Waste Management Carriers: Regulation

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use of available regulatory powers to take action against operators or waste carriers that divert waste from the legitimate waste management chain.

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

My Lords, in the last two months alone, Environment Agency investigations have led to 16 waste crime-related arrests. However, we know we must strengthen the EA’s powers, which is why this Government are committed to do so in our waste crime action plan. We are also prioritising reforms to the carriers, brokers and dealers system, updating waste exemptions and implementing digital waste tracking. These measures will improve oversight, close loopholes and meaningfully tackle criminality in the waste sector.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the Makerfield by-election seems to have speeded up action on the horrendous illegal waste dump in Bickershaw, Wigan. First, can the Minister say when it will finally be gone and at what cost to the taxpayer? Secondly, surely it makes sense to turn the taps off at source so that producers pay for clean-up if due diligence is not carried out and their waste is subsequently illegally dumped. This is what my Private Member’s Bill on corporate waste responsibility seeks to do. Will the Government support it? If not, why not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss her Private Member’s Bill. It is really important that we look at every aspect we can to tackle the increasing problem of waste crime. It is why we have given an extra £45 million to the Environment Agency; it is why we are carrying out some of the measures I mentioned in my initial Answer and it is why the waste crime action plan sets out the toughest crackdown to date, focusing on a number of regulatory loopholes that have allowed criminals to get away with what has been happening. As for the site that she mentioned, I will have to write to her with those details.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been talking rubbish for many years. This is not just a blight on people’s neighbourhoods but an environmental time bomb ticking away in many communities. It is also a driver of organised crime, with the money used for other nefarious activities. The last Government set up the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. My noble friend just referred to more money for the Environment Agency. Frankly, the Environment Agency is a waste of time on this. It does not have an enforcement culture, and the fact that the Joint Unit for Waste Crime has not secured any successful prosecutions so far shows that it is not working. I urge my noble friend to pull the various agencies across government together to tackle this. Without a Minister forcing this through with vigour, not just closing legislative loopholes that need to be closed but creating an effective culture of enforcement, nothing will happen.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

To reiterate, the Environment Agency has secured prosecutions. In the three years to March 2026, there were 234 prosecutions against waste criminals, resulting in more than £2.2 million in fines, 22 immediate custodial sentences and 60 suspended sentences. We are also working with the EA to enable earlier intervention. The EA has implemented a target time of 48 hours for attendance at reported illegal waste sites assessed as potentially significant and is expanding its use of restriction notices. We are taking this very seriously and we are working directly with the Environment Agency to make sure that it does what it needs to be doing.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the dumping of illegal waste is a direct result of the quite high charges that are made for dumping legally? Should not some of the money raised from legal dumping be allocated to clearing away illegal waste?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not sure that the right expression is “legal dumping”; I think it is “sending things to the correct place for it to be dealt with and managed”. The big problem is that it is now attractive for criminals to make money out of, and that is what we need to stop.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, when are the Government going to bring in a proper extended producer responsibility? To go back into the history of waste, in 1970, when the environment movements grew up, Keep America Beautiful, followed by Keep Britain Tidy, were campaigns that came from the industry—Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, cigarette companies. They were creating a throwaway world but could not deal with it, so they made it our responsibility to dispose of waste. Fifty-six years later, they are still doing the same thing. Until we say to them, “You are responsible for the waste you are creating, the plastics and the things that do not recycle”, and only 9% of all our waste is recycled, we will carry on having exactly the same problem, certainly until I am dead but probably until all of us are dead.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a really important point. I have met organisations such as Coca-Cola, which I know feels that the money that it has invested should be taken into account when we look at how these things are tackled. Producer responsibility is, again, something that the Government have been looking at. My colleague, Mary Creagh, who has responsibility for these areas, is taking this matter very seriously and, I am sure, will continue to talk to producers about what they need to be doing.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, these new powers for the EA have been described by the Government as “police-style powers”. Given that this is about enforcing the law and the EA has failed to do so, has the Minister considered that the police themselves would be more effective in enforcement if they were given that responsibility?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The key thing, as I mentioned earlier, is that the EA has made some arrests—since September last year, 22 arrests have been linked to waste crime. However, it is important to note that arrests have to be made by the police—the noble Lord made that point quite clearly—and that is done working very closely with the Environment Agency. One way to increase this is to make sure that the agencies work very well together. One issue is that police arrests are not tracked centrally, and we are continuing to work with the Home Office on how we can improve that joint working.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right when she says that the illegal disposal of waste is attractive to criminals. That is because it is lucrative, so what steps are the Government taking to make it cheaper and easier for people and businesses to dispose of waste legally?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One thing we need to do is to work more closely with local authorities, because waste collection and disposal is the responsibility of local authorities. Much of the problem is that carriers, brokers and dealers can get away with behaving irresponsibly, which is why we are looking at the current registration system. We need to make it harder for rogue operators to find work, fundamentally: if they cannot get the work in the first place, if they cannot get the waste to begin with, they cannot dump it. It needs to be tackled from all sides.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for genuine progress that has been made; there is obviously more to do. My noble friend mentioned Bickershaw, a huge site mere metres from a school and from houses. The Government’s own record shows that there are at least 17 super-historic sites that blight their communities. Does the Minister expect that, under new leadership, more action will be taken to deal with this toxic legacy and clear up these historic sites?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As has been mentioned, Bickershaw and other sites have been an absolute disgrace and a blight on local communities. That is why we are bringing in all the different initiatives I talked about within the waste action plan, why we are trying to give the Environment Agency more power and more ability to make arrests, and why we are looking at how to stop this at source. This is not going to be solved simply; we need to make sure that we tackle it from all sides. Whatever Administration we have going forward will be absolutely committed to do that, I am sure.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, to follow up on the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, he perfectly properly trumpeted increased prosecution and enforcement statistics, but those are meaningful only if we know how big a proportion of the whole problem they represent. What confidence does she have that the Environment Agency has the data to properly understand the scale of this problem so that we can test whether the enforcement measures taken are dealing with the problem effectively?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a really good question. This is why we are also bringing in digital waste tracking, as without that we do not know how much waste we are talking about. That will create a digital record for every new consignment of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, with a few pragmatic exceptions, and enable us to track every such consignment and know exactly how much we are dealing with and what is going missing. That should make a big difference.

Hares: Close Season

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring forward legislation to introduce a close season for hares.

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

My Lords, the hare is a much-loved species in this country, and England is among the few European countries that do not have a close season on shooting hares during their breeding season. This is a terrible oversight, and this Government’s animal welfare strategy has made a commitment to

“consider how to … introduce a close season for hares”.

It will require a suitable primary legislative vehicle, and Defra is exploring every opportunity to find one.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

I thank the Minister. I know she shares my frustration at the length of time it is taking for this legislation to appear. Although the hare can hide in the long grass, it is about time we flush it out. If the Minister has any suggestions for how we can advance this legislation I would be most grateful.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and others in this Chamber for their huge support to further this legislation. As I said, it needs primary legislation. Legislative slots are always tight, but we are actively looking at how we can find a space during this Parliament. I think the best way that people can help is to express why this is so important and the difference it would make to hares, and to demonstrate that this country is an anomaly in not having a close season.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

While a close season is certainly a good idea, I have previously recounted in this House the case of a farming family who, sadly, feel obliged to kill all the hares on their land—because, otherwise, gangs running lucrative betting on illegal hare-coursing crash through their gates, destroy their hedges and drive four-wheel drive vehicles across their food crops, terrorising anyone who tries to stop them. Does the Minister agree that a close season will have no effect on these dangerous people, and that more resourcing for rural policing is what is needed to combat them?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, who has raised this issue previously. The close season for hares is a separate issue from the problem of hare-coursing. Hare-coursing is an illegal activity. It should not be taking place. Unfortunately, it has been picked up by criminals and has proved very lucrative for those criminals, who run betting rings on it. I am extremely concerned by the increase in it, particularly in certain areas. I have written to the Home Office asking for a meeting to discuss this further, because the noble Lord is absolutely right that, without enforcement, this will not to be resolved. These are dangerous people, and we need to do something about it.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend for his unwavering commitment to this issue, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House, and I also commend the Minister for her clarity on this issue. The Scottish Government took decisive action by introducing a statutory close season for brown hares in 2012 and have also taken steps to protect mountain hares through licensing measures. The evidence clearly indicates that the brown hare population in Scotland has remained broadly stable since then, while welfare risks associated with shooting during the breeding season have reduced significantly. In the light of this, can the Minister say—and I understand that there is a tight parliamentary timetable—why after 14 years we have not taken that particular step to protect hares?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think the rumblings behind me have given the answer to that question. I am determined to find a way to do this, and I will do everything in my power to find a legislative slot. I have a cunning plan; we will have to see whether it comes off. The noble Baroness mentioned mountain hares. Any legislation that we bring forward will be designed to include better protections for mountain hares too.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I have kept two hares in my time: one 50 years ago, and one about 10 years ago. They were absolutely delightful. I would not dream of hurting hares, and I would not dream of shooting one. However, this is quite difficult, because the close season for hares gives them quite a long time. There may be ways to protect hares, other than what the Minister is suggesting, that we should pursue, including cutting down courses.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is entitled to his views on this, as everybody is. However, having looked at the evidence, my view is that a close season should run from the beginning of February through to the autumn.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on animal welfare issues, I declare an interest as a dog owner. Some 45% of dog owners report that their dogs feel fear from fireworks, and the majority of people who have horses similarly find that fireworks affect their animals. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to bring forward legislation to restrict the decibel limit to 90 decibels, and to restrict the time that fireworks can be sold, so that pet owners and their pets do not suffer needlessly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

In talking about fireworks, the noble Earl is talking about something that is in the gift of the Department for Business and Trade, because the selling of fireworks is a trade issue. However, I can inform him and the House that I have had a meeting with the relevant Minister in DBT to discuss exactly this issue.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that the Government’s legislative programme is not the only mechanism by which this could be done. For example, have the Whips been putting out Private Members’ Bills, suggested Bills and handout Bills, which is a well-known practice on both sides? Further, there is still the opportunity at any stage to introduce a Bill, which I am sure would sail through the Commons. It could then come here and not take up government time.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend has allowed me to express my deep disappointment that the PMB on this, which was Defra’s priority PMB for this Session, was not picked up. I thank noble Lords who were prepared to put it forward but did not come early enough in the ballot.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, hare populations vary dramatically around our country, and the breeding season can be for most of the year. Can the Minister clarify that she will ensure that hares can still be controlled where appropriate? I declare an interest as the owner of land where hare populations need encouragement rather than control.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely, I can confirm that. The idea is to bring in a close season in line with those of other countries, not to stop control of hares absolutely.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that I farm organically in Scotland and we have a number of hares around. In fact, when the close season came in in Scotland, it did not really do much to help the hare population, because there are enough foxes around to kill the hares, which I have tried but failed to do something about. What really helps is the creation of new habitat, and the Scottish version of the ELMS system has been very helpful in creating habitat for the hares. Can the Minister comment briefly about how ELMS could affect the habitat of hares?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

ELMS and the sustainable farming work that we are doing are designed to increase biodiversity in habitats and to help support the kind of habitat that the noble Earl is talking about. We are also looking at how we can best tackle things such as invasive species, which have a huge impact on our natural biodiversity. I am very keen that we work together on these things, because you cannot do things in silos. You have to bring things together if you are going to get the best result possible. I am sure the noble Earl would say that that was the same for red squirrels.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said earlier, and I declare my interests in the register. Is the Minister aware of the Hares Preservation Act 1892, which specifically forbids the sale of hares during the notional hare breeding season, 1 March to the end of July? Is that Act working and is it being enforced?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Acts from the 19th century have their place in some areas of legislation, but I think in protecting hares, we need to look at the current situation. Populations would have been very different then; farming was very different then. We need to look at how we best protect things such as the mountain hare, while at the same time having a close season for brown hares that aligns with those of other countries.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, it may be a little obscure to look at legislation from 1892, but from my experience all those years ago in government, there were possibilities of getting the Civil Service to be really creative in looking at how subsidiary legislation could be drawn from such laws. Quite often, I was told that it had to be primary, but it did not: it could be secondary. I wonder whether my noble friend could go back and have another go.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can assure my noble friend that I have gone back—not just on this but on other things—a number of times to see whether we can bring in legislation without it being primary, but the lawyers have informed me that that is not the case. We need primary legislation. I am sure that the comments that my noble friend has made about older legislation will be looked at very carefully.

Legal Protections for Ancient Trees

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of legal protections for ancient trees; and whether further measures, including stronger penalties, are needed to prevent their unlawful destruction.

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

My Lords, felling trees without a licence where one is required carries unlimited fines and a potential prison sentence, and those protections are underpinned by a robust enforcement regime. In addition, ancient and veteran trees benefit from the highest levels of protection within the planning system. Any loss or deterioration should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons. We recognise the importance of this issue and are reviewing these protections to ensure that they remain effective.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

I thank the Minister but, under the Forestry Act 1967, the destruction of the Whitewebbs oak in Enfield—still alive at the time—required an application to the Forestry Commission for a felling licence, which was never sought. The commission concluded that no felling licence was required due to legitimate exemptions, meaning that no criminal offence had occurred. But a BBC freedom of information request revealed that the assessment made by the commission’s investigator recommended that no such exemption could legitimately be applied in this case. My understanding is that the Forestry Commission ignored this, simply because the outdated legislation gives it no teeth to adequately protect ancient trees. Will the Government amend the Forestry Act 1967 to explicitly define a higher evidence bar for exempting any ancient tree-felling from licence?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I recognise the situation that the noble Baroness describes, and the Government recognise that we need to look at whether there is more we can do to protect trees. Defra has funded a report, led by the Tree Council and Forest Research, to provide a range of recommendations for improving the protection and stewardship of important trees. We are currently looking at those recommendations, but we will also set out actions to support and protect important trees in the new tree action plan, which we are looking to publish before the end of the year. We are absolutely cognisant of the reasons why more needs to be done.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Is the Minister aware of any rules that control the felling of trees in conservation areas? There seems to be a spate of councils cutting down trees that are much loved by the local community in conservation areas of towns and villages. Is this something she could look at?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to look at it. Usually, the local authority will give an order for a tree to be cut down if there is a reason to be concerned about safety. I have an interest in this, as we have just had an order from our local council regarding several ash trees on our land overlooking the road. I am happy to look into it, but usually there is a safety aspect to those orders.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, the report out today from the Woodland Trust makes the interesting point that there is a 15-degree reduction when standing under a tree, compared with standing out in the open air or on the pavement, and 11 million people live in the equivalent of tree deserts. I know that the Government have a good tree-planting programme. Can the Minister update the House on how that programme is going, and on how quickly enough trees will be planted to make a material difference to lives in, for instance, the heat tomorrow?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the shade provided by trees is important, not just for human health but for animal health, for livestock and so on. As I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Baroness’s Question, we are looking at the tree action plan, which we will publish by the end of the year, and I will ensure that the concerns around climate change and increasing temperatures are looked at as part of that.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Forestry Commission case that was cited not further evidence of commissions and quangos ignoring the intentions of Parliament, and indeed the wishes of the public, and being toothless in the face of gross abuses? Is it not time that government departments and Ministers took back control so that perpetrators can be held accountable and the public’s voice can be effectively heard?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Forestry Commission reports to Defra, to my colleague Mary Creagh MP. I know that she has been working very hard to ensure that the kinds of issues my noble friend talks about are better taken into account, including how the commission manages its estates, the kind of trees that are planted and how to bring in proper enforcement where required.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, there is a greater problem in incentivising land managers to plant enough of the right trees to protect our watercourses, promote nature recovery, sequester carbon and increase our timber self-sufficiency from the current 27%. Properly planned planting that complies with UK forestry standards can meet all these objectives. What actions are the Minister’s Government taking to increase the percentage of productive tree species planted in England? I refer the House to my registered interest as a forest developer and owner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The tree action plan and the tree planting that Defra is encouraging are about commercial timber as well as woodland planting for leisure or other requirements. We import far too much of our timber at the moment; it is better for sustainability that we plant our own. But everything has to be planted in the right place, we need the right kind of species and, importantly, we need to look to the future, because climate change will change which species will be viable for the long term.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I am happy to hear from the Minister that the recommendations will result in the tree action plan by the end of this year, but will she bear in mind that there are no protections for trees that do not have tree preservation orders? By the time people realise those trees are under threat, it is too late: they have come down.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are looking at those exact protections as part of what we are doing to better protect trees going forward. As part of that, it is also important that we look at how, within the planning system, we support the trees that need to be supported, and at how we ensure that, where trees are felled, the right species are replanted in the right place to make the difference that we need to see if we are to plant trees as part of our climate change strategy.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned previously, we are looking to bring out the new recommendations on trees by the end of the year. The review is really important. I think it is particularly important for oaks, because our native oaks are threatened by climate change and we really need to think about how we are going to protect them better for the future, but also to look at what oak species we need to consider planting if our temperatures are going to continue to rise, as we have all experienced this week.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, that plan will of course be too late for the Major oak in Sherwood Forest, a 1,200 year-old tree that it was announced just this week has died. That was put down to a mixture of tourism, climate change and historic bad management. It is too late for that tree, which is as old as the Greensted church in Essex—it was a sapling when that church was being built. The church has grade 1 listing, enormous protection. Should we not afford these so rare and important ancient trees a similar level of protection as buildings of the same kind of age?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point, but I think one of the reasons that tree sadly died was because it was so very, very, very, very old. Trees do not live for ever, but I take her point about protections.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Sycamore Gap tree felling was the result of a TikTok challenge?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As somebody who does not look at TikTok, I have absolutely no idea.

Thames Water

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I want to return to a point I raised in this House only last week when I asked whether the Government were delaying the clean water Bill pending resolution of the Thames Water situation. We were told then that the Government were ready to deploy a special administration regime, if required. Yesterday’s Statement raises a straightforward question: what has changed?

We are told that the Secretary of State has set out early views in a letter to Ofwat, but the underlying facts have been evident for so long: specifically, a highly leveraged company, prolonged financial fragility and ongoing environmental failure. Can the Minister share what threshold the Government are applying for intervention? Given that Thames Water has been operating without an investment-grade credit rating for a long period, does the Minister consider that this constitutes a breach of financial resilience expectations and, if so, why has it not triggered special administration, particularly on performance?

The Secretary of State has said she is not convinced by the latest recapitalisation proposal. That is significant. On what specific grounds has that conclusion been reached, and what tests are the Government applying to determine whether any proposal is credible, financeable and in the interests of the consumer?

Sixteen million customers are trapped in this monopoly. Does the Minister accept that a substantial proportion of customer bills is already being directed towards servicing debt? Indeed, one-third of every Thames Water bill is already spent solely on servicing the company’s massive debt. In assessing the current proposal, what explicit protections are being put in place to ensure that customers are not required, either directly through higher charges or indirectly through weaker outcomes, to absorb the cost of that debt?

Related to that, reports suggests that creditors are seeking adjustments to regulatory expectations. Can the Minister confirm whether any relaxation of performance or environmental standards has been proposed and share with us unequivocally whether the Government would permit such an approach?

On environmental performance, Thames Water was responsible for over 100,000 hours of sewage discharges last year. How are the Government weighing that record when considering the suitability of the current ownership and the current financing model?

Finally, the Government have repeatedly stated that special administration remains an available option. Can the Minister clarify what specific conditions would need to be met for that mechanism to be triggered, and over what timeframe?

Since the Conservative privatisation over 35 years ago, some £85 billion of bill payers’ money has gone mostly to overseas shareholders and executives, through things such as bonuses. Is it not time to blow the final whistle on this failed experiment and put the interests of the public and our environment first?

[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 questions on this Statement. There are quite a lot of questions, so I will do my best to cover them but, as always, if I have missed anything out, we will get back to noble Lords.

First, it is important to point out that this letter is the Secretary of State simply offering her preliminary views. That is in line with the duties in Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. She puts forward those preliminary views for Ofwat to consider when it is making its decision, because it is important to be clear that it is for Ofwat, not government, to decide whether it rejects or accepts the proposal. Of course, the Secretary of State’s preliminary view, which is why we are making the Statement, is that she is not convinced that the proposal in its current form delivers for customers or for the environment, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

Also, while the company is considered to be stable at the moment, we stand ready for all eventualities. That includes being ready to apply for a special administration regime, if that becomes necessary. It is also important to clarify that there is a very high bar for the use of a special administration regime. The law states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent, or if it is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence.

Regarding creditors and shareholders and what they would recover upon an exit of a SAR, again, the purpose of a special administration regime is not to bail out water company shareholders or creditors; it is to ensure that water and wastewater services continue if a water company fails. When a water company exits from special administration, which could be either via rescue or through transfer, the special administrator, not the Government, determines the level of repayment to creditors by applying the relevant insolvency legislation. The level of recovery that creditors may expect will be in accordance with the relevant insolvency legislation, and it is very unlikely that all creditors’ debt would be repaid at the end of a special administration, because of the priority order of repayment. I hope that helps answer some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, discussed the performance grounds. To apply successfully for a special administration on performance grounds, a strong evidence case must be made to the courts. In determining whether to apply to the court for a special administration regime, the Secretary of State must have regard to all the relevant facts and matters pertaining at the time and act in accordance with the applicable statutory duties.

On the environmental obligations raised by the noble Baroness, all companies must continue to meet their statutory obligations to customers and the environment, and regulators will continue to have a range of enforcement tools at their disposal.

It is not possible for creditors to ask for the debt to be repaid during a special administration regime because there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR that takes away a creditor’s ability to enforce debt repayments. However, employees have some protection in being able to recoup certain debts, such as unpaid wages, via the Redundancy Payments Service.

On customer impact, we have always been absolutely clear that Thames Water must meet its statutory and regulatory obligations to its customers and the environment. The Secretary of State has set out her preliminary views on this to Ofwat in the letter. The next steps are of course for Ofwat to decide. However, many concerns have been raised about not just Thames Water but other water companies and their approach to the environment, which is one of the reasons why, as a Defra priority, we will bring in a new water Bill later this year. A key element will be looking at environmental impacts.

People are obviously frustrated. One of the very first meetings I had when I became a Minister nearly two years ago was about Thames Water. It has been going on for a long time—it was going on before this Government. The business has been underperforming now for 15 years, which is a long time. It has regularly missed its performance targets and has racked up too much debt. It was right that the Secretary of State wrote to Ofwat to set out her preliminary thoughts on the next approach. Ofwat, with the support of government, has been in discussions with the London & Valley Water consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—on the terms of the proposal being put forward. Clearly, a recapitalisation process of this size is complex and takes time. Although we will establish, through the forthcoming Bill to which I referred, a new, single, powerful regulator to replace Ofwat—so that we can work better when water companies fail in future—until the new regulator is established, Ofwat’s role remains. Therefore, it is still Ofwat’s decision on how we go forward.

I want to be clear that the Government are working with all water sector regulators to monitor carefully the performance of all water companies, including Thames Water. As I said earlier, if there are ever any problems, we stand ready to intervene, should it be required, because it is important that the continued provision of a vital public service in water supply and wastewater is continued. We will always act to protect the public interest.

We believe that any proposal has to be in the best interests of both consumers and the environment. It is important to note that the Secretary of State has written at this stage because we need time to understand the proposal and work it through. There are about 16 million Thames Water customers, so any decision that Ofwat makes must be done in the full understanding of various opinions, as well as on what is best for consumers and the environment. I hope that I have covered most of the questions raised; I will write if there are any further answers to give.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it is not necessarily just ownership of a water company that is the deciding factor, and there are other jurisdictions in which leakage and sewage going into rivers and the sea are problems. I think of Denmark, where the vast majority of water companies are in the public sector, and sewage spills and water pollution were serious issues in the recent election. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that, when the water Bill reaches this House, the cost of regulation will not increase for water companies, and that they will be able to use the resources they have to deliver wastewater, and clean water to consumers, and to ensure that they have the infrastructure in place.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, we need to see the water Bill to see the detail on that and many other issues that people have a particular interest in. The Government are clear that we do not want to have overburdensome regulation. That is important. The regulator is there to help support the industry and make sure that it works properly for customers and the environment. I am sure that the detail of that will be considered in the Bill, but it is not the Government’s approach to make regulation more difficult for consumers and organisations.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, the dire position of Thames Water is, above all, a regulatory failure. Does the Minister accept that Ofwat’s record as a regulator has been absolutely woeful? Above all, it failed to require water companies to invest over a long period of time in appropriate infrastructure of all kinds.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I suggest to the noble Lord that the fact that we are talking about removing Ofwat and bringing in a single, more powerful regulator in the water Bill answers his question. It is not just about who the regulator is but about what the regulator’s priorities are: what is it setting for water companies to achieve? There has not been enough investment in infrastructure, and that has been one of the failures of regulation over the past 20 years.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, when the water industry was privatised over 30 years ago, it was almost entirely debt-free. Since then, as the Minister said, debt has been racked up. The Minister said that there will be provisions in the new water Bill for creating a new regulator. Further to the previous question, because of Ofwat’s pathetically inadequate attempts to regulate the tide of corporate greed, will the new regulator be able to check racking up greater and greater debts, unless it is specifically for investment to serve its customers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The detail of the regulator will be in the new Bill. The noble Lord has mentioned this to me a number of times. That companies have been allowed to generate debt to use the money has been a cause of many of the difficulties that we see today. The way that water companies have been able to increase the debt is not acceptable. That is one of the key things that we want to work on. If there was not as much debt, we would not have so many problems. That is one of the reasons why water companies are failing on all sides—whether investment or customer support.

[Lord Redesdale (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. Thames Water bills went up around 40% to pay for the current AMP cycle. However, the present company structure means that it will not be able to make the investment to meet the targets under the present AMP cycle. Indeed, investment is far below what is needed to meet the present AMP cycle’s objectives. Given that, is Thames Water not in breach of its licence conditions? Therefore, should Ofwat not remove the licence, put the company into special administration and look at a measure—through either nationalisation or mutualisation, or by bringing in other companies—to fill the gap and make sure that the money is spent on the environment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that that is not the assessment by Ofwat at the current time. However, the noble Lord makes some good points. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water meet regularly with Ofwat. We are watching very closely for when or if there is a considered view that it has tipped into that space.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that Thames Water needs to put in a lot of new, larger waste pipes and an extra reservoir to cater for the extra population that we have experienced in the area? What is the Minister’s rough estimate of how much capital this new investment will take?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the basis that I do not know how many pipes, what size reservoir and where it would be, it is difficult to assess a capital investment. The Government have a reservoir policy. We have committed to building new reservoirs. No Government have done that for many years now, which is partly why we have issues with supporting housing development and important infrastructure development in the south-east. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government because we must get this right to ensure that our economy is fit for the future.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I agree with the Minister that debt overburdening of the company was a major cause of its problems. She has heard me call many a time for the new regulator to have the proper understanding of financial engineering, which the current Ofwat team simply did not have. That enabled the companies to get away with this. I underline this again because it was a simple inadequacy of understanding of financial engineering that enabled this situation to occur.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct that how debt was leveraged was unsustainable. It has led us to a situation where companies—not just Thames Water—are saddled with a ridiculous amount of debt that the regulator should have had more of a grip on. I am happy to discuss further the noble Lord’s thoughts on this. We have had discussions before. When we come to the next water Bill, making sure that we get the regulator correct will be crucial.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, on 9 June the Minister said that

“we consider the regulated capital value of the water sector to be the closest proximity for the total value of the sector’s debt and equity; it is currently £107 billion”.—[Official Report, 9/6/26; col. 1241.]

On that basis, Thames Water is worth £21.893 billion. The London & Valley Water consortium has offered £3.35 billion to take control. Can the Minister explain why the Government believe that regulated capital value is the closest proximity to total value?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is because that is the generally understood figure. That is why we go with that figure.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the action by the Secretary of State in her letter is good. I fully support what she wrote regarding this proposition. Without going back on all the leverage, the main leverage issue on Thames Water happened in 2006. For some reason Ofwat did not follow entirely the strategy policy statement that was set out by my noble friend Lord Gove when he was there, but only for Thames Water. There clearly is an issue in that regard. Would the Minister consider working with her fellow Ministers on changing the geographic reach of Thames Water? The risk is that it is too big to fail when it should not be. Meanwhile, it has shown that it can do projects well, on such things as the Thames Tideway tunnel, which it did in partnership with Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an interesting point and it is being discussed. Thames Water is huge and has quite different catchment areas. I remember going on a boat to look at the successful tidal project in London that the noble Baroness talked about, in the early days. It was fantastic. However, you then have the much more rural, upstream part of Thames Water. It is very difficult. It is for whoever ends up owning it—what do they want to own? If you take away part of it, does it become less attractive? It is a complex issue but I know that it is being discussed.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Like many other people in this House, I am a Thames Water consumer, so I am particularly interested in this discussion. Will whoever takes over from Ofwat have the power to require Thames Water to invest?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we have the water Bill coming through. These issues are going to be put forward in a water Bill. They will be debated and discussed in a water Bill. We need to get it right. Thames Water has some particular and immediate problems, so it will be interesting to see where the company is by the time we reach the water Bill.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, surely if a company is highly profitable, no capitalist—or even trade unionist, for that matter—can object to shareholders receiving dividends or directors receiving bonuses. It is called sharing in the proceeds of success. But if a company is heavily indebted, surely it is completely unethical for it to borrow money to pay those dividends and bonuses. Is there not an argument for calling to account those former Thames Water CEOs who allowed this to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I absolutely agree that it is unethical to raise money to pay yourself bonuses when you have not improved the company: all you have done is get it into more and more debt, and you have had to go into further debt to get the money out of it. I know that is one of the things that has outraged people the most, which is why we very quickly brought in the Bill that came in at the start of the last Session and why we are continuing to do everything we can to try to clean up the water industry.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I share the Minister’s frustration and welcome the Government’s efforts to grip the issue. Does she agree that, whatever happens to the ownership of Thames Water, substantial investment will be required in water in the south-east? Does she also agree that a degree of realism is necessary about how much money can be recovered from private investors, given how thinly capitalised Thames Water is? Therefore, if consumers are to be protected, it will be the taxpayer who ultimately ends up footing the bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We do not want to put this on to consumers, because it just does not seem to be the right approach. The noble Lord is absolutely right that serious investment needs to take place in the water industry, not just in the south-east but right across the country. Every water company, whether it is United Utilities in the north or South East Water in the south, needs to get a grip on investment to ensure that its infrastructure is absolutely fit for the future. Where that investment comes from is something that will be discussed further, I am sure, with Ofwat.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, picking up on what the noble Baroness said about reservoirs, at the launch of the CCC adaptation report the other day, many people were saying that we were not going to get the next reservoir for another 10 years and that the schedule of reservoirs was extremely slow. Can the Minister update the House on where we are with building new reservoirs, especially as we are going into dramatically warmer temperatures in the world at the moment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are very keen to crack on with building new reservoirs, which are an absolutely critical part of the infrastructure we need for the future. One reason for bringing in the Planning and Infrastructure Act was to look at how we can speed up planning for nationally significant infrastructure projects, because one reason we do not have any new reservoirs is problems with major projects. The whole purpose of that Act was to speed this up. I do not know whether 10 years is an accurate figure: I would hope that we could crack on more quickly than that.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, given that Thames Water was saddled with unsustainable debts and a very poor level of investment, does the Minister accept that, however justified, continuing to levy massive fines on a company for underperformance will simply and inevitably worsen its financial situation, and therefore that the suggestion of a cap that is being made by the potential buyers and funders does have a degree of good sense to it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can see where the noble Baroness is coming from. The difficulty is that if a company continues to pollute regularly and other water companies are being fined, where is the fairness and logic in letting one company off the hook because it has got itself into a worse mess? These are difficult, complex areas to get right. It is very much Ofwat’s decision, and I am sure the Government will continue to discuss such matters with it.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Pursuant to the Minister’s kind reply to me, I welcome the Government’s wish to have more reservoirs. She might like to ask about the Abingdon reservoir plan for the Thames area, which has long been around. It was much needed when I was MP for my local area and is even more so now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I know the Abingdon area applications very well. In a previous life I worked in communications on major infrastructure, and I remember it crossing my path probably 20 years ago now.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, part of the reason why there have not been quite so many new reservoirs in such a long time is that the water industry has got more efficient in its distribution of water. I am conscious that there is still leakage. The capacity of the Hanningfield reservoir in Essex was expanded by 50%. There is no doubt that some of the challenges in housing are to do with nutrient regulations. But bearing in mind what other noble Lords have said, would it be worth while for the Government to accelerate the creation of a special purpose vehicle to get on with the Abingdon reservoir? Anglian Water is getting on with its two planned reservoirs and is going through the planning process as we speak.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an interesting suggestion by the noble Baroness and one that I am happy to take back to the department.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, if Thames Water was a school, it would already have been put under special measures. You would not wait. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, the regulation by Ofwat has been woeful. Is it still involved? Is it going to wake up to the fact that under its watch Thames Water has got to where it has? Something more drastic needs to be done. I do not trust those who have been doing the regulation to continue doing it, because it has been absolutely woeful. I lived in the Thames area for nearly 27 years, so I knew a little bit of what was going on. Now that I am in Berwick-upon-Tweed, I am very grateful that our water is doing much better.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble and right reverend Lord will be pleased to hear that something drastic is about to happen. Ofwat is the regulator currently, which is why it is its decision as to whether to accept the proposal referred to in the Statement. But the water Bill, which we will bring to Parliament shortly, removes Ofwat and brings in a new regulator, which we are determined to make manage the water industry in a much better and more effective way.

[Lord Redesdale (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I must apologise to the House. Apparently, Members have to be more specific about their interests. I am a senior shareholder in the Water Retail Company. Are Defra and Ofwat looking at the implications for the non-household sector if Thames Water goes bust?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The simple answer is that we are considering all possibilities and eventualities. We want to have everything on the table, because the most important thing is that we continue to maintain this absolutely vital public service.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, when we eventually get to the point where we have a new regulator, what will be done to make sure it is not staffed by the people who already run Ofwat? One of the problems we have had in this whole debacle is that there is a very chummy relationship between people who are very senior in the same industry. How will the Government navigate that to make sure we do not just go back to the same old problems under a different management design?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not in a position to comment on chumminess, because I do not know the people involved. The whole point of bringing in a new regulator is to improve things and get the right focus, so that we can really shake up the water industry and make sure that it is fit for the future. There is no point in bringing in a new regulator if you are just tagging the old one with a new name.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

One of the problems in regulation is that those who are regulated are able to pay substantially greater salaries and employ better experts. Are the Government going to look at properly funding the new regulator so that the ability of those employed by the regulator is greater than that available to those who are regulated? The financial engineering that occurred did so because those who were regulated were able to devise very clever plans which, no doubt, Ofwat did not have people able to spot. It is a common problem in regulation and one that the Government have to face up to, unpalatable though it may be.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the key reasons why we are in such a mess in the water industry is because the amount of debt has meant a lack of the correct investment, and that has led to so many problems regarding pollution, customer bills, and so on. If we are to make sure that the regulator operates in a way that is right for the country, we have to get a grip about what happened and why it has all gone so wrong; otherwise, we cannot make it right. Getting a proper understanding of those financial issues is going to be a critical part of that. Getting the regulator into a position from which it is able to manage and challenge such issues is going to be an important part of moving forward.

Digital Waste Tracking (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 April be approved.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.

Motion agreed.

Environment Act 2021 Targets

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they intend to meet the targets in the Environment Act 2021, including halting the decline of species abundance by 2030 and increasing overall species abundance by at least 10 per cent by 2042 compared to 2030 levels.

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

My Lords, Defra published the revised environmental improvement plan in December 2025. This sets out the Government’s long-term plan for improving the natural environment and our enjoyment of it. It includes prioritised actions to deliver our goals and ambitious Environment Act targets, and clearly describes the actions that are required and, importantly, who is responsible for delivering them. The delivery plans published alongside the environmental improvement plan set out how we will deliver against our interim and long-term targets.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. Notwithstanding the work that the Government have done on this and the plans that they have put in place, the Office for Environmental Protection has concerns. It reported back in January:

“Government needs to speed up and scale up its efforts … and actions”


because they remain

“largely off track to meet EA21 targets”.

The window of opportunity is closing fast. We need to drive nature recovery at scale. With 70% of the UK being farmland, farmers play a vital role in nature recovery as well as in ensuring food supply. Might the Government consider providing greater support to farmers for these two twin aims, including within the environmental land management schemes?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The OEP’s assessment that the right reverend Prelate refers to was made before our revised environmental improvement plan. Following the assessment, we have reset the interim targets so that they are live and under active review. Regarding farm wildlife, to achieve the legally binding biodiversity targets referred to we need as many farmers as possible to be working in a way which benefits biodiversity. Crucially, this will mean land sharing, to support farm wildlife alongside productive farming, as well as land sparing—habitat creation and restoration through bigger projects such as our landscape recovery project. That is a new interim target for the EIP to deliver environmental change through incentivising farmers.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, I appreciate the response from the Minister. We are very good at saying what is not working but not so good at measuring what is working. Anecdotally we know that some improvements, such as rewilding and regenerative agriculture, are working for nature, but we still lack the metrics and data to record that. Can the Minister assure us that she will look at broadening out what is assessed so that we can learn which legislation is bringing about improvements in nature?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Unless you have accurate data, you do not know whether you have set the right targets. It is absolutely critical. One of the things that we are looking at in Defra, right across the board, is how to improve our datasets. In this particular area, it is critical. We know that if you target nature properly, it recovers very quickly, but we need to understand that better.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that invasive non-native species have a very profound effect on not only the economy but our native ecosystem? Does she agree also that we should do more by way of research in dealing with this, and with the mobilisation of volunteers? I am thinking particularly of the efforts with, for example, Asian hornets, grey squirrels, Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed. There is so much we could do by mobilising so many people to help with this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord; he has got it exactly right. I am very pleased that I am going to be supporting Invasive Species Week this week by going to Derwentwater, near where I live, to look at the work being done by the Rivers Trust on Himalayan balsam, for example. I am sure the noble Lord will also be pleased to know that I spent all last weekend, and the weekend before, Himalayan balsam bashing. We have a local group in our parish on Himalayan balsam bashing, which my husband runs. We also do a lot of work with the red squirrel group locally. It is something that I am absolutely passionate about.

[Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as an ambassador for the Wildlife Trusts. Its analysis shows that ending bottom trawling in offshore marine protected areas would not only conserve and restore natural habitats but deliver up to £3.5 billion in net economic benefits. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm when the Government will implement the long-awaited ban so that these gains can be realised?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are all aware of the damage that bottom trawling can do, which is why we are looking to improve the situation in our marine protected areas. We had a Question on this quite recently, when I mentioned that we are working with the MMO on this. We need to get a solution. It is a complex area. We need to balance fishing with protecting our environment. We are working actively with the MMO and hope to have some outcomes from that very shortly.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, given that only 14% of rivers in England are in a good ecological status, while agricultural pollution affects 40% of water bodies and wastewater pollution affects 36%, and given the importance of healthy freshwater ecosystems to species recovery, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of river pollution on their biodiversity targets, and what specific improvements are expected in river health by 2030?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

River health is incredibly important for all sorts of reasons. Coming back to invasive species, we have issues with invasive species, such as mink, in rivers, so we need to look at it in the round. We have agriculture pollution, and there is run-off from other areas as well. We also have the issues around invasive species; Himalayan balsam, which I mentioned earlier, destroys riverbanks. There is lots of work that needs to be done. We need to get the data and information correct so that we can target resources to make the biggest difference. But if we do not get our freshwater rivers sorted out, we are not going to resolve the biosecurity issues, and we are not going to meet our targets. It is something that we are absolutely focused on delivering on.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting with her officials earlier this year to discuss Defra’s Habitats Regulations General Implementation Report for the Reporting Period 2019 to 2024. The report makes discouraging reading: of the 71 habitat types covered by these regulations, only 3% are in favourable condition. These include some of the most valuable habitats in the country, such as Dartmoor, the Ouse Washes, and so on. What steps is Defra now taking to improve the conservation status of these protected habitats, bearing in mind that one of the major causes of them being in poor condition is nitrogen pollution from agriculture and other sources?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

With the interim and statutory targets that we have on habitat, a mix of groups—farmers, environmental NGOs, businesses and the public—are going to have to come together to meet them. To meet the habitat targets, we have lots of inter- dependencies, which makes it more difficult. The noble Lord is right to point to nitrogen, which is a particular problem. This comes back to the noble Baroness’s question about rivers; this is an important part of our delivery around habitats. I know that the noble Lord has been meeting officials, and we very much value his expertise in this matter. I suggest that we continue to work together, because these targets are challenging.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests as a farmer and landowner. When in government, we passed the Environment Act, but Governments alone cannot fund all nature restoration. What steps are being taken within Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Minister’s department to encourage private investment in nature restoration, both in its own right and as a co-benefit from nature-based solutions to flooding and drought?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Lord rightly says, government cannot pay for everything. As noble Lords have previously said, these are difficult and challenging targets; there is a lot of work to do, and engaging the private sector is critical. I know that the noble Lord has a particular interest in this, and I am very happy to continue to work with him on how we can encourage private investment in nature restoration.

Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026.

Relevant document: 58th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26.

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

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 15 April 2026.

This statutory instrument is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—that is, the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. It helps implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction within the remit of marine licensing. The UK must be able to meet all its obligations under the BBNJ agreement before it can ratify it. This statutory instrument will help enable that through amendments to the marine licensing regime.

Before I turn to the detail of the statutory instrument, I want to begin by underlining why it is so important that this Committee supports progressing this legislation. The BBNJ agreement is an implementing agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two-thirds of the ocean that lie beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet and are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species.

Primary legislation was needed in order to implement fully our BBNJ obligations. Accordingly, the BBNJ Bill was introduced last year and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards ratification. We are now taking forward the secondary legislation that is needed for the UK to fully implement the agreement. This instrument is part of that work; it needs to be made before the UK can ratify the agreement and participate fully in the first Conference of the Parties, which we expect to take place in January 2027.

This instrument helps implement the UK’s obligations under part IV of the agreement, which requires environmental impact assessments for activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction that could have a significant impact on the marine environment. Under the agreement, the UK is required to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of any planned activity in these areas are suitably assessed before a decision is taken to authorise the activity. This instrument makes provisions relating to activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction so that environmental impacts can be suitably considered in line with these obligations.

Currently, a small number of activities involving deposits, scuttling and incineration are already licensable in areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, to date, only two marine licences have been issued for such activities since 2011. This instrument extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to types of activity that are already licensable when carried out in UK waters, such as construction or removal activities. Licensable activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction will include those carried out or controlled by UK persons, as well as activities undertaken from British vessels, aircraft, marine structures or floating containers.

This instrument makes a number of amendments to the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011. An exemption is added so that several of the new activities will not require a marine licence where they do not meet the threshold for needing an environmental impact assessment or a screening for an environmental impact assessment, as set out in the BBNJ agreement. This exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full environmental impact assessment. An exemption is also introduced for the removal of specific subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to consistently fall below the BBNJ screening threshold.

Alongside this instrument, I highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence. These are activities that are regulated by the Scottish Government under devolved powers. The Scottish instrument adds new licensable activities to the licensing regime under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and makes other changes to that regime. This ensures that the Scottish licensing framework aligns with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The Scottish order was made in March 2026 and will come into force on the same day as the BBNJ agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom.

To avoid dual regulation, so that a marine licence is not required under both our licensing regime and the Scottish Government’s marine licensing regime for the same activity, this instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities regulated under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This instrument also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This statutory instrument implements the necessary changes to marine licensing to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. We are confident that its provisions will improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this statutory instrument. We support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—BBNJ—agreement and welcome this SI, which enables the United Kingdom to meet its international obligations under the global oceans treaty. We have long campaigned for stronger protection of the marine environment and support international action to conserve biodiversity in areas that until now have been beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

We note that the SI introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk, such as the removal of cables, as described by the Minister. Although we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, we believe that it will be important that these exemptions are kept under regular review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. Although we support the implementation of this treaty and this SI, we remain clear that the Government must ensure that the new licensing exemptions do not in turn become loopholes in the future and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.

We think that some aspects warrant a bit of closer scrutiny, particularly the new exemptions introduced through Articles 39, 40 and 41. Those raise questions about the breadth of the regime. Although we understand in principle the exemption where a screening opinion concludes that an environmental impact assessment is not required, it rests heavily on an assumption of low environmental risk and the current low volume of applications. When I read up on this, I was absolutely mesmerised by the fact that only two licences exist at the moment. It is quite a large statutory instrument for just two operators.

Although only a small number of applications have been received to date, that position may change. There may be a discovery, and I guess the Government are trying to be ahead of the curve of a sudden gold rush, in effect, of dredging for essential minerals in the deep ocean. So I congratulate the Government on this, as it feels a bit ahead of the curve and that is really unusual. That is good. However, I noticed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the UK itself was a little behind the curve in comparison with one or two other countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important SI. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction, so it is crucial that we support international co-operation and that we take our own responsibilities and opportunities for action seriously. That is why the previous Conservative Government played a leading role in negotiating the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. In our waters, we have established 296 marine protected areas, and we have established the Blue Belt programme and backed our overseas territories. Indeed, the UK overseas territories are home to an estimated 94% of all known UK biodiversity. We must take that role seriously.

This secondary legislation follows the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act to ensure compliance with the treaty, specifically regarding environmental impact assessments for activities that require a licence and for which the Marine Management Organisation is the licensing authority on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will ensure that potential environmental impacts are assessed before activities are approved in areas under the UK’s control. The Official Opposition therefore welcome the order.

More broadly, however, the Government do not seem to be taking their role seriously. Until recently, they were determined to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and to pay for the privilege, despite concerns about its ability to protect precious marine biodiversity around the Chagos archipelago. The Chagos Islands MPA was designated in 2010 and is home to coral reefs and 76 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species. Sadly, the Government do not take the UK’s international role seriously and were prepared to give this all away for the Chinese shipping empire to pillage every inch of that ocean.

Closer to home, last year the Government decided to grant the EU 12 years of continuous access to UK fishing waters, despite concerns of overfishing and concerns from the UK fishing industry. Indeed, one organisation described the deal as a

“horror show for Scottish fishermen”.

When the Government show a disregard for our sovereign territory, marine life suffers as a result, not to mention the other financial costs to our economy and public finances.

As this instrument passes to help us meet the obligations of the BBNJ agreement in full, I urge the Government to reflect on how they are living up to the UK’s international role in other areas. If we are expected to be responsible for areas beyond our national jurisdiction, it means taking our sovereign territory overseas even more seriously. What assurances can the Minister give that UK fishing waters will not be harmed further in the Government’s planned UK-EU reset? What further steps are the Government taking to protect marine life in and around overseas territories? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I commend and welcome this order.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short but sweet debate. I am pleased that noble Lords fundamentally have supported this statutory instrument, as it is important. We do need to ratify the agreement, so I thank noble Lords for their broad support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about enforcement and resources. The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, including advisory letters and formal enforcement action. We want to apply any enforcement proportionately on risk and evidence. We can place conditions on licences requiring licence holders to keep records, make returns or provide information to the Marine Management Organisation. However, we are also looking at how the MMO can develop intelligent gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address that. Regarding non-compliance, any breach of the licence terms and conditions may lead to that enforcement action being taken. That can include variation, revocation or suspension of the licence, the issuing of an enforcement notice, civil penalties or criminal proceedings—which carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to two years.

On resources, the MMO charges for licence applications on a cost recovery basis. Applications under BBNJ will be charged at the highest band-3 hourly rate. While the MMO applies a cost recovery approach, not all costs are currently recovered through this mechanism. The remainder are covered by grant-in-aid funding. We are looking to move towards fuller cost recovery to get to that place.

The noble Baroness mentioned that there have been only two applications for a licence on an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch, which I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of. She also asked how we could increase resource if we suddenly had more activity. A cost recovery basis should cover it, but we do not anticipate many activities. Our evidence shows that there have been very few so far. We have a few case studies. It is difficult to completely assess the volume, but we do not expect much to come forward.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the lack of a review. I am unaware as to whether there is a process for that, so I shall pick that up and ask for more information.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He mentioned the environment around the Chagos Islands. National security is paramount, but we have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. The UK and Mauritius have both committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in Chagos. This has been welcomed by conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. The UK and Mauritius have been working together to attach great importance on the need to protect marine diversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.

This legislation will help to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and be able to ratify it, while establishing a flexible proportionate approach to regulating licensable marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a crucial step, ensuring that effective measures are in place to protect our environment for the future.

Motion agreed.

Farming and Food Production

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what their top priorities are for farming and food production in this parliamentary session.

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

My Lords, supporting British farmers and boosting the nation’s food security are key priorities. Our reformed SFI offer will open later this month, and our ELM capital grants offer opens next month. We will continue to work with stakeholders through the new Farming and Food Partnership Board, and we will publish our response to the farming profitability review and our 25-year farming road map later this year. That will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but, of course, environmental schemes do not put food on the table. Will she take this opportunity to set out how the Government intend to put the focus back on to food production and farming, particularly to boost the productivity of farms in the uplands and tenanted farms? What specific measures is she intending to take to boost the food security and self-sufficiency so desperately needed at home, and the ability of our farmers to compete internationally away from home?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, profitability is really important, which is why the Batters review was so important. As part of increasing profitability, we are already implementing some of the recommendations from that review. As I said, our full response will be arriving later this year, and we will look at what else we can do. It is really important that we work closely with farmers but also processors, other producers and the horticultural sector. It is really important that we look at what we can do to increase profitability in a number of areas, and also at trade and the ability of our farmers to export, because obviously that makes a big difference. Clearly, the SPS agreement that we are looking at negotiating at the moment will also support that.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that true food security cannot exist without climate resilience? Considering the recent severe weather disruptions to UK crop yields, will the Government’s priorities in this parliamentary Session include a legally binding good food Bill to formalise national self-sufficiency targets alongside nature restoration metrics? If not, why not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that no good food Bill was announced in the King’s Speech this time, and I cannot presume to guess what is going to be in the next King’s Speech. Clearly, resilience to climate change is absolutely critical. From different perspectives, we know that farmers struggle when we have severe flooding and that drought and wildfire risk is also a real problem, so improving resilience for farming to both very dry and very wet weather is an absolute priority for the Government. We have invested a record £2.65 billion in flood defences, for example, and that will include supporting farmers as well. The environmental land management schemes will also allow for grants to look at some of the impacts of climate change.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government consider extending the SFI payments to cover farmers growing leguminous crops—in other words, beans? This fixes nitrogen in the soil and makes the soil more healthy. They cannot get fertilisers at the moment because of the Strait of Hormuz blockage. Also, this is the way we want our diets to go. At the moment, there is not much money in it for farmers to plant these kinds of crops. This would be a massive step towards both combating climate change and improving health.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Anything that can help us to make our farming sector more secure is welcome, particularly when we have seen the impact of the war in the Middle East on fertiliser, for example. I know that the Farming Minister, Angela Eagle, is looking at ways to continue to improve the SFI offer, and I will take the noble Baroness’s suggestions back to her.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge the very real contribution to the farming industry of the upland farmers, not least cefn gwlad in the lovely land of Wales, the Pennine farmers and the many uplands in Scotland and the Cheviots, for example? This community secures, in many ways, the environment of much of Britain, and they face many challenges now, not least climate change. I know how important my noble friend the Minister sees the environment to be. Does she acknowledge that this community across Britain does a great deal to help and should be acknowledged and rewarded?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can absolutely reassure my noble friend that the uplands are very close to my heart. My mother’s family were upland farmers in Wales and I currently live in Cumbria, so I know the issues around upland farming very well. The SFI offer that is coming forward will include seven moorland actions. I know that not all uplands are moorlands, but it will help and payment rates will be increased. I have had very constructive meetings with Dr Hilary Cottam, who is looking at a new approach working very much from the ground up in upland communities and bringing them together. We are looking at pilots first in Dartmoor and then in Cumbria because we know that it is a challenging landscape to farm in, and we want to support the best we can.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the Government announced this 25-year road map for farming in November 2024. That is 18 months ago. The noble Baroness has said it is going to happen this year, so when exactly might we see it in 2026? Will Defra now stand up for British agriculture against Treasury and government attacks when farm closures are at a record level and 51% of our farmers are thinking of simply giving up and leaving? When will the Government realise that supporting farming, our farmers and food is good for Britain? That should be the principal aim of any 25-year farming plan.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Part of the reason we decided to do a 25-year farming plan is to work with farmers and rural communities to ensure that they have some kind of certainty, some sort of security for the future, because there simply has not been enough of that in recent years. We feel that having a long-term approach that is worked up with farmers, the people who are on the ground and who understand that long-term thinking and security, can help to support them as businesses and our food security for the future.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the backbone of food production in rural Wales and in many other areas is small family farms but that one of the banes of their lives is the red tape levels they have to face in undertaking their work? Will the Government please review the red tape pressure that is on such farms in taxation and other matters to lessen this burden and let them get on with what they are best at, which is producing food?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, my mother’s family had a small family farm in Wales. My uncle had to do another job because he could not make sufficient money just from the farm, so I know the tough challenges that hill farms in Wales face. Obviously, it is a devolved matter. I assure the noble Lord that I talked regularly in the past to my colleague and I very much look forward to meeting the new Plaid Cymru Minister. I will continue to work to reduce red tape in whatever way we can for farms.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, bovine TB is one of the most serious challenges facing our cattle farmers in England, so I very much welcome the control strategy announced this morning by the Government, which makes a positive step change in the approach to that control. I have not seen the details yet, but will the Minister confirm that it will enable farmers and vets to use new antibody-based sensitivity tests to indicate which of their animals are infected, no matter what the official TB status is? Will they be able to have easier access to data from Defra and will they have the freedom to manage out infection in their herds? If these changes and others that are mentioned are followed, they should help improve animal health and welfare, reduce the stress on farmers from having to cull their cattle at regular intervals, and provide farmers with some welcome light at the end of a very dark tunnel.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks some pertinent questions. I am pleased that earlier today the co-designed Bovine TB Control Strategy for England was published. It has been developed and published through the TB Hub website, which, if noble Lords are interested, I urge them to look at. A steering group of the Bovine TB Partnership has been working on this for some time in order to make sure that we get the next stage of our strategy on tackling bovine TB absolutely right. We are now going to look at the detail of the steering group’s proposals carefully to see where we go next.

The noble Lord asked a number of very specific questions. My understanding is that we are looking at new tests and implementation on working with vets, but, as he asked quite detailed questions about a strategy that has only just been published—I have not yet seen the detail as yet—I will write to him with that information.

Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026.

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

My Lords, magnesium L-threonate monohydrate has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and a safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. This instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium, to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England. The instrument is a routine and technical measure, which will ensure that food supplements regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements.

The regulatory approach taken here is well established. Where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice, and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place. Noble Lords will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards.

Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used. A related statutory instrument already laid under the negative procedure adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established. An SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before the Grand Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and will ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.

Food law is a devolved matter. This instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplements regulations and Northern Ireland applies the existing EU equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor Framework.

It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory. It does not require any business to use this ingredient or change its products. The use of this new optional substance will initially affect only the applicant who requested this authorisation and who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.

Food supplements legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, the substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow this substance to be used in GB as soon as possible.

To conclude, these regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplements regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements, and they continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise for the fourth and final time. I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose. On these Benches, the priority is a fair deal for consumers, which means that all food supplements must meet the highest possible standards of quality and safety. The Food Standards Agency has assessed this form of magnesium as safe and on that basis we do not oppose its authorisation, but we have one or two questions about how the purity criteria will work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI. These draft regulations are a purely technical measure, setting the purity criteria for magnesium L-threonate to be used in food supplements and for its legal sale and use, in compliance with the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. This is a novel food. It was examined by the experts on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which pronounced on its safety and uses. The current levels authorised in the novel foods authorisation are 250 milligrams of magnesium per day, which is roughly equivalent to 3,000 milligrams of magnesium L-threonate per day. This level was established based on health-based guidance values.

The Food Standards Agency consulted on this matter. I understand that concerns were raised during that consultation that the maximum level initially proposed for magnesium L-threonate in food supplements would result in a lower amount of base magnesium compared to the EU’s maximum level of 250 milligrams. This would have risked disadvantaging British businesses that market their products in the EU. The FSA, after consultation with outside organisations, agreed the level that we have before us, which is the same as the EU’s. On this occasion, UK scientists made that decision and it was not foisted upon us by the EU. The future, however, looks rather different.

The assessment of safety is not one set figure but a range, allowing this revision to a higher but still safe level. I commend the work of the independent experts in the ACNFP, whose assessment allowed this product to get approval. They get abuse from ignorant people, who complain that they do contract work for the food industry and therefore must be biased, but I do not want the Government to employ any so-called expert if he or she is not good enough to get contract work from an outside company. These are excellent people and I commend them.

I would like to raise some broader concerns about food regulation. There has been much noise about the Government’s intentions for dynamic alignment with the EU. The sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement involves 18 key agri-food policy areas. The Government want us to believe that this deal will simply ease traffic at our ports, when in fact it requires adopting thousands of EU laws, including future changes to them, over which we will have no say whatever. This includes policies such as those approving or restricting food texturisers, enhancers and processing aids; dictating vitamin dosages, mineral concentrations and ingredient reporting; and authorising emerging food technologies, synthetic alternatives and lab-grown products. Many noble Lords across this House will have views and insights on each of these areas, but they will be denied any say. More broadly, the deal risks sacrificing areas of growth and progress, such as precision breeding and gene-editing, or the development of vaccination programmes for cattle against MTBC, mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.

What assurances can the Minister give that these successes will continue under the SPS agreement? Will she clarify what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure parliamentary oversight of future changes and to protect parliamentary sovereignty over UK law? These are important considerations; they are not relevant to the measure before us, but we will face them in future if the SPS agreement goes ahead. It is important that we have a say and can make recommendations over regulations such as those before us today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, as I said at the beginning, we welcome these regulations.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation and questions in another short and sweet debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the EU and divergence, and the noble Lord just touched on that as well. To clarify, this form of magnesium has been approved as a novel food in the EU, where it can be used in food supplements. There are some minor differences between the EU’s and the Food Standard Agency’s assessments, but they do not create a material difference or any safety concerns. In the FSA’s view, the differences are due to differences in assessment style rather than in the product itself. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the product, as manufactured, will comply with both the EU and GB specifications. That therefore does not give rise to any concerns regarding its trade between GB and the EU.

While we are on the EU, the noble Lord talked mainly about dynamic alignment and the legislation that will come with that, and asked for reassurances in that space. We are still in the middle of negotiations and I cannot go into the detail of them. They are not directly relevant to this statutory instrument, but the noble Lord knows that I am always more than happy to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss these issues with him in detail as we move forward through the EU discussions. We know where we are on that.

Just to finish, the noble Baroness also talked about review periods, safety, and so on within that. Clearly, a lot of these areas are in the FSA’s area, and we in Defra—and, I know, the Department of Health and Social Care—meet regularly with our colleagues in the Food Standards Agency, because it is really important that we uphold standards and work very closely together. I will reference these concerns in our next meeting with the FSA, because the noble Baroness makes very important points that when we are bringing in new legislation around novel foods, we need to ensure that we are confident in their safety for the long term and that consumers are being suitably protected.

Having said all that, I remind noble Lords that this statutory instrument is very much a routine technical measure; it does not place any new burdens on businesses but ensures that use of the substance meets clear, consistent safety and quality standards. I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions and commend this SI to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Water Companies

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, delivery of strategic water infrastructure is crucial to tackling wider systemic issues. What assessment have the Government made of the benefits of smaller farm reservoir networks alongside large-scale water storage? That is the shortest question of the day, I dare to suggest.

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

One thing we have been doing is working with landowners on small storage areas. We know it can be very effective in things such as flooding, as well as providing water for livestock, for example. It is a very good point because, as well as building new large reservoirs to provide drinking water, we need to look at how we put less pressure on our water system. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be very helpful.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, are the rumours true that the Government will not publish the water Bill until Thames Water is resolved? The company is in breach of its licence conditions by not having held any grade credit ratings for nearly the last two years and by having failed to tell Ofwat and the Government about change of control. The only plan for the future appears again to be to leave it up to shareholders to own and pillage. Its independent expert states that the cost to the Government of special administration would be zero in the medium term, so why not get on with it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware of any such rumours. I do not know where they have come from, but I am not aware of them. On Thames Water, the Government are actively working very closely with Ofwat, which is evaluating the latest proposals from the consortium. Clearly, in doing that it has to take the best interests of customers and the environment into account. We are looking at all and any eventualities that may come out of those discussions with Ofwat, which includes being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it has to be faced that in the east of England we spend a lot of money pumping fresh water out to sea during the winter and then do not have enough of it for agriculture, industry and homes? Nobody at this moment is looking at the specific issue of how we stop the costs of doing that and enable people in the east of England to have water supplies that at the moment they do not.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point—in fact, he made it to me yesterday. I do not blame him for repeating it, because it is critical for the east of the country. All I can say is that we are looking right across the water industry to see how we can improve it and make it operate effectively for consumers and the environment. I will absolutely reiterate to the department the points he has made.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, water companies have knowingly violated their licence conditions and have more convictions than hardened criminal gangs, yet no executive has been fined and no company forced to relinquish its licence. What will it take for the Government to recognise that privatisation has failed and that water companies ought to be returned to public ownership?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord is very keen on nationalising the water industry. It is important that we use the clean water Bill coming up later this year to make the systemic changes to the water industry that will deliver us an industry that is fit for the future and that people can rely on. That is the big problem—people cannot rely on the water industry at the moment, and we are seeing issues such as those with South East Water and Thames Water more and more frequently.

When looking at nationalisation, we consider the regulated capital value of the water sector to be the closest proximity for the total value of the sector’s debt and equity; it is currently £107 billion. This is usually used as the starting point for estimations. You can then put on a discount—for poor performance, for example—or a premium. At the moment, £82.7 billion is the cost of the outstanding debt of the water companies. We are not looking to renationalise because of the cost and because of the amount of change we are bringing in. We want to crack on. In the case of nationalisation, government would become responsible for that huge amount of money.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the work that she and the department are doing in clearing up the rivers, watercourses and seas, though privatisation and EU regulations have played their part. She will be aware that the Cunliffe review referred to pollution and flooding being addressed up stream and to greater use of sustainable drains. Can she resolve her disagreement with her fellow Ministers in the Ministry of Housing to make sure that we can implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, Defra is very keen to be able to implement SUDS. We know that it makes a huge difference. We know that we need to use sustainable drainage to tackle flooding, particularly given the size of the building programme and the Government’s ambitions in housing, for example. I can only assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to press the department on this.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

We do need more capacity for reservoirs and water storage. Where have the Government and the regulator got to in granting the permits so that work can get under way to make that much-needed provision?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are very keen to press forward with new reservoirs. It is unfortunate that no new reservoirs have been built in almost 40 years. There are a number of reasons for that, and it is one of the reasons why we brought in the Planning and Infrastructure Act: to allow major projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—to be able to move forward more quickly. We are currently working through that process.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday I asked the Minister how long it takes to build a reservoir, but I am not sure I got an answer. I am told by a bit of internet research that it will take roughly 10 years to get through planning and then a further five to 10 years to build a reservoir, by which time I think most Members of this House will be either former Members or late Members. Are those the figures that the Minister is working to?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I sincerely hope that I will see that first reservoir built and that I will not be a late Member, and I hope the same for the noble Lord. As I said, part of the reason for the Planning and Infrastructure Act was to tackle that issue of planning. It is not just reservoirs; there are many other important nationally significant infrastructure projects. Look at Hinkley Point C for nuclear, for example, and how many years that has taken. That is why we needed to change the planning system: to be able to move these projects on in good time.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

On these issues, and further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, one thing the Government could do, which would be simple and quick, would be to give farmers and landowners permitted development rights to build small ponds and small reservoirs on their land. That would be beneficial on water and beneficial on biodiversity. It is something the Government could do now. Why will they not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are not telling farmers and landowners that they cannot do that. There are ways in which we can work with farmers and landowners to allow the building of small water-holding areas. I will discuss this further with the Farming Minister, but it is something that we are already looking at.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to reply to my Written Questions about what the Environment Agency in 2021 said was going to be its biggest ever criminal investigation. Five years on, with six charges potentially laid, there has been only one conviction so far. I encourage the Minister to work with her colleagues and fellow Ministers so that, when the water Bill does come through, a lot more power is given to the Secretary of State, as is happening with the Health Bill, so that we can get a move on with making sure that people go to jail when they need to and that we avoid this systemic failure in the first place.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point, not just on the water Bill that is coming forward but more broadly. I get very frustrated when we put in laws that should make a difference and then enforcement does not happen or things take too long. It is a really important point that the noble Baroness makes. Obviously, we will be debating the clean water Bill, and I am sure that enforcement and what we do about criminal behaviour will be part of those discussions.