Farming and Food Production: Land Use Framework

Debate between Lord Cameron of Dillington and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the current crisis over our defence budget and the fact that feeding our population will be as important to our nation’s survival as the efforts of our defence forces, I wonder whether the Minister considers it sensible land use planning to allow large tracts of our best agricultural land to be used for solar panels—sometimes 3,000 or 4,000 at a shot. When we have so many roofs, reservoirs and lesser-quality land available, it seems unwise, unstrategic and against all the best principles of the land use framework agenda.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The recent global instability has shown that we need to be more self-sufficient and strengthen our energy independence. Doing so can also help to lower costs and tackle climate change. In addition, farmers and landowners can choose to diversify their income through solar projects on their land, which can also increase the resilience of their farming businesses. I agree with the noble Lord that solar installations on rooftops and reservoirs are important, but on their own they cannot deliver the scale and capacity required to meet the nation’s needs. The land use framework demonstrates how we can safeguard our most productive agricultural land while adapting land use to support nature recovery, climate resilience, housing and infrastructure. Expanding land use for renewable energy will not come at the expense of our best agricultural land, and solar developments will need to be located in the most appropriate places.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Lord Cameron of Dillington and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her thorough introduction to her two amendments, to which I am very pleased to have added my name. We strongly support what she is trying to achieve. We believe that there does need to be a reporting process for the adverse effects on the health and welfare of animals and, of course, their progeny. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, talked about the importance of evidence being retained to inform future research, as did the noble Lord, Lord Trees. This is also about public benefit; we discussed public benefit a lot in Committee, and it does need to be central to the Bill.

As the noble Baroness also said, we need to understand any lessons that can be learned. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, put it very clearly and succinctly when he talked about “robust” feedback. When we look at the first tranche of animals, we need to have the confidence that the industry is acting appropriately, that the outcomes are what we would hope to see and that we can catch anything that perhaps is not what we hoped for.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked, importantly, about public confidence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. If we are to carry the public with us, the future monitoring of animal health and welfare, consequences and outcomes is really important. Understanding adverse events is therefore terribly important. The noble Lord talked about drug introductions in the veterinary field, and we should have the same principles here, I believe, if we are to carry the public with us.

It does not seem to me that this amendment is disproportionate in any way. Instead, it would bring in some really important checks and balances and underpin what the Government are trying to achieve. I urge the Minister to consider very carefully what noble Lords have said. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she will have our support.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I repeat, again, that I am a very strong supporter of this Bill and everything it stands for. However, again, as I have said at every stage and indeed a moment ago on the previous grouping, the one weakness of the Bill is around animal welfare. Anyone reading the Hansard of the passage of this Bill through the Commons will note that it was the greatest concern of MPs too, but they failed to make even a dent in the Government’s protective carapace on this issue.

In Committee, many noble Lords from all sides of the House—myself included—put down amendments to try to minimise the possibility of any genetic change being proposed or implemented that could result in the future suffering or discomfort of, or distress to, animals or their progeny involved in the process. However, none of these amendments was put to the vote. We now have a well-thought-out amendment—or two—which precisely covers the worries that we all had and attempts to avoid them. The Government should think seriously before they reject them.