Farming and Food Production: Land Use Framework
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact the changes proposed in the Land Use Framework will have on farming and food production.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the land use framework strengthens our commitment to maintain overall food production in England. A resilient food system requires a thriving natural environment. The vast majority of agricultural land will continue to prioritise resilient food production alongside nature and climate benefits. The framework sets out how we can use land more efficiently, using a mixture of productivity improvements, multifunctional land use and the safeguarding of our most important agricultural land.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, England is now the only UK nation no longer receiving direct farm payments, leaving an enormous gap to be filled between the direct farm payments and the environmental payments coming into play. In that regard, the land use framework is a wasted opportunity. There should have been a greater focus on profitability and productivity. Instead, land is being taken out of food production, with livestock losing out to greenery and rewilding. She need look no further than her own area of Cumbria and Northumbria. Will the Government put the top priority on food production and food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can absolutely reassure the noble Baroness that the land use framework makes a clear commitment to maintain overall food production in England. Analysis shows that this is achievable alongside the proposed land use changes. Also, food will be produced more sustainably from less land if we have a proper combination of multifunctional land use. We need to safeguard our most important agricultural land and look at how we improve productivity. We also know that many of the improvements that are coming through sustainable farming, such as improved soil quality, increase that productivity.
Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When the NPPF was revised fairly recently, for the first time it included a lot of positive actions on the environment—for example, about how it needs to be taken into account during planning. In fact, sadly, I keep a copy of it in my drawer so I can refer to it if I need to. I am pleased that we are continuing to revise it and to look at how planning and the environment work together rather than against each other. The noble Earl raises an important point about run-off from roads, and we need to look at that in more detail.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think this is the first time the noble Baroness has said that the Bill may not reach Parliament in this Session. Where there is no need for primary legislation—for example, the proposals in the Cunliffe review—will she look to bring these in through secondary legislation where that is appropriate?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness must have misheard me. I absolutely did not say that the Bill was not coming in this Session. It is absolutely our intention to fulfil the pledge made in the King’s Speech that we will bring in the clean water Bill this Session.
Farming Practices: Sustainable Farming Incentive
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
When we brought in the new offer, we wanted to take away the uncertainty as to what was happening with SFIs in the longer term. We have made it clear that we will keep the main SFI offer largely stable from now until the end of this Parliament to provide certainty to farmers that we are going to continue this kind of SFI offer.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, common land is excluded from both the SFI and the countryside stewardship higher tier. When will the Minister ensure that owners and graziers on common land can apply for SFI and the higher tier? She will be aware that most of these people are in the uplands and are really suffering at this time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very aware of the issue the noble Baroness refers to; we have discussed it in Parliament. The issue is that common land and shared grazing are in principle eligible for both SFI and CSHT—the higher tier—but, for technical reasons, it is not currently possible for common groups to apply for SFI or to enter the new higher-tier grants, as the noble Baroness so rightly said. The RPA is engaging with the different external stakeholders, including the Foundation for Common Land, to discuss what can be done to ensure that they can apply for grants and get the support they need. We are looking to introduce the ability to apply in respect of common land under the stewardship higher tier later this year. We will be trialling applications before we spread it out more widely.
REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for presenting these regulations before the Committee. I probably ought to say that I was a Member of the European Parliament when the original REACH agreement and regulations came forward.
I am also grateful to the Minister for commenting on the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I have just two questions on that. First, the Minister said right at the end that legislation and guidance will be published next year. I do not sit on that committee but, from the way I read that report, the final date of the extended timetable and when it will reach its long-term end remain a concern. The committee asked us to raise—I think it is a very good point—the intended timetable for the full implementation of UK REACH. What is the endgame?
I am grateful to the Chemical Industries Association—CIA—for the briefing that it shared with me in preparation for today. It is fair to place on the record that the chemical sector not only is critical for the functioning of the UK economy but underpins manufacturing, clean technologies and many of the Government’s priority growth sectors.
At the time that Britain left the European Union, I personally was led to believe and we were promised—I realise that there was a different, Conservative Government—that there would be friction-free trade with the European Union. However, we have ended up with duplicate registers, therefore duplicate costs, and a lot of increased costs to the sector in that regard. Obviously, we are all paying that in the way of substances such as paint and other toxic substances that we use. I do not know whether the noble Baroness’s department has made an estimate—it might well be in the papers, but I did not see it—of the current cost of having two registers.
The chemicals industry believes that the regulations before us this afternoon should be approved. For the reasons the Minister set out, it is so important to have the necessary extension to the UK REACH registration and compliance deadlines—again, we are going on to finalise the approach on the ATRm. However, the industry has raised with me—I want to share this with the Minister this afternoon—the fact that the revised timetable remains challenging. Although the regulations extend the first registration deadline by three years, they also compress subsequent deadlines into a much shorter period, which will put enormous pressure on the companies concerned. The industry also says, more importantly, that approval should not be interpreted as meaning that the underlying challenges have been resolved. There remains significant uncertainty regarding access to registration data, the cost of compliance and the risk that businesses could be forced to infringe intellectual property rights in order to meet UK registration requirements.
Therefore, I press the Minister to make sure that the Government provide certainty regarding future registration requirements by three specific asks this afternoon. First, avoid placing businesses in situations where compliance conflicts with intellectual property rights, ensuring lawful and affordable access to the data needed for registration. This is currently not the case. Secondly, and alternatively, look to other economies such as Switzerland, which has successfully implemented a model that supports innovation and competitiveness and strengthens supply chain resilience, all while maintaining the same robust health and environmental protections as the EU. Thirdly, monitor whether the compressed timetable from 2029 to 2031, which the Minister set out, remains realistic for both industry and regulators. The goal here is not less regulation or further delays but a model, like the one that exists in Switzerland, that protects the environment, for the reasons the Minister set out, while allowing businesses to drive growth, which lies at the heart of the Government’s priority in economic policy.
I believe the outline model that the Minister has set out this afternoon still leaves Great British manufacturers and importers facing avoidable cost—which they were specifically told would not be the case at the time that Britain left the European Union—inhibits the introduction of new products to the Great British market and leaves serious questions over proprietary data requirements, despite the goalposts on regulating chemicals via REACH having shifted to EU alignment by default.
I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues today. On 13 May 2026 the ACA, the Alliance of Chemical Associations, wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the honourable Emma Hardy, to raise these points, but they are very pertinent as well to the regulations before us this afternoon. The Government, and particularly the department, owe it to the chemicals industry to make sure that we can reduce this dichotomy of having two registers and the duplication of costs that it currently has to face.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I will not detain the Committee for long, but this is a very important and intricate area. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has great experience of this from her time at the European Parliament. I remember visiting the European Parliament—it must have been almost 20 years ago—when REACH was being debated. It was, and I believe it remains, the largest piece of legislation ever passed by the European Parliament.
I did not have the benefit of the CIA briefing, but I will take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the CIA, because it does a great deal in this area and I have placed that on record. I have worked with it in the past, as with other organisations such as the Society of Chemical Industry and scientific bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry, which 20 years ago were taking a very close interest in this subject. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, because it has quite rightly raised some concerns.
My points are very brief. First, I understand the case for extending the current deadlines in the way that my noble friend has set out. I also understand the case for aligning the UK REACH submission deadlines with the development and implementation of the alternative transitional registration model. But I hope my noble friend will understand if I say that we hope that we will not be here in a few years with my noble friend making the case for further extensions to the deadlines. If there is any word of reassurance she can give on that, I would be very grateful.
My second point is to ask whether UK businesses still have difficulty accessing the hazard data required to support registrations. As I understand it, the data is still held by EU-based consortia under the provisions of EU REACH.
Thirdly—I apologise to the Minister in advance if I am wrong—am I right that in the last month 15 substances of very high concern were added to the UK list? I am encouraged by nodding elsewhere along the Benches. If this is true, can my noble friend say a little more about what the substances are? I understand that they are the first major additions to that list for some time. It would be interesting for the Committee to know the reasons for it and to be reassured that there are very good reasons for doing so.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their important contributions and for the careful consideration given to the regulations. I will go through some of the questions and issues raised.
Noble Lords asked about the deadline extension. Clearly, this is now the third time. The deadlines were first altered when we were still preparing for EU exit, to allow businesses enough time to compile and submit the full required information, given the complexity and scale of the task. As I mentioned, there was a further extension in 2023 to address transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to business of acquiring the additional information. This Government wanted to reassess their broader chemicals policy, and it then became clear that we could not implement the ATRm in time for the original deadline. We want to get a robust and effective policy framework for the future, which is why we have extended the deadlines.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate in particular asked what guarantee we can give that we will not extend it again. Clearly, we really do not want to do that. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that businesses need certainty, and continually moving the goalposts and changing dates does not help, so we have absolutely no intention of extending the deadlines further.
We published our policy conclusions on the ATRm back in March, and that set a firm path forward for government. On the questions around timetables, we are looking to consult very quickly on the legislation in order to bring the model into force next year so that businesses have ample time to prepare for the new deadlines. As I said, we do not plan to bring in any further extensions.
As I said, in March we published the timetable for implementing the alternative transitional registration model. By consulting quickly and then bringing in the new regulations next year, we want to ensure that industry has sufficient time to prepare its registrations so that it is ready to comply with the first revised submission in an orderly way, which is what we want. Now that we have said this is what we will do, we want to consult as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the Swiss style and why we could not take that approach to chemicals registration rather than developing a separate UK model. One of the core principles of UK REACH is that it is industry’s primary responsibility to understand and manage the risks of its chemicals, and registration is how it demonstrates that it is doing this. That means submitting data on hazard conclusions and classifications and how it is using chemicals in this country. We need to assure the public and consumers that chemicals are managed safely.
This “no data, no market” approach remains a central part of UK REACH, and that is not embedded in Switzerland’s system in the same way. However, we are exploring whether elements of a Swiss-style approach could help improve the speed and efficiency of UK REACH restriction decision-making, particularly where many GB businesses already comply with EU restrictions and there is no compelling reason to diverge. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, as we are still looking at the options around that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am very grateful, but the problem is that the data already exists. The point is that they are having to register the same data twice, so there is obviously a conflict of views here.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That was the problem with leaving EU REACH; that was going to have to take place when we set up our own system in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the gift of Brexit—it just keeps giving. That is unfortunately one of the outcomes of that decision. But, as I say, we need to understand better the use of chemicals. Part of the reason why we want to explore better relationships with the EU is to help with many of these things. We are obviously not in a position to rejoin EU REACH, but better working relationships will help right across the board.
On costs, as I said in opening, they will be reduced by 70% with the ATRm. The estimate for the separate UK registrations is around £2 billion, instead of the previous figure. Intellectual property barriers were also brought up; companies already have legal duties to classify hazards and provide safety information through the supply chain. We assume that they are meeting those duties, so if industry is managing intellectual property issues in those contexts, we would ask why REACH registration would be any different. We also think that registration dossiers should be developed through substance groups, as those groups can draw on different sources of evidence. Clearly we cannot comment on every source, but if industry has legal advice showing that intellectual property is a real barrier to the ATRm then we would absolutely welcome receiving and hearing about that evidence.
SMEs were mentioned. The consultation response showed clear support for extending the deadlines, one reason for which is that it reduces pressure on smaller and micro-businesses. The options assessment recognised that smaller businesses are less able to absorb significant upfront compliance costs and would benefit from greater certainty and more time to prepare. The extension means that firms will not have to incur costs under requirements that we intend to change—that is one key reason—while maintaining the strong protections that we need. It is also important to note that SMEs will mainly be covered by the final deadline, so they will have the longest time to prepare.
On moving the dates for compliance checks, they need to align with the revised registration deadlines. Under UK REACH, the HSE must carry out compliance checks on at least 20% of registration dossiers. That safeguard remains unchanged. The checks can reasonably take place only once the relevant information has been submitted. Again—this is one of the key issues—if we do not bring in these changes without the amendment, the HSE could be required to complete checks before the dossiers have been received.
My noble friend asked how the alternative transition registration model will work in practice. It will provide a more proportionate route for registering substances that were already on the market under EU REACH before EU exit. It will reduce unnecessary duplication by removing the need for businesses to submit full EU hazard data packages up front, while still requiring key information such as hazard conclusions, classification and use and exposure data. This will still provide the means for business and regulators to assess and manage risk. The “no data, no market” principle will remain in place and the HSE will retain powers to request further hazard information where needed. My noble friend asked some very specific questions about a number of chemicals, so I will need to get back to him on that specific point.
Finally, on divergence, we are committed to drawing more from other trusted jurisdictions such as the EU by taking their regulatory decisions as a starting point and aiming to ensure that divergence occurs only where there are compelling reasons—for example, to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we retain full control of our regulatory decisions. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which divergence may be considered for UK REACH and we intend to publicly consult on those proposals as well.
I hope I have addressed the questions raised by noble Lords. If I have not been able to provide a full response—for example, to my noble friend—we will come back in writing. I will check through Hansard, as there were quite a lot of questions flying around and it is quite a complicated area. I recognise the concerns that this is the third time we have had an extension, about the time it is going to take and about certainty. As I say, the important thing is that we have published our intended approach and we expect to legislate for the new model next year, because we absolutely need to give an assurance that we will not be in a situation where businesses do not have the certainty that they need to do this.
One final point I have just realised I did not respond to was from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about Asulox and bracken. I am happy to take that away and discuss that further with the department.
We believe these regulations strike the appropriate balance. They will preserve strong protections while providing industry with the time and certainty needed to prepare for a more proportionate and effective registration model. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Could the noble Baroness also respond to the point about the possible compromise to intellectual property rights? I will send her the briefing, because it is all there.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If the noble Baroness sends me the briefing, I would be happy to pick it up. Perhaps we can meet to discuss it further.
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the road map does not appear to address the very real issue of the funding gap between the collapse in basic farm payments, which is accelerating faster than anyone expected, and the incoming funds from environmental land management schemes. Have I missed it? How does the road map address that very real challenge to farm incomes this coming year?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The road map is designed to be a long-term look forward. Clearly, the important thing is that we make sure, because of that gap, that farmers can access the schemes that they need to support the farming that they are doing. Access to grant schemes has not always been straightforward. We want to make schemes simpler, fairer and more accessible, so more farmers can take advantage of the support they need.
Legal Protections for Ancient Trees
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Is the Minister aware of any rules that control the felling of trees in conservation areas? There seems to be a spate of councils cutting down trees that are much loved by the local community in conservation areas of towns and villages. Is this something she could look at?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to look at it. Usually, the local authority will give an order for a tree to be cut down if there is a reason to be concerned about safety. I have an interest in this, as we have just had an order from our local council regarding several ash trees on our land overlooking the road. I am happy to look into it, but usually there is a safety aspect to those orders.
Thames Water
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that it is not necessarily just ownership of a water company that is the deciding factor, and there are other jurisdictions in which leakage and sewage going into rivers and the sea are problems. I think of Denmark, where the vast majority of water companies are in the public sector, and sewage spills and water pollution were serious issues in the recent election. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that, when the water Bill reaches this House, the cost of regulation will not increase for water companies, and that they will be able to use the resources they have to deliver wastewater, and clean water to consumers, and to ensure that they have the infrastructure in place.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we need to see the water Bill to see the detail on that and many other issues that people have a particular interest in. The Government are clear that we do not want to have overburdensome regulation. That is important. The regulator is there to help support the industry and make sure that it works properly for customers and the environment. I am sure that the detail of that will be considered in the Bill, but it is not the Government’s approach to make regulation more difficult for consumers and organisations.
Farming and Food Production
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask His Majesty’s Government what their top priorities are for farming and food production in this parliamentary session.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, supporting British farmers and boosting the nation’s food security are key priorities. Our reformed SFI offer will open later this month, and our ELM capital grants offer opens next month. We will continue to work with stakeholders through the new Farming and Food Partnership Board, and we will publish our response to the farming profitability review and our 25-year farming road map later this year. That will set out the Government’s long-term vision for farming.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but, of course, environmental schemes do not put food on the table. Will she take this opportunity to set out how the Government intend to put the focus back on to food production and farming, particularly to boost the productivity of farms in the uplands and tenanted farms? What specific measures is she intending to take to boost the food security and self-sufficiency so desperately needed at home, and the ability of our farmers to compete internationally away from home?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, profitability is really important, which is why the Batters review was so important. As part of increasing profitability, we are already implementing some of the recommendations from that review. As I said, our full response will be arriving later this year, and we will look at what else we can do. It is really important that we work closely with farmers but also processors, other producers and the horticultural sector. It is really important that we look at what we can do to increase profitability in a number of areas, and also at trade and the ability of our farmers to export, because obviously that makes a big difference. Clearly, the SPS agreement that we are looking at negotiating at the moment will also support that.
Water Companies
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I know the noble Lord is very keen on nationalising the water industry. It is important that we use the clean water Bill coming up later this year to make the systemic changes to the water industry that will deliver us an industry that is fit for the future and that people can rely on. That is the big problem—people cannot rely on the water industry at the moment, and we are seeing issues such as those with South East Water and Thames Water more and more frequently.
When looking at nationalisation, we consider the regulated capital value of the water sector to be the closest proximity for the total value of the sector’s debt and equity; it is currently £107 billion. This is usually used as the starting point for estimations. You can then put on a discount—for poor performance, for example—or a premium. At the moment, £82.7 billion is the cost of the outstanding debt of the water companies. We are not looking to renationalise because of the cost and because of the amount of change we are bringing in. We want to crack on. In the case of nationalisation, government would become responsible for that huge amount of money.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the work that she and the department are doing in clearing up the rivers, watercourses and seas, though privatisation and EU regulations have played their part. She will be aware that the Cunliffe review referred to pollution and flooding being addressed up stream and to greater use of sustainable drains. Can she resolve her disagreement with her fellow Ministers in the Ministry of Housing to make sure that we can implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, Defra is very keen to be able to implement SUDS. We know that it makes a huge difference. We know that we need to use sustainable drainage to tackle flooding, particularly given the size of the building programme and the Government’s ambitions in housing, for example. I can only assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to press the department on this.
South East Water: Disruption of Supply
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I do not know the detail of the proposals in Cornwall but, as I said, we need to get the balance right. It is really important. As I said in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, we have a problem with populations often being in the driest part of the country, so we need to get a proper overview of this.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, a lot of the regulation relating to water still comes from the European Union. Will the Government look at that in isolation or as part of the water Bill when it is before the House this autumn?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We need to look at it in the round. As the noble Baroness is aware, we are having a lot of discussions with the European Union at the moment, and it is important to learn from other countries and from what works in different places. Some countries are better at saving water than we are in this country, for example. I do not know the detail of where we will end up—negotiations are still ongoing—but we certainly need to take into account the way the European Union approaches water and the legislation that is likely to be with us.