Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument forms part of the Government’s commitment to implementing the border target operating model by ensuring that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These controls are essential to maintaining the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety, as well as focusing the benefits of unfettered access arrangements on qualifying Northern Ireland goods.

The instrument uses powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It has two main purposes. First, it applies pre-notification and sanitary and phytosanitary certification requirements to goods that are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These requirements are consistent with those already applied to certain European Economic Area goods and those entering Great Britain from Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland under the transitional staging period. This means that European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland are treated the same as such goods entering Great Britain through Ireland.

Secondly, the regulations make consequential amendments to various pieces of sanitary and phytosanitary legislation. The qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition was amended earlier this year for food and feed goods. The consequential amendments in the legislation that I am presenting today ensure that the updated definition is reflected consistently across the regulatory framework.

I emphasise from the outset that the Government remain fully committed to ensuring unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK market. The Windsor Framework Command Paper, published by the previous Government in February 2023, and the Border Target Operating Model, published in August 2023, clearly state that Northern Ireland businesses will have unfettered access when moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. The Border Target Operating Model also states that European Union and rest-of-world goods will be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls when moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. The approach adopted in this legislation is consistent with those commitments.

The instrument does not make any changes to the arrangements for moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are not required to undergo any of the controls implemented by this legislation and will continue to move freely within the UK internal market. Indeed, by applying controls to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland, these measures more closely focus the benefits of unfettered market access on Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods. This will sharpen their competitive advantage.

The sanitary and phytosanitary controls applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland under this instrument are temporary. We will revoke this instrument when the transitional staging period, which allows for easements in the performance of official controls, ends. That is currently set at 1 July 2025.

A long-term approach for further controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland is yet to be implemented. The temporary nature of the instrument allows for biosecurity controls to be in place for these goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of that, although that is of course without prejudice to unfettered access protections granted to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. I must also highlight that this instrument extends to England, Wales and Scotland.

I reaffirm the Government’s steadfast commitment to supporting the businesses and communities of Northern Ireland while safeguarding the integrity of the UK internal market. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for bringing this regret amendment to the House. I listened to some very powerful speeches by him and his noble friends on both sides of the House.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about these regulations, given the impact they may have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, but we will not oppose them. We welcome that some goods will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain, but we are concerned about the non-qualifying goods and the effect this will have on businesses that trade across the Irish Sea.

While the Windsor Framework was a significant improvement on the original protocol, that is not to say that improvements cannot be made wherever necessary. The Opposition will continue to scrutinise the secondary legislation and assess its impact. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Government will keep these regulations under review and take any action necessary to lighten the burden on businesses trading across the Irish Sea where possible?

The businesses affected by these regulations may need extra support. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to give businesses in Northern Ireland the support they need? Indeed, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these changes on businesses in Great Britain trading with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade?

Goods from Northern Ireland must be traded as freely as possible, and they should not be at an unfair disadvantage. That was at the core of our work when we were in government. We all know that the Windsor Framework was the result of a painstaking negotiation with the EU, but the Government should do everything they can to ensure Northern Ireland’s smooth and unfettered access to the UK internal market. As my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said in the other place:

“The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. ‘Safeguarding the Union’ is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/24; col. 627.]


Does the Minister agree with that assessment?

We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland policy further, and to the Minister addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity—biosecurity not just in GB but Northern Ireland for goods that stop there. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea so that we all benefit across the whole of our United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his very thorough and clear introduction outlining his concerns and why he has tabled a regret amendment. Many thoughtful and constructive points have been raised, which reflects the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds but also the concerns. This Government take very seriously maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring our commitments under the Windsor Framework. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her extremely kind comments and her recognition that I have been working very hard to understand fully the challenges and concerns that a very complex area of legislation entails.

This instrument is looking to deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld and safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. At the same time, it reaffirms and strengthens the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy their unique position in the UK internal market.

Turning to the points that were raised in this debate, I will focus specifically on the questions regarding the legislation and do my best to address them. I have been listening very carefully—I can assure noble Lords of that—but a meeting has also been arranged between me and noble Lords from Northern Ireland in January, and I am sure that we will be picking up many of these issues at that meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, asked about consultation engagement. A period of engagement on the border target operating model, which contained an overview of controls that are introduced in this instrument, ran from 5 April 2023 for six weeks. There has not been specific consultation on this SI because it is delivering the approach that was set out in the BTOM, which was consulted on extensively.

As noble Lords have pointed out, the instrument is temporary and does not set out the approach for the long-term treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Any future long-term approach will be developed with input from stakeholder engagement. Noble Lords have asked about that long-term approach, and I can come back to that.

The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, asked about the response from stakeholders on this legislation and other legislation coming forward. The feedback from the six-week BTOM consultation was published on 29 August 2023. As we did not specifically consult on this SI, the feedback did not specifically relate to it, but there were calls from Northern Ireland agri-food businesses that there was a desire to focus the benefits of unfettered access more closely on Northern Ireland traders, which is what this SI seeks to address. We will provide a further update on the timeline for implementation by next summer.

Collaboration with devolved Administrations was also raised in the debate. We will continue collaborating with the devolved Governments and all border stake- holders to support implementation readiness across the vital points of entry, to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance so that traders have the time that they need to prepare. The Government will also work closely with devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of the long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-the-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. Noble Lords might be interested to know that only this morning I met with devolved Ministers and officials to discuss issues around BTOM, so that work is ongoing and very hands-on at a ministerial level. I wanted to reassure noble Lords of that. This was from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so there is a lot of work going on. I have implemented those meetings to ensure that we all work together and understand each other and what we need to get out of any decisions that are taken. The important thing is to preserve that unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister but she has not really answered the question. If goods coming from the Republic through Northern Ireland into Great Britain have to be security-checked for phytosanitary and all the other reasons, why are people in Northern Ireland then left with nothing? How does the Minister know that we are not going to be poisoned or threatened by some kind of problem that she feels will come through to Great Britain?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely get the point that the noble Baroness is making. Our international commitments, and the trade and co-operation agreement, require us to treat EU goods equally, regardless of the entry point. As she is aware, there is a lot of legislation already in place. There are issues within the Windsor Framework. There are matters that we need to discuss with the EU as we go forward with the EU reset that has been discussed. These more complex issues are where we need to dig into the detail in our meetings outside of the legislation, and the whole point of me wanting to meet noble Lords is so we can do that. We can dig into those details and I can better understand the concerns, and we can look at whether there are things that we can do to manage this better. I hope the noble Baroness is happy that I am not trying to dodge it; I just need to understand it better, so that we can discuss it properly.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked about electronic systems for paperwork. We have been looking at this; it is quite complicated, but we are exploring whether it might be possible, to answer that specific question.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the potential SPS and veterinary agreements with the EU. I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her work as part of the veterinary medicines working group. This is a critical part of taking that work forward, and a way that we are working in collaboration and consultation to ensure that we get the best deal we can. It is quite difficult because it is early stages, and we want to get this right, so I cannot say anything formally at present. I assure noble Lords that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes on looking to get the best outcomes that we can for both SPS and veterinary agreements.

I conclude by summarising what we consider to be the benefits of these regulations. They strengthen Great Britain’s biosecurity by delivering alignment in the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. We believe it is right that goods from the European Union and the rest of the world are treated differently from goods moving within the UK’s internal market. Additionally, the consequential amendments to the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition in existing legislation ensures that the updated definition, which focuses the benefits of unfettered access more squarely on Northern Ireland traders, applies to the direct and indirect movement of these goods into Great Britain. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that there will be further statutory instruments to come on very similar areas—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, assured us that this will be the case.

I am aware that the noble Lord, Lords Dodds, may well be minded to divide the House on these regulations. As I mentioned at the start of my response, I have invited noble Lords from Northern Ireland to come, in January, to another meeting, as a follow-up to our previous one, and I very much hope that they will accept. I reassure noble Lords, who clearly have very real concerns about statutory instruments regarding the Windsor Framework and the implementation of the new BTOM, that I am listening. I want to have the opportunity to consider wider concerns in more depth, so that I can properly understand them and see if there are ways that we can move forward together on this. I do not pretend to have all the answers or a magic wand to resolve what is, in many areas, a pretty impossible position, but I am genuine in wanting to work with noble Lords on this. With that having been said, I once again thank everyone for their contributions. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the points raised by a number of noble Lords this evening. I thank her also not just for the substance of what she said but for the tone in which she has approached these issues this evening and on other occasions, as well as for her willingness and dedication to work with us on some of the issues that affect so many people who we are speaking for in this House—both unionist and nationalist, because the Ulster Farmers Union, which she mentioned visiting, is made up of many people of different backgrounds and they all have common concerns.

When we speak about wanting to give a voice, a vote and a say in making laws and legislation for Northern Ireland, we want those rights to be for nationalists, unionists, and those who have no party at all. That is why it is staggering that tonight in the Northern Ireland Assembly there will be members of parties—the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance—who will vote to deny themselves the right to make, develop and amend laws over 300 areas affecting vast swathes of our economy, including one of our most important industries, the agrifood industry, which is massive in Northern Ireland. They will vote to hand over the powers to develop those laws to a foreign political entity, which may on some occasions vote and decide laws beneficially but may on other occasions decide to vote and make laws in their own interests, which is perfectly understandable. Why would you want to hand that away? This is not a unionist argument; it is an argument for Northern Ireland and for the Assembly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, talked about working together. That is why we in the DUP voted to go into the Executive with Sinn Féin, despite its support for murder and mayhem, targeting many of us in political life and the security forces. We want to move Northern Ireland forward, but you cannot move it forward on the basis of a majority vote that excludes every single unionist. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the fact that there are different views. Well, there is a nationalist view, supported by the Alliance Party, and there is a unionist view. That is why we have a cross-community voting mechanism in the Assembly. There has not been a majority vote on any matter of substance affecting Northern Ireland for 50 years—yet, tonight, there is. That is not acceptable in the long term. It will not endure.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 October be approved.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.

Motion agreed.

Food Security

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve food security.

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

My Lords, the Labour Government have committed £5 billion to the agricultural budget over the next two years, which is the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our history. The uplift to £1.8 billion, in 2025-26, for environmental land management schemes will boost food security and accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector. We are also investing £60 million to support farmers who were affected by the unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. As an agricultural adviser in a previous life, I observed at first hand the vital contribution of both research and investment to agricultural productivity, which is fundamental to domestic food production and food security. Yet both the NFU and CLA estimate that the recent changes to APR and BPR will lead to a substantial reduction in investment. Were the impacts of these tax changes on investment and productivity modelled with Defra before their introduction? If not, can His Majesty’s Government undertake such an impact assessment and make it available to Members of the House?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we are reforming APR and looking to do it in a way that protects small family farms and protects food security and resilience. The right reverend Prelate made some good points around this and the potential impacts of it. I will take his comments back to my honourable friend the Farming Minister, who is currently in discussions on those matters.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I asked a question some weeks ago about whether Defra had been consulted only the day before the Budget and that no impact assessment was given. The Minister promised to write to me—I still await a reply—but I read in the newspapers that that is the case. How can the Minister say that she is improving food security when the impact of APR will be to force small farms to sell their farms? They will be bought by corporates, as part of their ESG and greenwashing, which will further reduce the supply of land for food production, along with the madness of creating solar farms on good agricultural land. This Government are destroying food security, not enhancing it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I will answer a number of the noble Lord’s questions. We had a Question on solar farms last week; we are not building solar farms on grade 1 and 2—good-quality—agricultural land. On APR, Defra was in discussions with the Treasury to consider all the different changes for the spending review and is now in discussions on the next SR. The money that we are investing in farming is designed to support long-term food security in this country.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, under the last Government, just 4% of the ODA budget was devoted to agricultural assistance. Given the global growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change and the increasing propensity for food security to be weaponised in conflict, can my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government plan to increase the percentage of ODA being spent on agro-ecological measures?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there has been a growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change. I confirm that the FCDO’s ODA budget, which will be published in due course, will be £9.24 billion in 2025-26, and Ministers will consider the ODA allocations for 2025-26 over the coming months. We are committed to this; the Prime Minister committed to deliver practical support to communities facing hunger. This is backed by a £70 million package, including a new resilience and adaptation fund that channels climate finance to ensure that food-insecure households, in places such as Ethiopia, Chad and Bangladesh, can withstand extreme weather and other shocks.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, 40% of all food is now imported, which raises a serious security issue. However, can I specifically ask the Minister about BBC World reports this morning that some pureed tomatoes being imported into this country are made by Uighur slave labour? The report included examples of punishment beatings and electric shock punishments for those who fail to reach their quotas. What more can we do to at least prevent goods coming into the UK that are wrongly labelled—in this case “Produced in Italy”—and give consumers the right to choose what they buy and do not buy?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have seen the same reports as the noble Lord and they are extremely concerning. My understanding is that the supermarkets have said that they have not been purchasing tomatoes from these particular places, but clearly that needs to be robustly checked. We are looking at labelling as a way to better inform consumers and ensure that our food is from the kinds of sources we would all want to see and can trust.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. The NFU estimates that as much as 75% of British farming output comes from family farms that will now have to pay the family farm inheritance tax. Farmers already have to deal with increasing weather volatility and increasing input and output price volatility, leading to lower and less predictable farming incomes. Does the family farming tax undermine the Government’s own manifesto commitments to increase food security and champion British farmers and expose hard-pressed family budgets to the risk of higher food prices?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned previously, the APR changes are not designed to undermine small family farms and I know that both Defra and the Treasury have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss this matter further.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, families whose food security relies heavily on food banks may suffer nutritional deficiencies because so much of the produce is ultra-processed rather than fresh. Some 800,000 children are reported to use food banks on a regular basis. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on child health and development of sustained dependency on food banks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, clearly it is important that we have good nutrition for our children, which is why we have worked with schools around breakfast clubs, for example, because it is very important that children receive nutrition, especially at a young age. This is something we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care on. One of the important things this Government are doing is working much more across departmental policy areas in order to ensure that we get the kinds of results that support the policy areas the noble Baroness referred to.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has talked about food security and we have heard a number of issues raised about different challenges to it—there are in fact a huge number. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the weaponisation of food supplies. We know about disruptions to transport and about climate interruptions. Is not strange, therefore, that the national risk register put forward by the previous Government barely mentions food security, except in the context of contamination. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether this will be looked at, so the potential threats to food security in this country are looked at in the round, to coin a phrase?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely; my noble friend makes an important point. We look at overall household food security. In the financial year ending 2022, some 7% of households in the UK were considered to be food insecure. The Family Resources Survey 2022-23 found that the proportion of food-secure households decreased from 92% in 2019-20 to 90% in 2022-23. So this is something we do look at in the round.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, tenant farmers do not own their land but they do produce food. Can the Minister tell me what conversations she has had with her colleague the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on solar planning applications that have been called in that relate specifically to solar applications on tenanted land where the landlord is looking to evict the tenant farmer?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Regarding the solar panels, we have discussed this with Defra, DESNZ and the Ministry for Housing, which the noble Baroness asked about, because it is important, again, that we get this policy right as we develop our policy on housing and on energy. Clearly, this will be part of the land use framework. Regarding tenants, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that we have committed to appoint England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector to promote the standards outlined in the agricultural landlord and tenant code of practice. We hope that the commissioner will play an important role in this area.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024.

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

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 24 October 2024. They introduce extended producer responsibility for packaging, which I will refer to as pEPR, in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

PEPR is one of the three core pillars of the Government’s ambitious packaging reforms, alongside the forthcoming deposit return scheme and the simpler recycling programme in England. These will overhaul the packaging waste system, introducing the biggest change to policy in a generation. Collectively, the packaging reforms are estimated to deliver carbon savings of more than 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefits.

The new system established under these regulations will modernise the producer responsibility system for packaging in the United Kingdom by shifting the costs of managing discarded household packaging from taxpayers to those businesses that supply packaging and by applying the “polluter pays” principle. These regulations also implement international best practice, exemplified by the mature systems of our European neighbours, including Belgium and Germany, where comprehensive EPR schemes have been in place for some time.

I am sure that Members will note that this SI was drawn to the special attention of the House of Lords by the SLSC. I assure Members that this was on the grounds of it being politically or legally important and it giving rise to issues of public policy that are likely to be of interest to the House.

I turn to the benefits of the scheme. The revenue raised by this new system will generate more than £1 billion annually to support local authority collection, recycling and waste disposal services. This will benefit every household in the UK and stimulate much-needed investment in our recycling infrastructure. This will make a substantial contribution to the benefits of the packaging reforms, which together are estimated to support 21,000 jobs in our nations and regions, and will help to stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. Revenue from pEPR will create a much-needed injection of resources into local authorities to improve the household kerbside collection system across the UK. In England, this revenue will fund the simpler recycling reforms that will enable consistent collection of all dry packaging materials, ending the postcode lottery for recycling.

Taken together, these reforms will support this mission-driven Government’s ambition to kick-start economic growth and create the foundations required to transition to a circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that resources are kept in use for longer. It is a critical first step in meeting the commitment in our manifesto to transition to a resource-resilient, productive, circular economy that delivers long-term, sustainable growth.

I will now look at the new obligations that the legislation will bring in. First, these regulations introduce an obligation on businesses that supply household packaging, referred to as “producers”, to pay the costs incurred by local authorities in managing that packaging once it has been discarded. Producers will also be obligated for the cost of providing public information about the correct disposal of packaging. Producers will start incurring fees from April 2025, and invoices will be issued from October 2025 for the 2025-26 scheme year.

Additionally, from the second year of the scheme, producer fees will be adjusted to incentivise producers to make more sustainable decisions at the production/design stage, including decisions that make it easier for products to be reused or recycled at the end of life. This will mean that a producer who uses packaging that is not environmentally sustainable, such as packaging that is not widely recycled, will incur higher fees. Conversely, those using packaging that is sustainable and readily recyclable will incur lower fees.

It is right that businesses bear the costs of managing the packaging that they place on the market, but we must also protect the small businesses that are the life and soul of our high streets and the backbone of our economy. That is why only businesses with a turnover of more than £2 million and which supply more than 50 tonnes of packaging per year will have to pay disposal fees under this new system.

To administer this system, the regulations require the appointment of a scheme administrator jointly by the four nations. This body will be responsible for the implementation of pEPR. This will include the setting of producer fees and the apportionment and payment of those fees to local authorities in order to fund their waste management services. This scheme administrator will initially be hosted within Defra.

I turn to the detail of the obligations that have been retained from the current producer responsibility system. This instrument revokes and replaces the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023, along with the equivalent regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The requirement for packaging producers to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging that they supply is carried over from these regulations, as amended. This data is used to calculate producers’ recycling and fee obligations.

This instrument also revokes and replaces the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 and the equivalent regulations in Northern Ireland. As was the case under these regulations, this instrument places obligations on producers to ensure that a proportion of the amount of packaging that they supply is recycled; it also requires them to provide evidence of this to the regulator. These requirements apply to all packaging, not just packaging likely to be disposed of in local authority household collections. To meet this obligation, producers must demonstrate compliance by obtaining packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes from recycling facilities or those who export packaging waste for recycling.

I turn to compliance and enforcement. This instrument provides the four national regulators with enforcement powers and a duty to monitor compliance. It contains strong enforcement measures, including criminal offences and powers for regulators to impose civil sanctions in cases of non-compliance. As is currently the case, the monitoring and enforcement activity for the producer responsibility regime will be funded by the associated charges in these regulations, such as those for registration and accreditation. These charges operate on a cost-recovery basis; as such, they have been increased from the 2007 regulations to reflect the new duties placed on the regulators and the increased level of monitoring and audit activities.

In conclusion, there is no such place as “away”. It is therefore critical that we create the foundations required to transition to a circular economy for packaging, in order to ensure that resources are kept in use for longer and to secure vital carbon savings. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on and thank her for bringing forward these regulations, which I wholeheartedly support; I also thank her for her clear exposition of what they contain. I have a couple of questions.

The Minister set out the responsibilities, particularly around informing households of what they are required to do. I understand that a lot of the waste that is contaminated cannot be effectively disposed of and recycled. Does the Minister know what percentage of household waste that constitutes, including whether it has gone up or down in, say, the last five or 10 years?

I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Green Alliance for the joint briefing that they have produced for our use. I am also grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which gave a very helpful background.

My understanding is that the regulations relate only to recycling. I wonder why the department has focused on recycling and not reuse. I have asked on a number of occasions both the Minister and her noble friend the Minister for Energy, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, what the Government’s policy on energy from waste is. It is a good way of using household waste that has been contaminated and cannot be reused. It also prevents it going to landfill, which I understand is where most of the waste that is not recycled will go. So it not only reduces household waste and disposes of it in an energy-efficient way; it also provides an energy stream that other countries in Europe use to great effect. My late aunt and uncle in Denmark had their household heating provided by energy from waste at a reduced rate, so there was a community interest in taking it up. I have not heard anything from the Government—either this department or the department for energy—as to their views on energy from waste.

The Minister referred to kerbside collections, the cost of which is obviously quite high. I have now lost the page but one of the figures relates to the substantial cost of kerbside collections. Is it the idea that household collections will be performed by local councils, which will be reimbursed under the regulations by the funds raised? I think that the Minister alluded to this; that would seem very sensible indeed.

With those few remarks and questions, I commend the regulations, but I am interested to know how much will go to landfill; why the Government have not looked at reuse; what the percentages are for contaminated materials that cannot be recycled; and what the Government’s views are on any residual household waste going to energy from waste plants.

--- Later in debate ---

Does the Minister agree that instruments of this size present a challenge to the House in that we are limited in the amount of scrutiny we are able to undertake on secondary legislation, and that, with the best will in the world and even with brilliant all-seeing Defra civil servants and clever parliamentary drafters, not to mention a caring and able Minister, there will inevitably be many errors and unforeseen circumstances in these regulations? Will she promise not just to keep the regulations under review but to come back to the House as soon as possible when glitches have been discovered? I will not criticise her or Defra if she says, “This bit or that bit ain’t working the way we thought”, or “We need to change something”. There is no shame in that for something this complex and innovative. The shame would be in discovering flaws and not correcting them.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. There has been an enormous amount of questions, which I will do my best to cover but I may well end up writing in response to some of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it is a large document, although, having worked on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I needed a wheelbarrow to get around the House, nothing ever seems large to me again. I will try to cover as many questions as I can but, if noble Lords will bear with me, I will go through Hansard and pick up anything that I miss.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked a number of questions about household waste. The UK household recycling rate was 45% in 2021, with no substantial change since 2015. However, there is a lack of robust data on contamination rates, so I cannot provide any detail on that. We have used assumed contamination rates, which have been informed by data from sector experts, for the impact assessments for collection and packaging reforms.

The noble Baroness also asked about incentives or targets for reuse as well as recycling. Under pEPR, there are already incentives to support the adoption of reusable packaging. Producers are obligated only once for a piece of packaging, not for each time it is collected and reused. Additionally, where reusable items are collected for recycling by businesses, these can be offset against their overall pEPR obligations. We think that this exemption, in combination with the offsetting provisions, incentivises a move to reuse and drives a move away from single-use packaging, but we will continue to review the effectiveness of these measures to ensure that they are sufficient to meet the UK’s ambitions to increase the reuse of packaging.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about enforcement and compliance. The pEPR regulations set effective and proportionate enforcement powers to achieve high levels of compliance. We have worked closely with the environmental regulators to ensure that the fees payable to them are adequate to fund the full regulatory service. One such power is the ability to issue variable monetary penalties in respect of certain offences, including the failure to register and the failure to report data. These new variable monetary penalties will enable the environmental regulators to issue financial penalties that are commensurate with the nature of the offence and the size of the business, meaning that larger businesses may face significant financial consequences for failing to comply with the regulations.

Additionally, the scheme administrator that will be created by the SI will be granted the use of civil sanctions, including variable monetary penalties, to address the non-payment of disposal fees. Where a producer fails to pay its disposal fees in the prescribed time, the scheme administrator may issue a variable monetary penalty, the amount of which will be equal to 20% of the unpaid disposal fees or up to 5% of the business’s annual turnover, whichever amount is higher. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked for more detail around the fees that would be charged.

The noble Baroness also asked about the appointment of the scheme administrator. The scheme administrator will be hosted in Defra and will report to the four Ministers of the four nations. There will be a governance structure that will include representatives from the value chain—in other words, producers and local authorities.

On the deposit return scheme, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, we are completely committed to launching DRS in October 2027 in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland; we laid the regulations for England and Northern Ireland on Monday. The Scottish Government are making the necessary amendments to legislation in Scotland, thereby enabling us to progress the appointment of the deposit management organisations in April next year.

Materials, the glass sector and plastics were all mentioned. I am sure noble Lords have read that in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, glass will not be part of the DRS scheme. The Government’s position is that glass would add considerable upfront cost and create complex challenges to the delivery of DRS, particularly for the hospitality and retail sectors—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—as well as disproportionately impacting small breweries and being inconvenient for customers.

Glass drinks bottles will instead be part of pEPR. We have been engaging with industry as part of the development of our illustrative base fees, and further engagement is planned over the coming months. To ensure that heavier materials such as glass are not disadvantaged in our model, where weight is not a limiting factor, costs are apportioned according to the volume of collected material rather than the weight. PEPR provides a strong incentive to move towards reuse, to which the glass sector is well placed to respond. Given the carbon intensity of glass recycling and its durable nature, reuse is the goal. PEPR will incentivise the reuse of glass, as fees will be charged only the first time a product is placed on the market and producers will be able to offset what they recycle.

Regarding the Welsh aspect of this, the UK Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—DAERA—in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government are not including glass, as I said, but the timing and the scope of the Welsh DRS scheme have not yet been confirmed. While this remains the case, there is no justification for extending the temporary pEPR disposal fee exemption on plastic and aluminium drinks containers to include glass. We will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government; once we have finally confirmed the details of their scheme, we will consider whether any amendments to the EPR regulations are needed.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who asked whether material switching would happen because of this. Decisions on the use of packaging materials are complex and driven by a range of individual, business and market factors. At the moment, we have no robust evidence that switching would occur. As part of our illustrative base fees webinar on 3 October, we requested that the industry provide detailed evidence to support its claim; we also talked to other government departments. We have not yet received any substantial evidence. Having said that, we are planning further engagement with different sectors in December to discuss any findings and their implications. As part of this continuous engagement, we will aim to share as much detail as possible relating to pEPR fee calculations at these sector-specific round tables.

I was asked about the evidence that will be required from producers to show that packaging waste they have collected has been recycled. The regulator would not usually stipulate specific documents in relation to this requirement but would provide examples and principles acknowledging that every producer is different and may therefore have access to different evidence. A producer could obtain written confirmation from their reprocessor outlining what percentage of the materials that were collected and sent for recycling was actually recycled, but this would need to outline the reprocessing method to determine this value and the EA could expect the producer to have a documented process in place to validate this data. So it is quite complex.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about single-use cups, including whether we are still committed to introducing the mandatory cup take-back scheme; I think she referred to that. We very much welcome the efforts of UK producers to lead the way on the take-back of single-use cups through voluntary initiatives, such as the National Cup Recycling Scheme. The collection and recycling of fibre-based composite cups is eligible for offsetting against pEPR fees. The Government recognise the urgent need to limit the environmental impact of single-use packaging, including fibre-based composite cups, and are considering the most effective ways to meet this challenge. I am more than happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this further, if she wishes.

The noble Baroness also asked about targets, PERNs and what is happening to deal with fraud in the system. The new regulations will increase the volume and frequency of data reported by packaging reprocessors and exporters to enable greater transparency right through the system. The regulations include new conditions of accreditation, and regulator fees will also increase to fund additional compliance monitoring of operators. As I mentioned earlier, there are also new civil sanctions to address non-compliance, including the ability to issue uncapped penalties.

Local authorities were mentioned by a number of noble Lords. In November, local authority chief executives were sent indicative estimates of their year 1 extended producer responsibility for packaging payment. Those estimates will cover the April 2025 to March 2026 financial year, so they will have some idea of the costs. The first payments for EPR packaging will be made by November 2025. I hope that that is helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised a number of issues around business and costs. The figures that were widely quoted in the press that it would cost industry £2 billion a year are inaccurate. Our estimate shows that the reforms will cost around £1.4 billion a year. This amount will cover local authority costs to manage household packaging waste, as well as scheme administrator costs. Individual producers will be able to reduce their bill by placing less packaging on the market—that is what the legislation is designed to do. Further, any smaller businesses are likely to be excluded due to the de minimis threshold, although it is assumed that the majority of producers will be liable. Hence, the fees will largely represent an industry-wide cost increase, with all firms facing a small increase in cost. For the average producer, cost increases due to pEPR are less than 1% of total revenue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I had one quick question about the policy on energy from waste. Obviously, if the Minister needs to write to me on it, I would be very grateful. Also, the regulations clearly state that aims should be achieved around reduction and reuse, but at the moment, the regulations address recycling only. Any thoughts on that in writing would be very helpful.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The fact that there are incentives for producers to reuse is part of the purpose. It is about not just about recycling, but about changing behaviour to encourage producers to have packaging that can be reused. I hope that is the answer to that. I will write to the noble Baroness on energy from waste.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Will the Minister write to me on the technical points made by the Confederation of Paper Industries? I think we would all like to see that response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. As I say, we have had quite a long debate with a lot of questions, so I assure noble Lords that we will go through Hansard and write with detailed responses on any outstanding questions.

This legislation is necessary to initiate the circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for this instrument; I very much welcome their broad support.

Motion agreed.

Storm Bert: National Preparedness

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer to my interests as co-chairman of the All-Party Water Group and as honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.

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

I am very impressed. Protecting communities from flooding is a priority for this Government. The Government continuously assess preparedness for flooding at local and national levels in England. The Met Office, Environment Agency and Flood Forecasting Centre provide multiple flood forecasting and warning services, work with local resilience forums and partners to inform actions, and will consider the effectiveness of the flood response.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful for that response. Our hearts go out to those who lost their lives in the recent floods. Should we be doing more maintenance and dredging between floods? Also, does the Minister share my concern that there should be a one-stop shop for flood warnings? We are to go to the Environment Agency for all flood warnings apart from surface water, for which we have to go to local councils. Obviously, in a time of deep distress, such as a forthcoming flood, it would be much better if there was just one place to go for both preparedness and the issuing of sandbags and such.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the dredging question, the Environment Agency undertakes dredging to manage flood risk where it is technically effective, does not significantly increase flood risk for others down stream and is environmentally acceptable. Some locations will benefit from this and others will not, so it is looked at case by case. On flood warnings, my feeling is that most of the time they work very well. I am signed up for them: we get them by email and text, and we get a phone call. I urge anyone who has not signed up for flood warnings and who lives in a flood area to do so, because they are effective. Regarding having a single place, that is something I can take back to the department to review.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, for every one degree rise in temperature, the air can hold up to 7% more moisture. In the UK, rapid climate change is having an ever more devastating impact on our local citizens and property. We are particularly seeing a rise in very localised extreme weather surface water flooding events. What action are the Government taking to help improve the forecasting models for these hyper-localised devastating flooding events?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The answer is twofold. First, what do we need to do to reduce the likelihood of surface flooding? A lot of the nature-based solutions that we have been bringing in and discussing in the water Bill will help towards that. Climate change is having a serious impact, so we need to review the effectiveness of how we are working and have a long-term model. We have set up the new flood resilience forum, which will look across the board to consider floods that have taken place and how we can react better in future.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Given the need to mitigate surface water problems in all sorts of areas, what consideration is being given to tightening up the planning guidelines, which at the moment make it very easy for people to pave over what would otherwise be grassed areas or areas where there could be natural drainage?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This is a really important question. We have a planning Bill coming up, during the passage of which, as I understand it, we can look at this issue. As a Government, we have committed to ensuring that when we build, we build more high-quality, better-designed, sustainable homes, because we need to ensure that our built areas increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. We have the National Planning Policy Framework, which has been consulted on, and that will inform better planning and sustainable growth for our built environment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Storm Bert was a tragedy for home owners who were flooded out and whose homes and businesses were destroyed; they have our sympathy and support. It was also a disaster for farmers, who are already worried about increased cost and tax burdens as a result of the Budget. The Conservative Government introduced the farming recovery fund to support farmers in these exact circumstances. Can the Minister tell the House exactly how much financial support has been given to farmers through the fund in response to Storm Bert, since she confirmed that the scheme has already been opened?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, we recently announced £60 million to be distributed through the farming recovery fund for the previous floods. It is very important that we support farmers. It is a very difficult time when your land is flooded; it can take a long time to recover and be very expensive. We are currently looking at this.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

On that point, will the Minister look carefully at the criteria that are set? Farmland that is more than a mile from a river has been flooded, and yet the owners are told that they are not eligible for this funding. It all comes back to surface water and building on flood plains. Will the Minister look closely at that criterion?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At the moment we are reviewing the whole criteria around flood funding, because it is not fit for purpose and certain areas that require funding are not necessarily eligible to get it. We are looking at it in the whole.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister confident that the Government are prepared and ready to handle red warnings?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are confident that they are working extremely hard to learn from previous events to improve responses as they go forward. That is why we have set up the Floods Resilience Taskforce; we want to ensure that we do the best job we can.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, on that point, flooding is just one aspect of the wider issue of national resilience. What action are the Government taking to ensure that we have proper command and control mechanisms that can identify need at times of national stress, can identify the resources that are required to meet those needs and can co-ordinate the activity of various services, including the emergency services and the military, in the most efficient manner in a time of considerable crisis?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a very important point. I give credit to the different organisations in Cumbria, where we do national resilience extremely well. In Penrith, people come together because we have had a number of similar events, not just flooding, and we have learned from them. Good work is taking place at the moment, and it is very effective.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, will Flood Re, which the Minister knows all about, be included in the review? Quite a lot of claims must have been made to Flood Re following recent events, and certainly some risks were not covered by Flood Re because of its rules. Considering the Flood Re rules again in the light of this disaster may well be a good thing.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Flood Re has been running for a number of years, and I am sure the noble Earl and other noble Lords are aware of the exceptions to what can be put forward to it—for example, multiple-occupation buildings. My understanding is that it is being reviewed, because it is available only up to a certain date and we have reached the stage where it will be looked at. The other issue is that businesses are not covered either. It is important that we continue to monitor and review its effectiveness, while also looking at how we support the people who are not supported by what is a very important insurance back-up.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I will take my noble friend the Minister back to the question from our noble friend Lord Harris on paving in built-up areas. I hope I did not mishear her; I think she did not specifically say whether the new planning arrangements will address that issue, which is a very serious problem in high-density urban areas. It is usually to do with people wanting to park cars. Will the Government promote the use of porous materials, which will support the weight of vehicles but are much less damaging to the environment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not want to pre-empt the outcomes of the National Planning Policy Framework, but some excellent porous materials are now available, and it is important that the Government encourage their usage where they are appropriate.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I will follow up on the planning issue. One of the places that flooded was the Billing Aquadrome, which was built as a leisure resort and temporary accommodation for people to spend riverside holidays. One of the problems with temporary caravan homes is that they are often built on flood plains. They are used not just for holidays but for permanent residences, because of the housing shortage. Many people there suffered considerable problems. What does the Minister think can be done about these matters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is an important point. I am aware that, when you have serious floods, often caravan parks—I do not know whether that is the right terminology—and the people who live in them get flooded over and over again. There is one near where I live, so I completely understand the noble Lord’s point. I am unsure whether their management will be included in any future planning framework, but I am sure that we will come back to this question as the National Planning Policy Framework moves forward.

Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, the instrument before you provides for the introduction of the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme. The purpose of the instrument is to implement arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework which were announced in February last year. The framework represents an important step forward for the people of Northern Ireland by significantly improving on the arrangements that existed under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This Government have been very clear in their intention to secure new, better arrangements for sanitary and phytosanitary matters with the EU. We are clear that we want to continue to simplify this process as far as possible in order to support those across the United Kingdom, whilst protecting our internal market.

Turning to the SI itself, this scheme will simplify the requirements associated with moving pet dogs, cats and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland significantly. It replaces single-use animal health certificates with a free-of-charge lifelong travel document and removes the need for costly pet health treatments. Pet owners who travel frequently with their pets, or those who rely on the services of an assistance dog to travel independently, will benefit substantially from this change in approach. I am pleased to say that this benefit has been recognised by Guide Dogs UK specifically, which has noted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dogs travelling to Northern Ireland.

Movement of pets for other reasons, such as young assistance dogs being moved to Northern Ireland for training or the movement of police or military working dogs from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, will also benefit. This SI also reaffirms the Government’s commitment to unfettered access, in that those from Northern Ireland have no requirements whatever beyond the need for a microchip, as is good practice already and in line with this Government’s approach to high animal welfare standards. Finally, the SI empowers relevant competent authorities to carry out their respective responsibilities as part of the scheme in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the scheme is sufficiently robust and ensure that those travelling with their pets have the best experience possible.

To summarise, the Windsor Framework is already successfully restoring the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the burdens that have disrupted east-west trade, as well as safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union. This instrument is essential in implementing those benefits: an international treaty negotiated by the last Government that this Government have committed to delivering in good faith. I hope noble Lords will agree that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme delivers significant benefits for pet owners and for assistance dog users across the UK, and I urge all to support its implementation. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

We are not dealing with a perfect situation or a perfect set of solutions. We are still finding our way in this post-Brexit world. None the less, I believe that the regulations before us represent a small step in the right direction.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the many contributions we have had this evening and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As a number of noble Lords have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it is important to have opportunities to debate these issues in some depth, because they are complex issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for appreciating that I am doing my best to work through these complex issues and understand all the different perspectives and points of view, so that I can do my job as effectively, efficiently and transparently as possible as we move forward on some quite complicated—and, in some quarters, controversial—regulations.

Regarding the Windsor Framework, there has been a lot of discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some very pertinent points and referenced some things that have been previously mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anderson. I have got a lot of questions to answer and I do not want to get bogged down in wider discussions about the Windsor Framework at this point—I will come back to them. However, one thing I do want to say, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned this, is that we are trying to work more constructively with the European Union; we are trying to reset that relationship. I have heard a number of criticisms of the European Union’s attitude towards discussions and negotiations and I am hoping that, with a more constructive approach to working with the EU, we may be able to make some progress in how we manage things going forward.

A number of questions were asked around checks. To be completely clear, Northern Ireland pet owners will not face any checks and there will be no checks for pets travelling from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I will go on to a few other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about unfettered trade and whether the Government were still committed to it. I can confirm that the Government have long-standing commitments to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, which is of course Great Britain. That was legislated for in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model, which this Government are continuing.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked whether there had been an impact assessment. I can confirm that a de minimis assessment was completed for this statutory instrument, which is in line with standard practices and thresholds for the evaluation of impacts where these are expected to fall under the de minimis threshold. The assessment is that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme will deliver large net benefits, particularly to UK pet owners.

Consultation, and the lack of it, was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. While there may not have been a formal consultation, the Government engaged comprehensively with interested stakeholders—including pet owners, ferry and airline companies that operate the travel routes between GB and Northern Ireland, and commercially owned pet microchip database operators—when the regulations were drafted.

Assistance dogs were mentioned. Guide Dogs UK has specifically highlighted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dog owners who are travelling to Northern Ireland. The British Veterinary Association outlined that the arrangement will reduce paperwork and health treatments for vets.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the information being provided. I can confirm to her that there will be a public communications campaign; it is currently being planned. Officials are working with stakeholders, including vets, on that communications plan.

I turn to the SI’s requirement that pet owners apply for pet travel documents, because a number of questions were asked about that. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, dog owners in Great Britain would have to go to the vet and be checked for EU animal health certificates, rabies vaccinations or tapeworm treatments. That would cost the pet owner a considerable amount of money every time they wanted to travel into Northern Ireland. In practice, there are currently no routine checks on pets travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course this was only a temporary arrangement while the Windsor Framework pet travel scheme was being agreed. Officials have always reserved the right to undertake checks, should there be any suspicion of illegal activity or any welfare concerns.

The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme is designed to greatly simplify pet movements to Northern Ireland. There are no health treatment requirements; instead, the pet travel document requires more basic information. It is free. It can be applied for very easily and quickly online, and you do not need to visit a vet to do that. I also want to confirm that Northern Ireland-based pet owners will not need any pet travel documentation or be subject to any process when they return home with their pets. The scheme needs to ensure that GB pet owners have a valid pet travel document, because we need to mitigate against any abuse of the scheme. We believe that the new arrangement will involve a smoother experience than the current legal requirements.

Microchipping was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I confirm that microchipping is already a legal requirement in England, Scotland and Wales for all dogs. It is now a requirement for cats in England—that came into force in June of this year. Microchipping is considered good practice, and it is also part of the Government’s commitment to world-leading standards in companion animal welfare. We believe that this approach to microchipping reflects existing requirements and practice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether there would be exemption certificates for microchipping on the basis that a dog might not be able to be microchipped if a vet said that that was the case. I have been assured that if the pet cannot be microchipped with a UK chip, the pet owner can still travel with the pet animal from GB to Northern Ireland under the existing pet passport scheme.

There were mentions about how burdensome the scheme could be; the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to burdens. Clearly, the scheme needs to be adhered to, but the new arrangements will create a cheaper and smoother experience for those travelling with their pet from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, because it removes the need for pet health treatments, as I mentioned. This is because the scheme recognises, for example, the rabies-free status of the UK. As other noble Lords have said, the benefit is that it also lasts for the entire lifetime of the pet.

I turn to some other questions. How will things be enforced? One thing that is important to say is that I am sure the vast majority of people will comply with the scheme and the rules. The Government intend to provide comprehensive support to those travelling with their pets to ensure that they can do so. I cannot remember now who asked about pets being taken to facilities. We need something in place, because you cannot have something that is open to abuse. You have to have some kinds of checks in place and something that happens if people do not comply. But we do expect this to be very rare. If any pet is taken to a facility, we expect that to be extremely rare—but, clearly, it is a new scheme that will be monitored and we will check progress.

Another question that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked was why the scheme covers only cats, dogs and ferrets. It is for the very simple reason that these pets make up the vast majority of movements and it is about keeping things simple and manageable. It is in line with relevant applicable regulations that have grouped these animals together. Also, they are those most susceptible to rabies. That is that is the other reason for having that in place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether everyone travelling with pets would have to be checked to identify whether people are not resident in the UK: are they travelling to Northern Ireland via GB in transit from another country? Onward travel to the EU was mentioned. There are no new requirements applied by the Windsor Framework concerning movements into Ireland, the EU or for those who are not resident in the UK, or otherwise not covered by the pet travel scheme. What is required in these circumstances is unchanged by the Windsor Framework. If pet owners wish to travel with their pet on to Ireland, provided the same rules that have applied throughout Ireland’s membership of the EU are adhered to, that option remains available to them.

I will conclude. It has been a long debate, so if I have not answered anything, I will go through Hansard carefully and write to noble Lords. I just want to summarise. The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme certainly has benefits. It is new, sustainable, durable and will support non-commercial pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and secure the smooth movement of pets within the UK. It will also remove costs, pet health treatments and red tape.

I want to make one point before I conclude. I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised during the debate on this SI. I am aware that similar concerns were raised on previous SIs and I am sure that, as further SIs come forward, we will return to these discussions and debates. I want to reassure noble Lords who have expressed concerns that I am continuing to engage constructively with DAERA and relevant organisations in Northern Ireland. It is important that we start to rebuild trust in these areas. In fact, I am going to Belfast next week for a couple of days and intend to do that regularly as part of my portfolio. I know that a number of broader issues that have been discussed. I very much appreciated the meeting I had with noble Lords representing Northern Ireland some weeks ago and look forward to continuing that ongoing engagement, where we can get more into the depth of these broader concerns. Having said that, I thank once again all noble Lords for their contributions.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Can the Minister discuss with her ministerial colleagues, looking towards the review in 2026 of the trade and co-operation agreement, work which can be undertaken to find a way out of this as best as possible? It would at least be reassuring to Members. I hope that work has already started but, if it has not, it ought to.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I apologise; I know that the noble Lord raised this in his speech. I am more than happy to speak to ministerial colleagues on those matters.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I want to say, as usual when this kind of statutory instrument is being discussed, that it goes much wider than the actual SI. I kept my remarks specifically to pets, and a number of questions were asked which it was very difficult for the Minister to answer. I very much appreciate her genuine sympathy and concern. We will go through Hansard to see what more needs to be answered, because one of the things that has come out of tonight’s debate is that there is genuine confusion, much more within the departments than even with the Minister. That has to be sorted.

I thank those noble Lords who supported my regret amendment. The two noble Lords who opposed it did not say anything specific about what was wrong with the issues that I raised; they tended to go wider than that. I am sorry if I pre-empted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I always know that she will say that it is all Brexit’s fault. However, I thank her very much for asking some questions that were very relevant to the debate.

Scrutiny is the reason that we are here tonight and why these SIs always take a long time; I know that there are many frustrated colleagues here tonight wishing that this had gone through in a quick hour. It is because there is no real scrutiny in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, many MLAs now say that quite a lot of what is going on there is a farce in terms of scrutiny. The scrutiny for this part of the United Kingdom is more and more having to come in this Chamber, which is why we have these debates.

I am still not at all satisfied and feel very strongly that all those animal lovers out there watching this tonight—many knew that it was happening, particularly the Kennel Club, which I mentioned earlier—will not feel satisfied about any of the answers and will not understand why our Governments have allowed this to happen. I keep tabling regret amendments. I am getting fed up with regret. I would like to press this amendment to a vote.

Storm Bert

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement. Like others, I want to thank the services involved in rescuing those affected by Storm Bert and those who have helped with clearing up in the aftermath. They have done a great job. We have all seen on television the appalling damage that the deluge of filthy water causes to land, homes and town centres. It is heartbreaking not only for those who have had their homes flooded, but for businesses which have been destroyed as a result—they are struggling to come to terms with their life’s work being washed away.

The level of flooding was similar to that which occurred in the autumn in Valencia. Then, there appeared to have been little warning given, and no help either. In England we have excellent weather forecasts and advance notice is generally given. However, in some cases the notice was so short that those affected had no time to move their possessions or take avoiding action. In some areas no sandbags were available, and in others recently installed flood defences were ineffective in holding back the water. What plans do the Government have to improve early-warning systems ahead of flooding events?

The current eligibility criteria for flood relief and financial support are unhelpful for those living in rural areas. The more densely populated the area hit by overwhelming flooding, the more relief is given. The Frequently Flooded Allowance requires 10 properties within a community to be flooded in order to be eligible. The flood recovery framework is engaged only at the Minister’s discretion following severe flooding events. In the past this has required 50 properties to be flooded in a single area in order to be eligible. The Minister will be aware of these criteria. Many of the areas flooded on Monday had already been flooded twice this year. Can the Minister say whether the qualifying criteria for the Frequently Flooded Allowance and the flood recovery framework will be amended to allow more homeowners to be eligible for post-flooding support?

I turn now to the effect on the farming community. While I welcome the £60 million extra allocated earlier in the year to assist farmers whose land had been flooded, farms are now in a much more serious state. The Statement indicates that a further £50 million will be allocated to internal drainage boards. Can the Minister give any indication of what the criteria will be for the distribution of this £50 million? I note that this money will not be allocated until 2028. What is needed is help now.

I previously lived in Somerset, where the Levels were regularly flooded. What are the Government doing to recompense, on a regular basis, those farmers who play a role in accepting flood water so that more densely populated areas are protected? These farmers are not able to grow crops nor graze their stock while their land is submerged. Is there likely to be recognition for the valuable service these farmers provide? It is important to encourage farmers to instigate ways of storing water and institute schemes for flood prevention. I am sure the Minister and her colleagues are doing this, but I would be grateful for an update.

Finally, I hope the Minister will agree that the actions of the farmer who drove his tractor at speed through the centre of Tenbury Wells, which was already flooded, causing increased destruction to businesses and properties, did nothing for the reputation of the farming community. He should be identified and brought to book for his reprehensible actions.

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

I thank noble Lords for their responses to the Statement and their questions. As other noble Lords have done, I pay tribute to all those who responded and supported communities affected by storm Bert. I offer our condolences in particular to the families who have lost a loved one.

Noble Lords asked about support for people during the flood event, and flood warnings were particularly mentioned. I know how this works as I live in a house that has been flooded. We get the Environment Agency’s flood warnings. In my experience, the service is good; the agency emails you, phones you and texts you. You usually get very good notice of any potential problems. But I understand that people were concerned that this time there was very short notice. My understanding is that the Environment Agency is looking into that to see whether there were issues with the timings in this case.

Going right back to the 2007 floods, much work has been done since then on collating information to inform regularly updated emergency plans and to look at the best way to facilitate a quick and efficient response. Clearly, this needs to be considered if local people feel that that did not happen in the best way it could have done.

Regarding how we are supporting the flood response in Wales, obviously it is a devolved matter, but I know that the Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister on Sunday regarding flood impacts and to offer support. The Welsh Government have reassured him that they have the situation under control. We are aware of the problems that certain communities in Wales are facing and we are there to support in any way we can.

The floods resilience task force was mentioned. That met for the first time in September. The idea is for it to set a new approach to preparing for flooding and working between national, regional and local government, including the devolved Administrations. The idea is for it to meet quarterly and consider both near-term resilience and preparedness. The next meeting will be in January and it will look at the situation we have just been facing. The important thing is for this to start to drive forward the actions we need to take to be best prepared for these events when they happen in future. Part of the January meeting will be looking at what happened, how we can move forward and how we can improve. It is a rolling programme of improvements.

One of the things is an agreement to share lessons learned across all tiers of government and with flood responders. We had an agreement from the meeting in September for Defra to write to all MPs, which has happened, in advance of winter, to provide advice on key flood preparedness messages for their constituents. That is one action that came out of the September meeting.

Farming was mentioned. The farming recovery fund—the £60 million from previous flooding—is being distributed to farmers. Payments for that started last week. In the investment programme, the amount of funding a project can attract depends on the damage it will avoid and the benefits it will deliver, with the impact on agricultural land included as part of the funding calculator. We are reviewing the existing funding formula to ensure that challenges facing businesses are adequately taken into account and we will of course be working with farmers to support recovery.

The noble Baroness mentioned the flood recovery framework. This is managed by the MHCLG, because it has a core package for business and community recovery support for the most severely affected areas, but the property flood resilience scheme is a Defra grant, which is managed and delivered via local authorities. They are traditionally activated alongside each other. Just to give a sense of scale, the property flood resilience grant scheme has been activated six times in the past, and on each of those occasions more than 2,000 properties were flooded across multiple authority areas. Again, you have to look at the scale of it, and the decision will be made on that basis.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the funding formula and eligibility for funding support. The floods funding framework was an inherited formula for allocating money for flood defences. We believe it to be outdated; it is something that as a shadow Minister I raised many times, because it concerned me that it did not take account of all situations—the frequency of flooding, for example. We are concerned that it slows down delivery and neglects more innovative approaches to flood management as it stands, such as nature-based solutions, as we discussed during the passage of the water Bill. Defra has announced a review of the partnership funding policy, which was a few days ago, and we intend to start a consultation on that in the new year. We want to ensure that the challenges facing businesses and rural and coastal communities are also properly considered and taken into account. Currently, we are looking at how we move forward with that.

The noble Baroness also asked about internal drainage boards and the distribution around allocations on that. She mentioned the fact that on 13 November we committed to provide the extra £50 million to internal drainage boards over the year and next year, to improve, repair or replace their flood-risk assets. The idea behind that investment is to put the internal drainage boards on a firm footing so they can deliver their vital role in flood and water management for years to come. As she rightly said, that builds on the £25 million that was provided to the internal drainage boards for storm recovery following the previous floods.

In previous debates, people have talked about surface water flooding. It is going to be incredibly important that we get this right, because it is not just about flooding from rivers and the sea and bursting barriers; it is also about how we manage surface water flooding. Internal drainage boards and the role of local authorities will be extremely important in that.

There is also the issue of the higher costs. The noble Baroness asked how we were going to distribute. Obviously, it is a very new allocation of funding and we have not gone into that detail. There are costs that need to be managed and we are working with the MHCLG to examine whether any changes are needed to the funding—because it really needs to deliver. But one thing that the Government are absolutely committed to is looking at existing flood defences. Many of the reports that have come out were about flood defences not doing what they should have done, and we know that maintenance of flood defences has been an issue. One thing that we have pledged to do is to look at that. I know that my honourable friend the Flooding Minister is extremely keen that we focus on ensuring that existing defences are fit for purpose, because they need to be as we move further into the winter; we know that serious storms are only likely to get worse. That is very much going to be part of our focus.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Will the Minister convene a meeting of local authorities to discuss the issue of the concreting over of many driveways up and down the country? Often, the problem with surface water and local flooding is that the water has fewer and fewer places to run off.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that the more concrete there is, the harder it is. The water has to go somewhere, and this is the issue. You can never stop flooding; you can manage it the best way you can. I would be very happy to convene a meeting, although I am not sure whether I am the right person. Perhaps it should be MHCLG, because often this is a planning issue—or it could be a joint meeting. I am certainly very happy to explore that.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, following up on that important question, are the Government aware that there are alternative surfaces and one does not need simply to put tarmac everywhere? For instance, Richmond Council, instead of putting great slabs of concrete on pavements, now puts down little bricks which interlace with one another. Not only do they look better and cope better with roots of trees, they allow water to soak through. Will the Government do what they can to make local authorities and others aware of this alternative to tarmac?

While I am on my feet, I shall ask another question. London itself, of course, is not immune from risk. It is, for the most part, low-lying. With a combination of increasingly heavy rains and rising sea levels, are the Government confident that in 10 years’ time, the Thames Barrier will still be fit for purpose?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the noble and right reverend Lord’s first question, I know exactly the surface he is talking about. Interesting, different and innovative things are coming forward that can help alleviate the kinds of problems around surface water drainage we have been talking about. It is not just about putting it in, it is about replacing it. In certain areas, there has been a trend for concreting over drives to put your car on, where before you had surfaces that would drain. It is a really important area we need to look at, and local authorities clearly have an important role to play.

On the noble and right reverend Lord’s other question, we need to look at this completely in the round and consider all aspects of how we move forward. There are no simple solutions to this.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my condolences to the family and friends of the missing dog walker whose body was found after floodwaters hit the Conwy Valley over the weekend. I also express my appreciation of the work of the emergency services and those from the local community in the village of Trefriw who helped and supported them. Those of us who live in the Conwy Valley well understand the impacts of flooding and sympathise with those in the valleys of south Wales who suffered devastating floods this weekend after 80% of a month’s rain fell in less than 48 hours in the area.

The abiding image in the minds of many will be that of residents desperately trying to clear blocked drains in attempts to release the floodwaters. Is the Minister convinced that all funds allocated by the former Government have been utilised by the spending of local government and Natural Resources Wales in this area? How much of the promised new funding will be allocated to Wales?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

In response to the noble Baroness’s first question, clearly, these are devolved issues, so how the allocation works is a matter for the Welsh Government, but, as I mentioned earlier, we are working very closely with the First Minister and the Welsh Government to offer any support we possibly can. I do not have the specific details of the formula, but we are working very closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that they get the support and focus that they need.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I ask the Minister to return to our farming communities. We know that this is a complex problem and we rely on our farmers to work very collaboratively with all sorts of agencies to try to prevent the water coming down into vulnerable areas. As we have noted in the last few days, our farming community is already quite vulnerable and feeling very nervous, particularly because there are some reports that the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme may not open until mid-2025. It is another thing that may affect some of our farmers. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that her department does everything it can to bring the application dates of the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier fund forward as much as possible, to help our farmers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point about higher-tier stewardship. We need to move forward with it. I know that the Farming Minister is keen to get this moving because it is clearly important to a cohort of farmers. I will relay his concerns and those of the House, because it is something we are very focused on moving forward.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a resident of Worcestershire. Following the floods of 2007 and 2015, quite a number of the flood defences were strengthened. I was glad that the Minister referred to looking at and maintaining the existing flood defences, but the last weekend told us that even those reinforced new flood defences, which were put in following the 2015 flooding, were not adequate. I urge the Minister to review—not just maintain—the existing defences and look at whether they are still fit for purpose.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I start by wishing the noble Baroness a very happy birthday. She makes an extremely good point. The maintenance of existing flood defences is critical, but we also need to make sure that they are fit for purpose and fit for the future.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, leading on from some previous questions and points made about Wales, although this is a devolved matter, there needs to be recognition that coal tips are a legacy of the mining past of Wales. The Minister might point to the £25 million announced recently in the Budget, but that pre-dates what just happened over the last few days, with the coal tip hitting the community of Cwmtillery. There is the precedent that the previous UK Government gave £9 million when Storm Dennis hit and a coal tip in Tylorstown collapsed. I press the Minister: will His Majesty’s Government be providing funding for this specific incident? Comments have been made by other Members about the willingness to pick up the phone to the Welsh Government. Will any funding include financial support for these communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been in touch with the Welsh Government. We want to offer what support we can. As to the extent to which that looks at new funding or whether or not there is other funding, that will be part of ongoing discussions around the coal tips. The Coal Authority, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, has responsibility for them. I worked with the Coal Authority in the past when I was a Member of Parliament. I always found it very open, sensible and good to work with. I would hope that both the Welsh Government and our Government will continue to work with the Coal Authority to ensure the safety of these different coal tips.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the whole House is united around the concept of nature-based solutions. I am determined to invite the Minister to visit Slowing the Flow at Pickering in North Yorkshire, which is commendable for not having flooded downstream since it was built. For these schemes to be effective, and to roll them out across the country, to prevent floods of the scale we have seen all this week, by planting trees and creating dams upstream, will the Minister look favourably on rolling out more private funds, such as from water companies—United Utilities in her area, Yorkshire Water in my area—but also funding farmers and others to pay for these nature- based solutions?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, the noble Baroness is aware that we discussed this at some length during the Water (Special Measures) Bill. It is important that water authorities and water companies look at how they can best use nature-based solutions. It is an important way to prevent flooding and pollution. I am sure that as we continue to work with water companies, going through the commission, the review and so on, we can make sure that these are a central part of how they design their drainage structures going forward. I think I am going to have to cave in and say I would love to come to Pickering.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, obviously, one of the consequences of severe floods is a big increase in the amount of raw sewage being discharged through storm overflows. For example, apparently, 7 million extra litres of storm overflow went into Lake Windermere. Can the Minister confirm to the House that there will be a comprehensive analysis of these incidents, and whether the Cunliffe review will be looking at the problems caused by these recent floods?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that the review will be wide ranging. Clearly, pollution incidents, particularly around sewage, will be part of what the review can look at. I think the water companies and the Environment Agency will be looking at the extent of pollution incidents during the recent flooding, and that can then be evaluated.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, out of every crisis comes some good as well. We saw a huge working together of people from various communities to help those affected by the floods and by the storm in general. In particular, I saw a number of farmers out clearing roads and cutting trees. Will the Minister accept that, even though the farmers have got a really bad deal out of the recent Budget, they are still out there helping the community and supporting those in need?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I live in a community in Cumbria that floods a lot, and one of the most extraordinary things when you have faced a serious flooding event is the way the local community comes together, whether that is farmers helping to clear the roads, people checking on vulnerable residents or people looking after other people’s pets when they have had to go into hotel accommodation. Community support, the way communities come together, should be hugely commended in our society, and farmers have an important role to play in that in rural areas.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given that we seem to have more and more floods, do the Government have any analysis of whether people are taking flood warnings more or less seriously than they used to?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an interesting question. All I can say, for my part and that of people I know locally, is that in the last 20 to 25 years, since the flood warning system was set up and made available to communities, we have taken the warnings extremely seriously. It is important that we have these systems set up in order that they can help people in advance. If that did not happen this time, that is something we need to look at.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, are the emergency services getting involved at all with voluntary organisations such as the Maritime Volunteer Service, which has a mass of inflatables, boats, people trained to work on water and bases all over the country, and could assist in these sorts of times after the event has happened?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That has happened in the past, in my experience. When we had the floods in Cumbria, the maritime organisations certainly came together to provide support. For example, the RNLI and Maryport Rescue came in and played an incredibly important role with inflatable boats. They went into cities such as Carlisle, rescuing and supporting people. In Cumbria, mountain rescue is entirely voluntary based. However, we need to be careful not to start totally relying on volunteers. Our emergency services play a very important role, as do the voluntary groups, but we must not take them for granted. It is important that the work they do is recognised and properly supported.

Solar Farms and Food Production

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to safeguard the overall quantity of agricultural land for food production in the light of recent proposals for solar farms.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise that food security is national security. We will champion British farming and protect the environment, and we are committed to maintaining strong protections on agricultural land to ensure that our mission to deliver clean power will not come at a cost to food production or security. We are confident that the rollout of ground-mounted solar will not affect UK food security.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, you cannot eat a solar panel, yet very soon, a large proportion of our most productive and versatile farmland could be covered by them. Earlier this month, I tabled a Written Question asking the Government how much land was being considered for solar farms under the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects programme and the answer came back that just two farms of 1,400 hectares were being considered. In the last few days, the Eastern Daily Press has reported proposals for 7,000 hectares of farmland for solar panels in Norfolk alone, and I know that other Members have the same experience in other parts of the country. The Government have quite simply lost control of the numbers. Can the Minister say whether the upcoming land use strategy will explicitly stop the conversion of grades 1, 2 and 3 land, and does she agree that the NSIP programme is being abused by the aggregation of a large number of small proposals into one? Does she also agree that Britain will starve if all we have to eat are solar panels?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, I reassure the noble Lord that estimates suggest that ground-mounted solar used just over 0.1% of land in 2022, and we expect any future rollout to take up a very small amount of agricultural land. The large solar farms that I have information about are not on any grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land, as far as I am aware. However, the noble Lord makes the very important point that the land use framework will be critical in how we manage what our land is used for. Is it used for energy, housing or farming, and so on? We expect the Green Paper to be published for consultation in the new year and I urge all noble Lords to read it and take part in the consultation.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the long-awaited land use framework, which she helpfully announced is due to be published in the new year. I would like to ask whether, at the same time, her department has considered what skills and data will be required to use the land use framework to inform decisions such as the one that is being debated in this Oral Question?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As part of the consultation and the development of the land use framework, we are intending to engage with a very broad range of respondents in order to have meaningful co-design, and resources absolutely have to be part of that.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, creating energy through solar farms is vital to ensuring a mixed energy supply. It is also vital to use grade 1 agricultural land for producing food. In Canada, crops are grown under solar panels—agrivoltaic farming. Studies have shown that some crops thrive when grown in this way. This not only reduces carbon emissions but doubles up on the use of land. Are the Government looking at agrivoltaics as a way of producing food and sustainable energy?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness rightly points out, solar generation can be co-located with farmland. Many projects, for example, are designed so that livestock grazing can continue, and on the point she made on arable, there is some evidence that it can be better for growing and for nature if there is solar generation on the field.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness following closely the test case of the tenant farms in Old Malton, bearing in mind that 48% of all farms in North Yorkshire are tenanted? They are about to be thrown off the land in favour of a solar farm, exactly as my noble friend has described. Will she watch this case very carefully and ensure that no land is taken out of productive farm use when solar panels could go on warehouse and other roofs, which are much more appropriate than farmland?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Regarding tenant farming, the noble Baroness I am sure will be aware that we have announced that we are appointing the first ever commissioner for tenant farming. Clearly, part of their role will be ensuring that we have a fair, balanced, collaborative relationship between tenants and landowners. Part of that relationship will be to ensure that we do not have the kinds of scenarios that she refers to—so, absolutely, we will keep a close watching eye.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, this is about a lot more than solo farms. Financial bodies are buying up estates and farms and planting trees, aided by large subsidies, then selling off the new woodlands to offset carbon emissions. We do need tree planting in the UK, but this irreversible change of land use is continuing unabated and we are losing food production capability. Can the Minister tell us, by letter if need be, the current rate of irreversible loss of agricultural land? If we do not know that, should not His Majesty’s Government be monitoring it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail on this but, as I said earlier, we expect only a very small percentage of land to be taken up with solar farms, as raised in the Question. Also, it comes back to the central importance of developing a fit-for-purpose land use framework. The reason we need to do that has been shown by the kinds of questions that have come up today.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. Replying to my Written Question of 4 September, the Government stated that

“Ministers consider all the evidence and views on both positive and negative impacts … with reference to the relevant National Policy Statement”.

This was in relation to the Secretary of State’s decision to approve large new solar farms immediately post election in Lincolnshire, Suffolk and Cambridge. Can the Minister help the House to understand why the sacrifice of grade 2 and grade 3 land in this case was apparently given so little weight?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord has not said which solar farms he is referring to, but a number of large solar farms have been approved in East Anglia recently. With regard to the Sunnica energy farm, which he may be referring to, I am aware that the examining body considered the impact on farming to carry moderate negative weight. However, the Secretary of State concluded that it carried “slightly” negative weight, which is why it was overruled in favour of allowing permission. My understanding is that it was grade 3 and below land, not 1 and 2, but I am happy to check that.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister’s sensible response to this issue of balancing food with land use in general.

However, does she agree that these rants which we got from the opposite Benches against solar power, wind farms—onshore wind farms—when they were in government and refusing to strike a deal with offshore wind through a sensible strike price, are in defiance of the reality of the climate emergency which we have just seen with the terrible flooding across the country in recent days?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important point. In a nutshell, we have to recognise that climate change is a much bigger threat to farming and to our food security, and we have to take action to secure that. A move to renewable energy is a central part.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I get the sense from this Question that it is being viewed as a somewhat academic problem that will be solved by government fiat. However, if we are to have a robust and resilient food production capability in this country, does it not depend on agriculture becoming an economically attractive proposition for those who engage in it? Is that not much more to do with the prices that farmers receive for their produce than with things such as inheritance tax? What action will the Government take to look at those pricing structures to ensure that those who actually produce our food get a decent return for their efforts?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes an extremely important point. Farmers have had their prices pushed down for years. I was looking at milk prices today. They seem to be doing okay at the moment, but part of the problem is that there is no stability. We need to look at how we bring stability into farming. The Groceries Code Adjudicator does so much, but we need to do much more than that. It is certainly an area that my honourable friend the Farming Minister is keen to move forward on, and I work very closely with him.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, the Deputy First Minister for Wales and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs has recommended that the provisions of the Bill extend to Wales. An initial legislative consent memorandum was laid in the Senedd on the Bill’s introduction. Supplementary legislative consent memorandums will be laid in parallel with any further Bill amendments. The Senedd will hold a vote on legislative consent before the end of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

Bill read a third time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to say that it has been a great privilege to be responsible for the passage of the Bill through this House. I thank all noble Lords for their careful scrutiny of its provisions and the constructive suggestions and contributions made at each stage. While we may not have ended up agreeing on everything, I know we agree on the importance of the Bill and the need to drive meaningful improvement in the performance of the water industry as an urgent priority.

The public expect and deserve transformative change across the water sector, and the Bill is a crucial first step towards meaningful reform. The new provisions brought forward by the Bill will strengthen the regulation of water and sewerage companies while giving our regulators the most significant increase in enforcement powers in a decade.

The Bill will ensure that water company executives are held to high standards, reflecting the importance of their role in overseeing the operation of vital water and sewerage services. Crucially, the Bill will increase transparency around water company operations and pollution incidents, ensuring that the public, as well as the regulators, are well equipped to hold water companies to account.

With the passage of the Bill in this House, we have made inroads into turning around the performance of the water industry, and made clear our expectations for water companies in advance of the most ambitious investment period that the water industry has seen.

This Government are committed to working closely with counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to address the shared challenges facing our water environment. Our waterways and some of our water companies cross our shared borders, so the importance of working together to improve the water environment cannot be underestimated.

Of particular relevance to the Bill are the challenges faced across the privatised water sector in England and Wales. In line with this, my officials have worked constructively with Welsh counterparts throughout the passage of the Bill through this House, so I am also delighted that the UK Government and Welsh Government have together launched the independent commission to fundamentally transform how our water system works. The independent commission will provide the lasting change that England and Wales need to deliver much-needed reforms in the water sector, which I know all Members of this House are eager to see. We look forward to continued and long-term collaboration with the Welsh Government on the Bill and the independent commission.

In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have offered their expertise to enhance and strengthen the Bill in this House. The discussions have been truly collaborative. The Government carefully considered the important points raised during the Bill’s passage and, in consequence, tabled the amendments that we discussed on Report. I believe that the provisions of the Bill leave this House even stronger as a result.

Many of the wider points raised by noble Lords will be addressed by the independent commission, which, as we have discussed, will review the entire water sector regulatory system. I look forward to further collaboration with noble Lords during the course of the independent commission, and on future legislation, as we continue to work towards the shared goal of restoring and protecting our precious water environment.

Just before I finish, I record my special thanks to officials, particularly the wonderful Bill team, who worked so hard and gave me exemplary support throughout the passage of the Bill in this House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Russell, Lady Parminter and Lady Pinnock for standing in for me when I was off with Covid. I am very grateful to them.

The Bill is essential, and it was essential that it began its journey in this Chamber. It is only one piece of the jigsaw that the Government will bring forward to deal with the problems of the water industry, but it is a vital one.

I thank the Minister and her officials for their time in listening to those of us across the Chamber who were concerned about some aspects of the Bill. She was extremely patient and receptive to the arguments we put forward, and we are grateful for the movement that the Government were able to make on the pollution incident reduction plans and the performance-related pay issues. Ofwat has been strengthened by measures in the Bill and it is to be hoped that, overall, the discharges of sewage will reduce quickly and the quality of water in our streams, rivers and lakes will improve as a consequence.

It is now up to the other place to take on the Bill, which has been much improved by the debates and changes made in this Chamber. For our part, we welcome the review of the water industry as a whole and look forward to seeing how the Bill will fit into the overall picture. It has been a pleasure to work with the Minister and her Bill team on this essential piece of legislation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister on securing her first Bill in this new Parliament, and through her I pass on my thanks to the Bill team for their solicitations throughout the procedure. I would like to tease her on one item if I may. We did not manage to carry the amendment on mandatory requirements for sustainable drains, nor the end to the automatic right to connect, but will she consider voluntarily bringing forward a report in six months’ time on where we are in introducing mandatory requirements for sustainable drains for major new developments?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to take that back to the department and to discuss whether that is possible.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Farming Families

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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