Natural England: Gamebird Release Licensing

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Fuller

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware of the specific policies to which my noble friend refers, because there are lots of different areas where Natural England is involved. If we are talking about shooting licences, which is where this started, Natural England will look at each licence on its own merits and make a decision thereon.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, further to the comments from my noble friend Lord Roborough, Natural England is confused as to its role. Is it regulator, adviser, operator, competitor or pricer? There are multiple conflicts of interest. When will the Government help Natural England understand what its role truly should be?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I feel like saying, “I refer to my previous answer”. This comes back to the fact that we are reviewing the roles and responsibilities of all the different arm’s-length bodies in Defra to ensure that there is clarity about what each is responsible for, that there is no overlap and that they are as efficient and as best value for money as they can be.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Fuller

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This is what the land use framework does. It looks at what we use land for, and that includes farming, energy, housebuilding and so on. That is why the farming road map is designed to bring those different policies together. We need to be looking at how we meet our net-zero targets and how we become more sustainable in energy. We have seen with the war in Ukraine and other problems that if we rely too much on other countries in the volatile world that we live in, it is not good for our long-term security. We need to look at more renewable energy, but it needs to be in the right place.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have made their long-term choice for our farmers, and it is to align with the EU. I accept that the Minister cannot talk about the detail of the SPS, but it has been reported that it does a huge amount of harm, whether it is the abandonment of black grass chemistry or turning our back on enhanced breeding. The land use framework will take 1.7 million hectares—20% of the country’s farmed land—out of production. That is the long-term choice that Labour has made for our farmers. But the system of alignment with the EU works only because the EU has subsidies that we do not have in this country. Why are the Government damaging our farmers so badly with all the trade costs, the friction costs and the insane carbon costs—all those costs—but providing none of the subsidy revenues?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I suggest that we do have grant schemes available. The SFI has just been announced and ELMS has been running for some time. ELMS came in under the previous Government, who decided that we would not have basic payment systems as the EU does and would move to a more environmentally sustainable grant system, which I support. That is the long-term future. As I keep saying, I cannot comment on the EU negotiations. There are a lot of discussions around things such as pesticides and transition periods, but we do not know what the final outcomes will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This is really critical. What is often missed is the impact that Brexit has had on Northern Ireland, and the increased amount of bureaucracy and red tape in trade with Northern Ireland. Even for, say, a supermarket taking its goods over into Northern Ireland, it is much more complex than it used to be. We have red lanes and green lanes, and we have the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme. These things add not just complexity but expense to people trading in agri-foods with Northern Ireland.

One of the things that the SPS agreement is looking to achieve is to get rid of the majority of those checks and to make much smoother and more frictionless trade with Northern Ireland. The department and the Ulster Farmers Union are very keen that we work with it to achieve the best outcomes in this area.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the arithmetic of the sustainable farming incentive proposals for later this year is that the £240 million, divided by the typical claim from last year, means that only about 5,000 claims would normally be successful, out of a total constellation of 60,000 eligible claimants. This means that less than 10% of claims are likely to be met. What advice does the Minister have for the 95% of farmers who do not get their application in by 9.05 am on 1 September?

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Flood Prevention and Drought Resilience

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Fuller

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have already said, when the new SFI offer opens, it will be targeted at small farms. It is important that we look at how we support all farmers to ensure that they can support us with our aims on food stability and security.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that the arbitrary cap on SFI, which was mentioned by the noble Lord opposite, militates against economies of scale and driving the farm productivity and profitability that the nation needs and the land use framework requires?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The most important things we can do to move forward on farm profitability and to support farms are, first, to listen to them and, secondly, to look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, says in her report. It is an extremely impressive, comprehensive report on how we improve farm profitability. We should listen to someone with her expertise and experience on how we move forward to increase farm profitability.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Fuller

Committee stage
Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments considers the preparation of EDPs and what they are required to contain. Many of the amendments seek to add various matters to which Natural England should have regard when preparing an EDP. These matters include the scientific evidence base for conservation measures, how the EDP relates to local policies, the local nature recovery strategy, the land use framework and the timeframe required to address environmental impacts. The Bill, as currently drafted, alongside the government amendments that we have already tabled, requires these matters to be taken into account. I can therefore assure noble Lords that these amendments are not necessary, as these matters will already be adequately considered when developing an EDP.

Amendment 274, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would add three requirements to the preparation of an EDP: first, requiring the conservation measures to be used to address the environmental impact of development to be defined; secondly, creating a pre-consultation period for EDPs, during which expressions of interest to deliver the conservation measures must be sought from appropriate persons or bodies; and, thirdly, publishing the expressions of interest should the EDP proceed to be made. The first of these is already addressed in the existing provisions in Clause 55. The existing provisions also allow Natural England to delegate functions to other bodies, including those in the private sector. Specifying a particular procurement method and creating an additional pre-consultation period would be unnecessarily restrictive, given that EDPs will need to be tailored to the specific local and environmental circumstances. The land use framework and other strategies that we are developing in Defra, such as the food strategy, will obviously be part of any consideration. We all work together very closely. We talk to each other, which may surprise some noble Lords, because we want these to be delivered effectively.

Amendment 231 seeks to provide the Secretary of State with a power to issue guidance relating to the making of an EDP, specifying various topics that this guidance may cover. It would then require Natural England or any other body carrying out functions under this part to comply with this guidance. As noble Lords will be aware, the Secretary of State already has the power to issue guidance on key matters that Natural England must have regard to when carrying out functions under this part. Guidance should be used to guide Natural England, not to compel it. This would be more appropriate for a regulation-making power, which is subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State will still be able to make guidance on any relevant matter and will be able to assess the extent to which it has been applied when making the EDP.

We believe that Amendment 277A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, would be unnecessary, as Natural England will operate only within its capacity when it is producing EDPs.

Turning to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 253C, regarding the interrelation of the NRF model and existing biodiversity net gain arrangements, I assure noble Lords that the NRF and biodiversity net gain are distinct but complementary policies. The NRF will focus on enabling development that encounters specific environmental obligations relating to impacts on protected sites and species, whereas BNG applies to all new developments, bar the limited exceptions.

I come to the important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, regarding the consultation on BNG, when we would get its outcome and whether that would be before Report. It is a pertinent question, and I will take it back and look into it for noble Lords.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to give him reassurance, the NRF will not affect the existing requirement to deliver BNG. That is a free-standing obligation outside the NRF. I hope that, with this clarification, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

May I just ask whether the Minister would give some consideration to the question I posed: at what stage, following the pattern set out in Clause 53 and all the rounds of consultation, procurement and devising of schemes, does she think the first dwelling house will be completed and somebody occupies it? Will it be in this Parliament, or the next?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, I cannot give a precise date to the noble Lord, but we know that Natural England has indicated that the areas on which it has substantial evidence and information at the moment—for example, nutrient neutrality and on newts—are the ones that it will move ahead for. These are the areas that it already has the information on to produce an early EDP.

Solar Farms and Food Production

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Fuller

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Biodiversity Net Gain

Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Fuller

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that restoring marine biodiversity is very complicated. In many ways, it is more complex than restoring biodiversity on land; it is a very challenging subject. Clearly, we need to look at the marine conservation zones to see what they can do, and to work internationally on this because it is a broad international area. The Government are reviewing this at the moment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, last harvest, the UK’s wheat production fell by 30%—from 14 million to 10 million tonnes. One of the reasons was that so much land had been taken out of production for environmental schemes. We have heard that land for BNG must be locked away for 30 years. What assessment has been made of the long-term impact on our food security of locking land away for a generation, making it unavailable for food production?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord looks in detail at our land use frame- work when we put it out for consultation shortly. That is one of the things we want to look at, and it is why we are doing the framework: we need to balance our need to produce food against environmental considerations—where we plant our trees, build our houses, and so forth. I look forward to a good debate on that subject.