Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI. These draft regulations are a purely technical measure, setting the purity criteria for magnesium L-threonate to be used in food supplements and for its legal sale and use, in compliance with the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. This is a novel food. It was examined by the experts on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which pronounced on its safety and uses. The current levels authorised in the novel foods authorisation are 250 milligrams of magnesium per day, which is roughly equivalent to 3,000 milligrams of magnesium L-threonate per day. This level was established based on health-based guidance values.
The Food Standards Agency consulted on this matter. I understand that concerns were raised during that consultation that the maximum level initially proposed for magnesium L-threonate in food supplements would result in a lower amount of base magnesium compared to the EU’s maximum level of 250 milligrams. This would have risked disadvantaging British businesses that market their products in the EU. The FSA, after consultation with outside organisations, agreed the level that we have before us, which is the same as the EU’s. On this occasion, UK scientists made that decision and it was not foisted upon us by the EU. The future, however, looks rather different.
The assessment of safety is not one set figure but a range, allowing this revision to a higher but still safe level. I commend the work of the independent experts in the ACNFP, whose assessment allowed this product to get approval. They get abuse from ignorant people, who complain that they do contract work for the food industry and therefore must be biased, but I do not want the Government to employ any so-called expert if he or she is not good enough to get contract work from an outside company. These are excellent people and I commend them.
I would like to raise some broader concerns about food regulation. There has been much noise about the Government’s intentions for dynamic alignment with the EU. The sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement involves 18 key agri-food policy areas. The Government want us to believe that this deal will simply ease traffic at our ports, when in fact it requires adopting thousands of EU laws, including future changes to them, over which we will have no say whatever. This includes policies such as those approving or restricting food texturisers, enhancers and processing aids; dictating vitamin dosages, mineral concentrations and ingredient reporting; and authorising emerging food technologies, synthetic alternatives and lab-grown products. Many noble Lords across this House will have views and insights on each of these areas, but they will be denied any say. More broadly, the deal risks sacrificing areas of growth and progress, such as precision breeding and gene-editing, or the development of vaccination programmes for cattle against MTBC, mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.
What assurances can the Minister give that these successes will continue under the SPS agreement? Will she clarify what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure parliamentary oversight of future changes and to protect parliamentary sovereignty over UK law? These are important considerations; they are not relevant to the measure before us, but we will face them in future if the SPS agreement goes ahead. It is important that we have a say and can make recommendations over regulations such as those before us today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, as I said at the beginning, we welcome these regulations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation and questions in another short and sweet debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the EU and divergence, and the noble Lord just touched on that as well. To clarify, this form of magnesium has been approved as a novel food in the EU, where it can be used in food supplements. There are some minor differences between the EU’s and the Food Standard Agency’s assessments, but they do not create a material difference or any safety concerns. In the FSA’s view, the differences are due to differences in assessment style rather than in the product itself. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the product, as manufactured, will comply with both the EU and GB specifications. That therefore does not give rise to any concerns regarding its trade between GB and the EU.
While we are on the EU, the noble Lord talked mainly about dynamic alignment and the legislation that will come with that, and asked for reassurances in that space. We are still in the middle of negotiations and I cannot go into the detail of them. They are not directly relevant to this statutory instrument, but the noble Lord knows that I am always more than happy to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss these issues with him in detail as we move forward through the EU discussions. We know where we are on that.
Just to finish, the noble Baroness also talked about review periods, safety, and so on within that. Clearly, a lot of these areas are in the FSA’s area, and we in Defra—and, I know, the Department of Health and Social Care—meet regularly with our colleagues in the Food Standards Agency, because it is really important that we uphold standards and work very closely together. I will reference these concerns in our next meeting with the FSA, because the noble Baroness makes very important points that when we are bringing in new legislation around novel foods, we need to ensure that we are confident in their safety for the long term and that consumers are being suitably protected.
Having said all that, I remind noble Lords that this statutory instrument is very much a routine technical measure; it does not place any new burdens on businesses but ensures that use of the substance meets clear, consistent safety and quality standards. I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions and commend this SI to the Committee.
Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important SI. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction, so it is crucial that we support international co-operation and that we take our own responsibilities and opportunities for action seriously. That is why the previous Conservative Government played a leading role in negotiating the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. In our waters, we have established 296 marine protected areas, and we have established the Blue Belt programme and backed our overseas territories. Indeed, the UK overseas territories are home to an estimated 94% of all known UK biodiversity. We must take that role seriously.
This secondary legislation follows the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act to ensure compliance with the treaty, specifically regarding environmental impact assessments for activities that require a licence and for which the Marine Management Organisation is the licensing authority on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will ensure that potential environmental impacts are assessed before activities are approved in areas under the UK’s control. The Official Opposition therefore welcome the order.
More broadly, however, the Government do not seem to be taking their role seriously. Until recently, they were determined to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and to pay for the privilege, despite concerns about its ability to protect precious marine biodiversity around the Chagos archipelago. The Chagos Islands MPA was designated in 2010 and is home to coral reefs and 76 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species. Sadly, the Government do not take the UK’s international role seriously and were prepared to give this all away for the Chinese shipping empire to pillage every inch of that ocean.
Closer to home, last year the Government decided to grant the EU 12 years of continuous access to UK fishing waters, despite concerns of overfishing and concerns from the UK fishing industry. Indeed, one organisation described the deal as a
“horror show for Scottish fishermen”.
When the Government show a disregard for our sovereign territory, marine life suffers as a result, not to mention the other financial costs to our economy and public finances.
As this instrument passes to help us meet the obligations of the BBNJ agreement in full, I urge the Government to reflect on how they are living up to the UK’s international role in other areas. If we are expected to be responsible for areas beyond our national jurisdiction, it means taking our sovereign territory overseas even more seriously. What assurances can the Minister give that UK fishing waters will not be harmed further in the Government’s planned UK-EU reset? What further steps are the Government taking to protect marine life in and around overseas territories? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I commend and welcome this order.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short but sweet debate. I am pleased that noble Lords fundamentally have supported this statutory instrument, as it is important. We do need to ratify the agreement, so I thank noble Lords for their broad support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about enforcement and resources. The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, including advisory letters and formal enforcement action. We want to apply any enforcement proportionately on risk and evidence. We can place conditions on licences requiring licence holders to keep records, make returns or provide information to the Marine Management Organisation. However, we are also looking at how the MMO can develop intelligent gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address that. Regarding non-compliance, any breach of the licence terms and conditions may lead to that enforcement action being taken. That can include variation, revocation or suspension of the licence, the issuing of an enforcement notice, civil penalties or criminal proceedings—which carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
On resources, the MMO charges for licence applications on a cost recovery basis. Applications under BBNJ will be charged at the highest band-3 hourly rate. While the MMO applies a cost recovery approach, not all costs are currently recovered through this mechanism. The remainder are covered by grant-in-aid funding. We are looking to move towards fuller cost recovery to get to that place.
The noble Baroness mentioned that there have been only two applications for a licence on an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch, which I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of. She also asked how we could increase resource if we suddenly had more activity. A cost recovery basis should cover it, but we do not anticipate many activities. Our evidence shows that there have been very few so far. We have a few case studies. It is difficult to completely assess the volume, but we do not expect much to come forward.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the lack of a review. I am unaware as to whether there is a process for that, so I shall pick that up and ask for more information.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He mentioned the environment around the Chagos Islands. National security is paramount, but we have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. The UK and Mauritius have both committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in Chagos. This has been welcomed by conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. The UK and Mauritius have been working together to attach great importance on the need to protect marine diversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.
This legislation will help to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and be able to ratify it, while establishing a flexible proportionate approach to regulating licensable marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a crucial step, ensuring that effective measures are in place to protect our environment for the future.
Farming and Food Production
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can absolutely reassure my noble friend that the uplands are very close to my heart. My mother’s family were upland farmers in Wales and I currently live in Cumbria, so I know the issues around upland farming very well. The SFI offer that is coming forward will include seven moorland actions. I know that not all uplands are moorlands, but it will help and payment rates will be increased. I have had very constructive meetings with Dr Hilary Cottam, who is looking at a new approach working very much from the ground up in upland communities and bringing them together. We are looking at pilots first in Dartmoor and then in Cumbria because we know that it is a challenging landscape to farm in, and we want to support the best we can.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Government announced this 25-year road map for farming in November 2024. That is 18 months ago. The noble Baroness has said it is going to happen this year, so when exactly might we see it in 2026? Will Defra now stand up for British agriculture against Treasury and government attacks when farm closures are at a record level and 51% of our farmers are thinking of simply giving up and leaving? When will the Government realise that supporting farming, our farmers and food is good for Britain? That should be the principal aim of any 25-year farming plan.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Part of the reason we decided to do a 25-year farming plan is to work with farmers and rural communities to ensure that they have some kind of certainty, some sort of security for the future, because there simply has not been enough of that in recent years. We feel that having a long-term approach that is worked up with farmers, the people who are on the ground and who understand that long-term thinking and security, can help to support them as businesses and our food security for the future.
Water Companies
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, delivery of strategic water infrastructure is crucial to tackling wider systemic issues. What assessment have the Government made of the benefits of smaller farm reservoir networks alongside large-scale water storage? That is the shortest question of the day, I dare to suggest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
One thing we have been doing is working with landowners on small storage areas. We know it can be very effective in things such as flooding, as well as providing water for livestock, for example. It is a very good point because, as well as building new large reservoirs to provide drinking water, we need to look at how we put less pressure on our water system. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be very helpful.
EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. An important component of the negotiations and one of the reasons why we are looking to agree a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, particularly on agri-foods, is making it easier, cheaper and quicker for British businesses to trade with the EU. In the business meeting that I had in Northern Ireland last week, there was a very positive response from businesses regarding the potential opportunities that will arise from this.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the freedom to break out of the ridiculous EU ban on gene editing was one of the greatest successes of Brexit. We passed the law fully supported by the Labour Party, and the Food Standards Agency has developed all the necessary guidelines. Our industry is geared up and raring to go, with products that will benefit people, animals and the environment. Can the Minister assure us that, whatever else the Prime Minister—whoever that may be—sells out in reintegrating the United Kingdom back into the straitjacket of EU bureaucracy, gene editing will not be sacrificed?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, I am not able to give detailed information around the negotiations because they are ongoing and we do not have outcomes. However, I assure the noble Lord that issues such as gene editing are being discussed.
Changing Weather Patterns and Floods
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, regarding development on flood plains, MHCLG is consulting on the new National Planning Policy Framework, which will introduce a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change to help ensure that local plans are informed by the latest evidence and that planning decisions support long-term climate adaptation and coastal management goals. That is part of those planning reforms.
Regarding flooding, as I mentioned, I have a house that is on a river. We have to use the Flood Re scheme, as other people do with insurance. That really is the most effective way to ensure that you can get affordable insurance if you live in a house that is designated to be at risk of flooding.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
For the first time ever in this House, I think, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Agricultural land covers 70% of the UK’s land area, meaning that the countryside is where most of our national capacity for holding water rests. With heavier rainfall becoming more frequent, small-scale on-farm reservoirs, attenuation ponds, leaky dams and other natural flood-management measures can slow the flow, reduce downstream flooding and improve resilience. As has been said many times, farmers are willing to do that work, but they need clear incentives and a stable funding framework. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, I too love a good argument, but on this occasion I am certain that the Minister and I will be in complete agreement that the Government will give farmers a key role to support on-farm water storage and flood management infrastructure.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In my response earlier to my noble friend I talked about ELMS, the environmental land management scheme, and I will provide a bit more detail about that. The Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme provides a number of ongoing actions to help create water storage and prevent flooding, including actions on arable land and grassland to mitigate flooding and create flood-plain storage. Capital grants are available to support natural flood management, which can improve soil health, as I mentioned previously. Together, the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, the sustainable farming incentive and the ELMS capital grant schemes provide support to help plan, plant and manage agroforestry systems, wood pasture and so on, which also helps to hold water.
Animal Welfare Strategy: Rural Communities
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. I have previously met representatives from both Jewish and Muslim communities on religious slaughter. There is some acceptance of pre-stun slaughter for halal meat, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. We are discussing that within the department. I will continue to do so, because animal welfare has to be at the forefront when we look at slaughter.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the animal welfare strategy seeks to regulate British farming even further and suggests unilateral action on the use of pig crates and hen cages. Can we have a cast-iron guarantee from the Minister that the same welfare standards will be applied to all imported food, including bacon and eggs, so that our farmers are not unfairly disadvantaged? Also, if any hunt members have broken the law on hunting, prosecute them fully, but trail hunting has nothing to do with animal welfare and would penalise all legitimate hound trailing, which has been done in this country for over 200 years, including Cumbrian footpacks such as the Melbreak in the Minister’s old constituency and the famous Blencathra in mine.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I may have to disagree with the noble Lord around some of our opinions on hunting. However, on the issues that he raised about trade, which are really important, the UK’s trade strategy has set out that we will not lower food standards and that we will uphold our high animal welfare standards. All agri-food products have to comply with our existing import requirements in order to be placed on the UK market, which includes ensuring that imported meat products have been slaughtered to animal welfare standards equivalent to our domestic standards. We also recognise concerns around methods of production which are not permitted in the UK, and we will always look at whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and any impacts that may have.
Construction Industry: Timber
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the use of timber in the construction industry as a low-carbon building material.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Timber in Construction Roadmap was updated and relaunched in February 2025. It sets out how we can increase the use of timber in construction. We are working in partnership with timber industries, government bodies and stakeholders to address the barriers to greater timber use. Our collaboration focuses on developing best practices, researching innovative timber products and increasing the circularity of timber construction supply chains.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, this country imports 73% of the timber we need for construction, despite having one of the best climates in the world for growing softwoods. Natural England and the Forestry Commission have jointly expressed dismay that only 10% of our tree-planting over the last 10 years has been a productive softwood species we need and that our planting targets overall are unambitious. Given the many benefits of establishing new woods, including commercial softwoods, what will the Government do to rectify this disappointing situation? I know what the Minister has said about the action plan, but will she give us a guarantee that they can cut the regulations and red tape that are impeding many planting schemes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we import the vast majority of our timber and wood products, and this makes us the second largest net importer in the world after China. The Government believe that this needs to change. We want to increase the domestic timber market, and we are investing £1 billion in tree-planting and support to the forestry sector over this Parliament. As part of developing the new tree-planting programme, we have been working with our delivery partners and grant schemes to look at how we can increase conifer planting to support domestic softwood timber production.
Large-scale Waste Crime
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we do not think the status quo is working. We need to look at how tidying up and tackling waste crime, both from the start and at the clearing up end of things, are properly resourced, and at how the criminals carrying out this illegal activity are caught and dealt with. As the noble Lord said, that is difficult because of the nature of where it happens but, again, we are working across government to look at the best way to tackle this, because unless we all come together across government, we will not resolve this issue.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Environment Agency may be good at prosecuting a known farmer who damages a river or a known factory which has a chemical spill, but fly-tipping style is now a national organised crime on a mega scale, costing the economy over £1 billion per annum, and it is beyond the competence of the Environment Agency to tackle it. In the Defra-led Joint Unit for Waste Crime there are also the police, HMRC and the National Crime Agency. I was interested that the Minister said that she has to do things differently and that the status quo is not an option, so will she now consider making the National Crime Agency the lead agency in that unit to tackle this growing national problem that is doing incalculable damage to some of our finest countryside and SSSIs?
Environmental Improvement Plan 2025
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in a debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who made a very good point about the condition of our SSSIs. The Government’s 2025 plan speaks with confidence about restoring nature and becoming a clean energy superpower. That confidence must be matched by clarity. Where the plan allows trade-offs, we need rules that protect the natural systems we depend on. The Environmental Improvement Plan 2025 sets out ambitions we can all support: cleaner water, richer soils, healthier wildlife and a transition to cleaner energy. Those ambitions are necessary, but a plan’s rhetoric is only as strong as the targets, timelines and delivery mechanisms that underpin it.
Today, I will focus on two areas where the gap between rhetoric and delivery is most worrying—our seas and our farms. On the marine side, the plan introduces recovery targets for marine protected areas, yet it also explicitly allows up to 5% of MPA features to be left in neither favourable nor recovering condition to “accommodate net-zero ambitions”. That is not a technical tweak; it institutionalises a trade-off.
Everyone knows that the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr Miliband, is obsessed with net zero, and his fanaticism will countenance any damage to our economy and cost to the public by driving up the cost of UK energy to be the highest in the world. Now he is damaging our seas as well. When we write a carve-out into a national plan, we change the default from recovery to compromise. Offshore wind and other infrastructure can contribute to our climate goals, but they must not become a standing excuse to delay or dilute recovery in protected areas. Any deviation from recovery must be time limited, independently scrutinised and accompanied by mandatory like-for-like enhancement measures that restore what has been lost. The real tragedy of this carve-out is that our seas will be damaged by wind turbines that will be switched off for about half the time. Billions will be paid to the operators not to produce electricity, as we read in the press yesterday.
We welcome ambition on this side, but ambition without detail is a promise unkept. Allowing a formal carve-out for marine protected areas to accommodate energy projects, delaying a marine litter strategy and failing to commit to PFAS consumer bans are not small omissions; they are structural weaknesses that will determine whether our seas recover or continue to decline.
As has already been said by noble Lords, marine litter is another glaring omission. It cannot be left to a general circular plan scheduled for next year. We need a dedicated marine litter strategy now, with measurable interim targets, funding for deposit return schemes, fishing gear management, improved port reception facilities and coastal clean-ups. These are practical measures that reduce harm to wildlife, protect coastal economies and cut the cost of clean-up for local communities. The marine recovery fund has currently framed this as becoming a mechanism that enables development rather than driving restoration. Compensation must be like-for-like by default, and there must be a separate ring-fenced enhancement fund to finance proactive habitat creation and ecosystem recovery at scale. Without that, we will see payments in place of genuine ecological outcomes.
On farming, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that there is no Minister in the Government who understands the countryside. I say to her that there is one—she is winding up this debate, and it is a pity that she is not the Secretary of State for Defra. The plan’s target to double the number of farms providing sufficient year-round resources for wildlife by 2030 is welcome in principle but underspecified in practice. Farmers need certainty. They need clear definitions of what “sufficient resources” means. They need published payment rates, long-term contracts and technical support. The sustainable farming incentive must be reformed and published with predictable payments so that farmers can plan investments without risking their livelihoods or domestic food production. Sequencing matters. Biosecurity targets and invasive species scanning must be timed so that there is adequate opportunity to respond before deadlines arrive. If we are serious about the rhetoric, we must strengthen the EIP now, remove the carve-outs, ban non-essential PFAS, fund enhancement—not just compensation—and give farmers and fishers the certainty and support they need to deliver. That is how we turn a plan into recovery.
To be concrete, I conclude by calling for six immediate actions. First, remove or tightly condition the 5% MPA carve-out. Any deviation from recovery must be demonstrably unavoidable, time limited and independently scrutinised, and require mandatory like-for-like enhancement. Secondly, ban PFAS in non-essential consumer products and publish a clear phase-out timetable for other uses, applying group-based controls to prevent substitution. Thirdly, please publish a dedicated marine litter strategy immediately, with measurable interim targets and funding for ports, coastal clean-ups and fishing gear management. Fourthly, redesign the marine recovery fund with two streams, mandatory like-for-like compensation and a separate enhancement fund for proactive restoration. Fifthly, accelerate SFI reform and publish payment rates and transition support so that farmers can plan, with explicit safeguards for food production and farm viability. Sixthly, strengthen fisheries management plans with binding spatial and gear measures, and fund a just transition package for fishers to adopt low-impact methods.
We can be a clean energy leader and a world leader in nature recovery, but only if we stop treating nature as negotiable. Strengthen the rules, fund the delivery and give those who steward our land and sea the certainty they need. Do that, and the rhetoric of the plan will become the recovery that our communities and our children expect.