Farming and Food Production: Land Use Framework

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Baroness Rock

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point. In our trade agreements, we have been very clear that we will not have food that is produced to lower standards than those in this country. That has always been a red line for Defra during trade agreements. That will continue. The environmental aspects are also really important, because there is no point in us increasing our standards if that gap is then filled with lower standards. I am certainly very keen to continue to promote this within Defra.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a tenant farmer. I am pleased that the Minister recognises that any strategy for multifunctional land must include strong protections for tenant farmers. That is because tenure will impact on how a farm business can engage in land use change. Currently, the design of agri-environment schemes can result in perverse incentives for landlords, including the end of tenancies. We must also ensure that government policy does not incentivise landlords to remove farming tenants in favour of solar developments, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, alluded to, which would undermine farming businesses and domestic food security. Has the department done any assessment on how the land use framework will impact the tenant farmers who are responsible for managing and farming 32% of England’s agricultural land, often in areas that the land use framework views as having high potential for change?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The land use framework will work in tandem with the farming road map, which very much recognises the important role that tenants play and the support that they need. One of the things we also need to really work with is looking at lengths of tenancy. Years ago they were 20 or 25 years long, and now they are down to five years. It is much more difficult for tenants to invest and look forward to a profitable future when they have such short tenancies. That is absolutely key to recognising many of the challenges faced by tenant farmers.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Baroness Rock

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As my noble friend is very aware, agriculture is a devolved policy area in the United Kingdom, so the Northern Ireland Executive are responsible for their own farming policy and can tailor that to best support their farming sector, which is different from England’s in a number of ways. I work very closely with DAERA and with the office of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as with the other devolved Governments. Regarding her question about raising this with my counterpart in Northern Ireland, I am meeting him online next week, so I am more than happy to do that. We work regularly on this. I go to Northern Ireland quarterly and discuss exactly these issues.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the objectives for a vibrant tenanted sector set out in the road map. I draw the House’s attention to my interest as a tenant farmer. However, the Government appear to be a bit reticent still about taking the radical and necessary steps to improve the security of the tenanted sector. As the Minister has pointed out, 80% of all new farm business tenancies are now for five years or less. Short-term tenancies are the greatest barrier to sustainability, resilience and profitability. Both my review and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to which this Statement is also the response, identify taxation as the most appropriate lever to achieve greater security. Will the Government look again at the way in which stamp duty land tax penalises the very tenancy agreements that the road map says it wants to encourage? We must also ensure that tenant farmers are not unfairly treated when land is taken away for development, including solar development, so will the Minister confirm that they are willing to look again at the legislative changes needed to improve compensation for tenant farmers who lose land so that they are compensated for the real loss their businesses suffer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

To be honest, I was not aware that 95% of farmers did not get their application in on time. The important thing is that we have a long-term, clear road map so that farmers do not end up not knowing what they are eligible for, what they can apply for and the Government’s direction of travel. The road map is designed to bring an end to exactly those sorts of problems.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments on the Law Commission review, and the indication in the road map that the Government will support that review and act on its recommendations. It would be very helpful if the Minister could reiterate that commitment today.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Law Commission has an important role to play here, because, if we are to start to unpick some of the issues, we need proper, clear evidence and facts. A review by the Law Commission—a responsible, highly regarded body—will enable us to do that.

Farming Road Map

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Baroness Rock

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

Food Security

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Baroness Rock

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Baroness Rock

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a tenant farmer and as chairman of the Rock review into England’s agricultural tenancies.

The Government’s procedural amendments will increase parliamentary oversight of the design and future development of the animal welfare provisions. The Government recognise that there is a need to safeguard animal welfare, and that is why we need a step-by-step approach by bringing legislation into effect for precision-bred plants first and then for animals. Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating diseases that, as farmers, we all see, and it thereby enhances the health and welfare of animals.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments that move the regulations to the affirmative procedure; they are extremely welcome.

I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her thorough introduction to her Amendments 19 to 21. I am sure noble Lords will remember that in Committee I tabled a number of amendments relating to the welfare advisory body, so we are very pleased to see my noble friend Lady Jones tabling similar amendments today. I spoke at length on this issue in Committee, my noble friend has introduced her concerns and we have heard from across the House, so I shall be brief.

Amendment 19 makes it clear that, in addition to considering information submitted by the notifier, the welfare advisory body should satisfy itself that the notifier has a record of acting in a manner that is consistent with research and animal welfare requirements across other Acts of Parliament. That really should be part of the body’s role. We do not want any confusion or different decision-making across different bodies.

I may have this recollection wrong, but I thought that in an earlier meeting a flow chart was mentioned showing how different animal welfare bodies, in Defra and the Home Office, would interact. I had been hoping to receive a copy of that to get some clarification about precedence and how this was all going to work together. It may have gone into my spam folder and I may have missed it, but if the Minister could check on that, that would be very helpful.

Currently, the Bill states that the welfare advisory body has to determine whether in the animal welfare declaration the notifier has paid regard to the risks to an animal. One of my concerns has always been that it is the notifier who is driving the process and is in the driving seat, rather than the welfare advisory body, which is why we were all very concerned about more checks and balances. We know the Bill says that the notifier has to take reasonable steps to assess those risks, but we do not believe that is a strong enough protection for animals in the Bill.

My noble friend’s amendment would mean that the welfare advisory body had to assess the impact on animals where a precision-bred trait was developed, with the aim, as she said, of achieving fast growth, high yields or other increases in productivity. As we have heard, we have seen that too often in traditional breeding methods, so we need to bring in these protections. We have heard many examples of traditional selective breeding producing animals that were highly efficient but this was often at the expense of animal welfare, and we need to ensure that that is not an unfortunate consequence of the Bill. The RSPCA and Compassion in World Farming have raised serious concerns about the lack of safeguards in the Bill to prevent that happening. In addition, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has drawn our attention to the fact that many of the effects of selective breeding have been unintended.

We agree with our noble friend that it is reasonable that welfare impacts should be assessed here. Without the amendment, it is not clear exactly how that would be part of that process with the advisory body, particularly in relation to other bodies that already exist. So we strongly support my noble friend and believe that her amendments should be in the Bill.