidence and changes to trends in our environmental indicator framework. The framework, which is also published online, objectively measures how the environment is changing across the 10 EIP goals.
Together, such approaches better enable external appraisal and will ensure that we learn and adapt appropriately as we move towards the targets. I am already very grateful to stakeholders, including the OEP, whose scrutiny and recommendations are helping to shape this improved approach. We have a clear plan and process, but we also know the scale of the challenge and are trying to match this with the right actions to get where we need to go.
SFI was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, so I am sure he will be pleased to hear that, just this morning at the Oxford Farming Conference, the Secretary of State set out how we are reforming SFI to make it simpler and fairer and to enable as many farmers as possible to benefit and help nature thrive. As someone who has a smallholding, I was particularly pleased to see that this is also targeted now at smaller farmers. At that conference, the Secretary of State also made clear that protecting the environmental foundations of farming is not separate from productivity but an essential part of it. All this will help us to meet our EIP targets, including doubling the number of farms delivering for wildlife. This follows the most nature-friendly farming Budget we have seen, to give farmers the support they need to produce food sustainably while protecting soil, water and wildlife.
Last year we had the highest amount of tree planting in 20 years, as I am sure my noble friend will be pleased to hear—over 10 million trees—and we have started planting the first of the three new national forests. We recently implemented the Water (Special Measures) Act. I have been asked about the water White Paper, and I confirm that it will be published very soon; watch this space.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about PFAS. The EIP includes a commitment to publish a PFAS plan in 2026, and that will set out how the Government are taking action to protect people and the environment from the particular harms and risks that this relates to. We are acting decisively to improve air quality. A circular economy is an important part of this. We are further reducing environmental harm by turning waste into opportunity and creating green jobs across the country—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly interested in this. We are boosting opportunities and, as the Minister for access to nature, I am pleased that we have a chapter in the EIP on how we will do this. I was pleased that we launched the first of the nine new river walks on Boxing Day.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of working together. It is important that we do this, as we will not make progress unless we have cross-government contributions in achieving these targets. That includes the land use framework, the farming road map and what we are doing across the department as well as across government. This is important. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, particularly talked about the importance of working with stakeholders and people who have to deliver. Only by government working hand in hand with communities, businesses, farmers, the public sector and the third sector can we achieve our target delivery.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked a number of questions, and I will try to fit those in. If there is anyone else, I will come back to them. He asked what aspects of the new plan give me confidence around SSSIs —in fact, there were a few questions around SSSIs. I have an SSSI on my land, so I completely understand the challenges of site management. Natural England has improved its understanding of SSSI condition and the pressures and actions needed to restore SSSIs. It is making progress: it has a more strategic focus than previously and, over the spending review, it is looking to improve the evidence from each site. It is looking at a strategic landscape scale, with a greater focus on what happens on the land outside the site boundary as well as just within it, and at those implications.
The noble Lord asked how many SSSIs are on agricultural land covered by agri-environment contracts. It is approximately 40% at the moment. Additionally, Natural England has developed a conservation enhancement scheme to fund actions on SSSI land that is not eligible for environmental stewardship schemes. We want to continue to build on that work.
On national landscapes, we know we need to go further and faster in protected landscapes to meet our national targets, and we will ensure that protected landscape bodies, landowners and land managers have the tools and resources to achieve that. We will continue to work closely.
The PMB was excellent and very much in line with government ambition. The principles of it—to drive and strengthen action towards meeting natural environment and climate targets and objectives from both local and other public authorities—are absolutely at the heart of what we will achieve. I hope we can continue to talk to the noble Lord and bring in his expertise around that.
I seem to have run out of time. I am really sorry; I had lots of lovely answers to all of the questions posed by noble Lords.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Would it be possible for the Minister to tell us about peat?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have just been told that I can carry on because I have another five minutes; my officials will tell me when I need to stop.
I turn to the gene editing of ecosystems. We are supportive of that innovation. We have agreed the parameters for the new SPS agreement with the EU. The EU has accepted that there are a number of areas where it will have to look at our laws. This is something that we are discussing with the EU.
I turn to peat. To confirm, we are committed to ending the sale of horticultural peat and peat-containing products by the end of this Parliament. That is part of our ambition for this Parliament. We are working very closely with the sector to look at how we can make that transition.
The noble Baroness knows that I am very sympathetic to SUDS. It is worth reminding the Committee that we made immediate changes to the National Planning Policy Framework to support the increased delivery of SUDS. Clearly, we need to continue to discuss that.
My noble friend Lady Young talked about the environmental principles and asked whether people, particularly officials, have training. The answer is yes. Our recent report on the implementation of the environmental principles, which was published in November, recognised that our tools are valuable and that we do provide training.
Is there anything else that I have forgotten? I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to the debate and assure them that we are committed to delivering the environmental improvement plan and to meeting the environmental targets.
Flooding Interventions
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what outcome-based measures they use to measure the effectiveness of flooding interventions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, properties better protected is currently our main measure for tracking the current flood investment programme. In addition, we measure asset condition. A new 10-year programme starts in April this year and will benefit 840,000 properties by 2036. Our new strategic objectives will drive funding towards the most beneficial interventions. This will be measured by a set of outcome metrics covering economic benefits and reduction in flood risk to properties.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. In October 2025, the Government committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences to protect nearly 900,000 properties. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what assessment they have made of this investment in flood defences, reducing insurance costs for those residents, bearing in mind the ever-present problem of climate change?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is correct that we have committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences, the reason being that flood risk is one of the factors that determine home insurance prices. Our investment programme is designed to manage flood risk by reducing it and by preventing further increases. Clearly, this can also take properties out of the need to use Flood Re for their insurance. To remind noble Lords, Flood Re is a joint government and industry flood reinsurance scheme designed to help UK households at high risk of flooding to access affordable insurance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, one of the most efficient ways to reduce flood risk is sustainable drains. When do the Government expect to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to make sure that they will be mandatory for major new housing developments?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that sustainable drainage is an important factor in managing flood risk. I am sure she is aware that I am personally supportive of this measure. The department is looking at it and is working with MHCLG, which, as the planning department, also has a particular interest in this. I will keep the noble Baroness up to date as we progress.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that farmers remain a critical partner to government in the fight against flooding? Will the Government therefore consider the EFRA Select Committee’s recommendation of a more comprehensive compensation strategy for farmers who store floodwater on their land to serve and protect downstream communities?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right. As someone who lives in a rural area that floods regularly, I am aware of the important role farmers play in managing flood risk and storing water on their land. Farmers can access payments in a number of ways, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware. One is the farm recovery fund, in cases where damage has occurred and farmers need to recover costs. It pays up to £25,000 and can be important to farmers when they have suffered flooding. We are looking very carefully at the Environment Audit Committee’s recommendations in this area. Farmers storing water on their land is an important way of moving forward, and it is certainly something we are looking at.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, when Flood Re was set up, my understanding was that it was a transitional body that would no longer be necessary after a certain period, once other means of insuring homes at risk of flooding were put in place. Does Flood Re have a limited life expectancy, and if so, what is the estimate?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that Flood Re was set up for a certain period of time. I am doing this from memory, and I shall tell the House if I am wrong, but I think it was due to run through to 2036.
We are looking at possible alternative arrangements. Clearly, the last thing we want to do is take away households’ ability to have insurance. We do not want to go back to how it used to be—people being completely uninsurable or having excess limits of, say, £10,000. That is not the future we see for insurance. The noble Lord is right that it has been set up as an intermediate system, and we are looking at ways to move forward.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the Environmental Audit Committee’s fourth report on flood resilience in England in October 2025 highlighted that Defra’s flood budget is increasingly a thin blue line protecting the nation’s transport, energy, housing and utilities from escalating flood impacts, yet it remains siloed, with no cross-government accountability for measurable outcomes or value for money. Will the Minister clarify what work the department is doing beyond using standard HM Treasury guidance to ensure value for money in flood investments?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, we have invested a record amount of money in addressing flooding. We have also reviewed the way funding is applied and how communities, businesses and so on can apply for it. The new programme we have set up has four metrics, and if I briefly go through those, it will help to answer the noble Lord’s question.
There are two outcome metrics and two output metrics. The first outcome metric is around economic benefits. It captures all the damage that has been avoided to properties, infrastructure, agriculture and a range of other areas, as well as the positive economic benefits of such things as natural flood management, which we are very keen to invest in. The second is around the risk to properties. The Environment Agency is developing a way of reporting on the reduction in flood risk due to the investments made through the national flood and coastal investment programme. I think that is due to report in April.
The first output metric is around how properties benefit from the new investment. That is made up of three parts: whether it is large reductions in, small reductions in, or prevented increases in any size of flood risk. The last metric is around asset condition, which initially remains the percentage of Environment Agency high-consequence assets at target condition. So we have a whole new system of managing exactly those outcomes and investments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the floods that occurred in Wales in recent months—in particular, the difficult ones just before Christmas in Monmouth, a border community. She may also be aware of the Written Questions I tabled on whether there is adequate co-ordination of efforts on the Welsh side and the English side of the border to minimise the danger. Can she confirm that she has had discussions with Welsh Ministers or civil servants to minimise that danger?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely. The noble Lord makes an important point: floodwater does not recognise boundaries, as I think we all know. I live in Cumbria, which, again, is a community with a border with one of the devolved nations. I meet regularly with my Welsh and Scottish counterparts, as well as those in Northern Ireland. It is important, as we make policy decisions and decide what legislation investments we are going to make, that we all work together. It is something I am very committed to.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Some floodwater is highly toxic and dangerous to humans, particularly if it comes from a sewage treatment works or from farms. What extra interventions are done on such floodwaters?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and it is one of the reasons why we are investing in anti-pollution measures, working with farmers, for example, to see how we can stop run-off and better manage slurry, and working with water companies. A water White Paper is coming up that will look at many of these issues. As someone who lives in a flood high-impact area, I know that the damage that can be caused by pollution is immense and is something we absolutely need to tackle.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, in the middle of last year the excellent report came out from the Independent Water Commission which, among other things, recommended a certain restructuring of the Environment Agency. We were promised a White Paper later last year, after that report. I wonder what has happened and whether the Minister has any idea of when the White Paper will be published.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is very interesting that the noble Duke asks that, because I asked that question this morning. The answer is that it is being “actively worked on” at the moment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am giving the noble Duke the answer I was given. It is an absolute priority for the Government’s next Session to have a water Bill in place in order to have a water Act to deal with all the issues we have been discussing for so many months and years in this House. The White Paper is the first step towards that; I hope he will see it before the end of the Session.