Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a long-term problem that has been going on for many years. Unfortunately, the water industry has simply not been held to account in the way that it should have been, and that is why we are bringing in the clean water Bill and changing the regulator.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Can the Government give us their estimate of the cost and the timetable for putting in the extra pipes and processing capacity so that we can clean up our rivers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is probably a cost for the water companies to assess.
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes some good points. I am more than happy to discuss these issues in the department and with the Farming Minister. Looking at our response to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, on tenancy, because she particularly mentioned this, we recognise the benefits of longer agricultural leases and the importance of security of tenure for tenant farmers. New industry-led guidance was published in March of this year, which hopefully will help more landlords and tenants look at how long-term agreements are of benefit to both landlord and tenant. Also, we know that the Law Commission is looking to review agricultural tenancies within its 14th programme, and we welcome that, because we genuinely believe that longer-term tenancies are better for the sector.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Is this not a policy to make us more dependent on imported dairy and meat from the EU, because these policies will find that the carbon targets, the grazing policy and the wilding policy will mean far fewer farm animals in our country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I disagree with that. In fact, I think the opposite. When we have met industry sectors, whether pigs, cattle or whatever—particularly in Northern Ireland, interestingly enough—we have found that they really see the benefit in the opening up of markets by us working closer with the EU. A lot of the trade restrictions, the paperwork and the bureaucracy will go. We lost, I think, 40% of our trading opportunities with Brexit, but this is an opportunity to have more trade and support for our farming industries.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely. The word “agroecology” may be used only three times, but sustainability—improving water, air and soil quality—runs all the way through the document. Just because it does not say the word, that does not mean this is not a key part of what the document intends to deliver. As I said earlier, environmental degradation leads to poor farm profitability: the Batters review was about farming profitability. That is also what the farming road map is designed to improve, because we need to improve our farming profitability.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why are the Government asking for carve-outs from bad EU laws when, as a sovereign country, we should just say that we do not accept bad laws?
Thames Water
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My understanding is that that is not the assessment by Ofwat at the current time. However, the noble Lord makes some good points. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water meet regularly with Ofwat. We are watching very closely for when or if there is a considered view that it has tipped into that space.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, do the Government agree that Thames Water needs to put in a lot of new, larger waste pipes and an extra reservoir to cater for the extra population that we have experienced in the area? What is the Minister’s rough estimate of how much capital this new investment will take?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the basis that I do not know how many pipes, what size reservoir and where it would be, it is difficult to assess a capital investment. The Government have a reservoir policy. We have committed to building new reservoirs. No Government have done that for many years now, which is partly why we have issues with supporting housing development and important infrastructure development in the south-east. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government because we must get this right to ensure that our economy is fit for the future.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can see where the noble Baroness is coming from. The difficulty is that if a company continues to pollute regularly and other water companies are being fined, where is the fairness and logic in letting one company off the hook because it has got itself into a worse mess? These are difficult, complex areas to get right. It is very much Ofwat’s decision, and I am sure the Government will continue to discuss such matters with it.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Pursuant to the Minister’s kind reply to me, I welcome the Government’s wish to have more reservoirs. She might like to ask about the Abingdon reservoir plan for the Thames area, which has long been around. It was much needed when I was MP for my local area and is even more so now.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I know the Abingdon area applications very well. In a previous life I worked in communications on major infrastructure, and I remember it crossing my path probably 20 years ago now.
Water Companies
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, Defra is very keen to be able to implement SUDS. We know that it makes a huge difference. We know that we need to use sustainable drainage to tackle flooding, particularly given the size of the building programme and the Government’s ambitions in housing, for example. I can only assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to press the department on this.
Lord Redwood (Con)
We do need more capacity for reservoirs and water storage. Where have the Government and the regulator got to in granting the permits so that work can get under way to make that much-needed provision?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are very keen to press forward with new reservoirs. It is unfortunate that no new reservoirs have been built in almost 40 years. There are a number of reasons for that, and it is one of the reasons why we brought in the Planning and Infrastructure Act: to allow major projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—to be able to move forward more quickly. We are currently working through that process.
EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we are discussing this area with the EU. One of the approaches that we have around the new technologies, whether you are talking about gene editing or novel foods, is that it is important that we are able to strengthen the UK’s credibility as an innovative regulator, bringing in these new technologies. We are very proud of our scientific community and of the work being done in these areas, and we will continue to support them to the best of our ability.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Under dynamic alignment, will we be able to block a measure which we think is anti-innovation but which the EU asserts is not?