Plastic Pollution
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the UK throws away more plastic per person than every other country in the world except the US, with 81% of that plastic consisting of food and drink packaging from supermarkets. It is evident that effective measures must be taken to reduce this waste, an opinion shared by 74% of the British public. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays to the Government’s proposed deposit return scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, I am very pleased that we have announced that we are doing a deposit return scheme. It is something that was discussed for many years by the previous Government, so I am pleased that we have acted quickly to announce that we are bringing that in. However, it needs to be brought in effectively and to work properly; we are doing it in a way that we think will have the greatest results. It is also part of our bigger picture around the circular economy. It is part of our commitment to reducing plastic, which comes right back to the initial question from the noble Baroness about our support for the treaty, because, although we want our own ambitious plans for reducing plastic waste in this country, this is a global problem, and we have to work globally.
Food Allergens
Lord Roborough Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this requires cross-departmental work. My taking this Question today from Defra, when a lot of people assumed that it would be a health question, demonstrates that there is cross-departmental work between labelling and health issues. Regarding the allergy tsar, the Department for Health and Social Care continues to discuss this, and how allergy support and care can be improved, with NHS England and shareholders. There is an Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, which the DHSC jointly chairs, that brings stakeholders together to inform policy-making and identify any priorities in improving outcomes with people. I spoke to my noble friend Lady Merron from the DHSC about this earlier and I understand there will be a response in due course on whether an allergy tsar is the appropriate way forward.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the House will know that the previous Government passed Natasha’s law on pre-packaged food. Also, detailed ingredient listing has been in place since 2021. Does the Minister accept the concerns of Anaphylaxis UK and Allergy UK that the excessive use of precautionary allergy listing might be depriving customers of safe food?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The critical thing is the last thing that the noble Lord said: safe food. It is important that we work with industry, across government and with the different campaign groups. Natasha’s law was a very important piece of legislation. We know that Owen’s law is proposed as well. We have heard about the health tsar. We know that there are other incidents, such as the recent one in Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that we move forward together to ensure that any legislation or guidance that comes forward improves things and makes people feel safe when they go out to eat.
Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we support these regulations as a sensible step to protect our biosecurity and reduce costly and deeply damaging barriers to trade, but we see this as just one stage of a much bigger journey. As my noble friend Lady Suttie has said in previous debates of this nature, these regulations are a stopgap. The real prize is a full sanitary and phytosanitary SPS veterinary agreement with the EU—something both sides committed to at last month’s summit. That would mean that one day our aim would be to do away with most border checks on plant and animal products altogether.
Indeed, we welcome the Government’s recent decision to delay new checks on medium-risk fruit and vegetables, an approach that a lot of industry rightly calls common sense. The extension until January 2027 gives businesses some breathing space, but everyone knows this is temporary and that the Government expect that a new SPS agreement will make these stopgap measures unnecessary.
The May summit made clear the aim: a common sanitary and phytosanitary area with no time limit. That would mean most goods, plants, animals and their products could move between Great Britain and the EU without the current certificates and controls. It would cut costs, ease pressure on food prices and end routine border checks. The benefits would also extend to Northern Ireland, thanks to the Windsor Framework. There is sometimes a myth that such an agreement would make Britain a rule taker. In reality, if we want to export, we always have to meet our trading partners’ standards. This deal would mean genuinely unfettered access to the EU market and therefore far less trade friction—friction that has been so damaging, for example, to our farmers in recent years.
Farming groups such as the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association have raised concerns about the role of European courts and the need for flexibility, especially around issues such as precision breeding and pesticides. The proposed agreement suggests dynamic alignment with the EU rules, but also promises a say for the UK and an independent arbitration panel. I am looking forward to a few more answers on this and the need to be sure that any dispute process is genuinely fair and respects our own parliamentary procedures.
This agreement could bring real benefits: lower prices, less red tape and more secure food supply. But I echo some of the requests in previous debates with questions to the Minister, especially from these Benches, about a clear timetable for finalising the implementation of the SPS agreement. So far, our understanding is that no date has been set. We would also like to know whether there is any risk to animal health or biosecurity while we wait for the new agreement to come. Ongoing surveillance in that period is obviously vital, but we do feel that reassurance is needed.
On another point, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions debt recovery and collection costs for unpaid fees. Can the Minister tell us the total cost of unpaid fees, the average fee charged, and whether non-payment is a widespread issue? If she is unable to answer that this evening, perhaps she could undertake to write; we would be very grateful. Finally, can the Minister confirm that there are robust checks to prevent goods deliberately avoiding control posts, now and in the future?
With regard to the Motion to Regret, I note at paragraph 17 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 15th report the submission from Jim Allister MP and the Defra response with reference to the use in the four nations of the UK plant health provisional common framework and that, for example, measures against Popillia japonica are already in place in Northern Ireland, and the rest of Great Britain has been catching up. I therefore have been a little confused by some of the contributions I have heard this evening.
Given the benefits so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the very detailed and useful explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, we will not be supporting the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We want to see these regulations and the wider agreement deliver what matters to people: less bureaucracy, lower costs and a stronger partnership with our closest trading neighbours, and we would prefer that sooner rather than later. That is what is best for our businesses, our farmers and ultimately our consumers.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and my noble friend Lord Frost for bringing it to the Chamber.
At face value, this instrument appears to be a routine update, technical in nature and laudable in intent. It introduces new and stricter import controls on certain plant pests, including Heterobasidion irregulare and Popillia japonica, which are already spreading rapidly in parts of Europe. These steps are necessary. We have seen all too often the devastating consequences of failing to act quickly and unilaterally if necessary, whether to Phytophthora ramorum, which devastates our larches and causes sudden oak death, ash dieback, or threats to our commercial crops from the great spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed European spruce bark beetle—for some reason, neither of those seem to have Latin names. I refer the House to my register of interests as a forest owner and a planter of new forests.
While these regulations seek to bolster biosecurity across Great Britain, they do not extend those same protections to Northern Ireland, and that is a shame. I know that the concerns of my noble friend are sincerely held and reflect the views of a great number of those in Northern Ireland in particular. As my noble friend Lord Caine has said on previous occasions, it is important that His Majesty’s Government and Opposition continue to listen to those concerns and seek to address them.
We are told that biosecurity is an essential state function. It is and it must be. But under the terms of the Windsor Framework, that essential function has been compromised. Biosecurity measures which apply robustly to England, Scotland and Wales are not being applied to Northern Ireland in the same way. In effect, plant health in Northern Ireland is now subject to the policy choices of the EU and not, as it should be, to the collective will of this sovereign Parliament. However, the Windsor Framework was the best deal available to us while in government, and we continue to support it, while urging this Government to try to improve on it. For that reason, we do not support my noble friend Lord Frost’s regret Motion.
My noble friend Lord Frost and others have already mentioned the new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, which is designed to ease trade by removing checks on food. To add to the many questions posed to the Minister, could she reassure us that this will not provide an easier entry for plant diseases and a repeat of the imported pests that I mentioned earlier as happened while we were in the EU? What checks will remain in place to protect our natural environment?
The EU deal appears to have betrayed our fishers in return for reduced checks. The farmed salmon industry seems to be the only fish and seafood group to have spoken in support of this deal. The damaging effects of this industry on the environment have been debated at length in this House during Committee and Report of the now Crown Estate Act. The farmed salmon industry is distinct from the UK fishing industry, which has greeted the deal with deep disappointment.
In answer to my Oral Question two months ago, the Minister gave encouraging answers, which I will briefly quote:
“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters, and vice versa, become a matter for annual renegotiation, as is typical between coastal states … as a Government, we will always push for the best opportunities for our fishers and the fishery industry”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]
The end of the trade and co-operation agreement in June 2026 represented the opportunity to increase the size of our fishing effort by 60%, with full zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone—a huge economic opportunity for deprived coastal communities. The deal was a betrayal of those communities and those who live and work in the fishing industry. We are now committed to a 12-year extension of the very disappointing status quo. Was this phytosanitary deal really worth that betrayal? The benefits of trade accrue to both sides of that trade, so why should any price be paid, let alone such a high price?
Thames Water
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, these Benches attempted to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to protect consumers from bearing any costs associated with a special administration regime, but this was rejected by this Government. Will the Minister commit today that consumers will not be made to pay any SAR-related costs, and that under no circumstances will the Government take responsibility for repaying the rumoured £20 billion of Thames Water debt? I should also declare an interest that one of my daughters works at a firm named in the press as a bondholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government do not have any intention for consumers to pay towards this. We do not see that consumer bills need to go up to cover these debts. It is not for consumers to pay for the mistakes and poor behaviour of the water companies. In response to the second question, within the regime, we will look at it in detail, but it is, again, not our intention for the water companies to basically get away with it.
Farmers: Competitiveness
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the competitiveness of English farmers with neighbouring nations and countries, and what assessment they have made of the impact of the Budget and recent policy changes by DEFRA.
Lord Roborough (Con)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are supporting farmers with a new deal to boost growth and strengthen food security. We will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals and back British produce. A multitude of factors influence agricultural competitiveness, and international comparisons are challenging due to factors such as differences in the structures of agricultural sectors in different countries. Defra and devolved administration officials meet routinely to share insights regarding our respective agricultural policies.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, farmers in Scotland and the EU enjoy area-based payments of around €280 per hectare, with minimal environmental obligations, while farmers in the US are reported to receive subsidies worth $30 billion. Our own farmers receive de minimis area-based payments and no further access to SFIs while planning for inheritance tax. What will this Government do to ensure that our farmers can compete on a level playing field in their trade agreements while also restoring nature in line with the obligations of the Environment Act?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have pledged £5 billion towards farming over the next few years, which will be spent through our environmental land management schemes. We are currently working to reform SFI to allow us to align it with our work on the land use framework and the 25-year farming road map. That is designed to protect the most productive land and boost food security while at the same time delivering for nature. We have published the update of a £30 million boost to HLS that recognises and rewards the vital role played by farmers in restoring habitats. We are also looking at how we can work with the farming sector in order to target those who would most benefit from future payment systems.
Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The main point is that our water supply absolutely has to be secure. We have to know that we are doing everything we can to protect it from hostile actors, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend mentioned. That is why the cross- departmental work is so important. On Thames Water, I assume the noble Baroness refers to the fact that the preferred bidder has now pulled out. Thames Water has assured us that there are other potential bidders. We need to look at the current situation and, clearly, any investment needs to include security. The PR24 investment that has been made includes a substantial sum for improving security as well as infrastructure. It is important to make the point that it is part of our ongoing discussions with water companies.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, our country has frequently been at war or under threat in our history, and our water infrastructure is always one of our vulnerabilities. Can the Minister inform the House whether there has ever been an attempt or a plan uncovered to contaminate our water supply, and what lessons have been learned if so?
Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
Lord Roborough Excerpts(2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my thanks go to the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which we in the Liberal Democrats support. It represents a positive and necessary step towards addressing the deep-seated issues of fairness and transparency that have plagued our vital, world-leading pig sector. It is a welcome change in the wake of the painful crisis that gripped this industry from 2020 to the spring of 2023—a period marked by, as we have heard from other noble Lords, the Covid period, acute Brexit-induced labour shortages at processing plants, and soaring feed and Putin-induced energy costs outstripping farm gate prices and pushing producers to the brink. The statistics are stark, with losses exceeding £750 million collectively, as well as that awful period when more than 60,000 healthy animals were culled because they could not be processed.
Although the pig sector has a history of volatility, that particular crisis exposed a critical weakness at its heart: a risk/reward imbalance underpinned by commercially unclear and potentially harmful terms, especially for smaller producers, hindering their ability to budget, manage price fluctuation or invest for the future. These regulations are rightly designed to address this imbalance. They mandate written pig purchase contracts between buyers and sellers, setting out clear rules for pricing, contract duration and dealing with market fluctuations. This framework is crucial in rebuilding for them security, clarity and fairness.
The instrument makes necessary amendments to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, addressing the unintended consequence described by the Minister that impacts on businesses with an internal democratic structure—typically co-operatives—and allowing for volume-based or tiered pricing in that specific context. We urge Defra and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which will enforce these regulations, to monitor this amendment closely to ensure that it is applied in the true spirit of internal democratic structures. I thank the National Farmers’ Union’s dairy team and the National Pig Association for their valuable briefings on this issue, which have informed our understanding of it. They have asked for specific reassurances on this issue.
While these regulations are welcome and necessary for the pig sector, they highlight a broader need. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was introduced—we are very proud of this—by the coalition Government. It was taken directly from the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto, but we regret that its powers to enforce were not sufficiently established when we left Government in 2015, and it still comprises only a handful of people.
Given the clear and continuing power imbalance between producers, processors, supermarkets and the food service sector, does the Minister have any plans to enhance the enforcement powers and capacity of the GCA, given that it is the potential referee in the supply chain? Indeed, will she consider the need for the GCA to be able to intervene in deals between farmers and processers, not just those directly linking to retailers? Producers must be able to raise issues, and we believe that anonymity is vital, given the potential fear of repercussions. We believe that third parties such as the NFU should be empowered to raise concerns and truly hold the more powerful parts of the industry accountable, so the adjudicator therefore needs some more effective tools.
As ever, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these matters. It would be interesting to get some clarification from the Minister on an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Pack, which was also in the committee’s report. It said:
“Defra has used a specific definition of what constitutes an electronic signature, rather than using or cross-referencing to what we understand is the more standard definition under section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000”.
In other words, there is some kind of different use of electronic signature here. That is a technical query that it would be great to understand. The committee continued, saying that:
“The Department was unable to explain … the rationale”.
I am having a second go at that question, and I thank the Minister in advance for even struggling to find the answer.
Finally, we must avoid simply passing this SI and then moving on. Regulations such as these need to be subject to regular review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The flexibility within this SI must not be abused, and the Government must ensure that these regulations genuinely work for an industry of which we can rightly be proud.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 2020, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a dairy farmer and landowner. This is the second use of these powers following last year’s regulations in the dairy sector, and I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today.
These regulations represent a step towards rebalancing commercial relationships in the pig sector. For too long, small and independent producers have operated under contracts that lack clarity, fairness or enforceability. Many have found themselves at the mercy of buyers wielding considerable market power and facing reductions in volume, unilateral contract changes and dishonoured pricing agreements. These practices have created uncertainty and risk at the farm gate, and undermined confidence across the supply chain.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument requires that all contracts between qualifying sellers and business purchasers be in writing and include transparent pricing terms. It prohibits unilateral changes to contracts, mandates dispute resolution mechanisms and sets clearer parameters around termination clauses. These provisions will enable producers to request a written explanation of how prices are determined if not based on objective and accessible criteria. The Minister also highlighted the usefulness of the notice to disapply in agreed circumstances.
The need for such reforms has been well evidenced. Our previous Government’s 2022 consultation received 374 responses, of which 89% supported mandatory written contracts and 64% said existing agreements were not consistently honoured. These regulations reflect this feedback and follow a constructive sector-specific approach.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025
Lord Roborough Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I should inform the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a thorough introduction to this SI. I have tabled a regret amendment on behalf of my Benches, but, in reality, it is on behalf of all English farmers. Regret is too gentle a word to describe the mood among the farming community.
Before I address the issues, I first draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer and landowner. I am directly impacted by this SI, with a 90% reduction in my delinked payments. I am at least sheltered by the SFIs that I have signed up to; that is not the case for the majority of farmers.
When in government, we replaced the basic payments scheme with delinked payments based on historical BPS claims. This was intended to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods. The reductions we put in place put these delinked payments on a gradual glide path to zero in 2028. This Government have dramatically accelerated that decline. This effectively ends the seven-year transition that English farmers had been led to expect three years early, upending their budgets.
The Government promised that this abrupt reduction would release more funding for sustainable farming incentives, Countryside Stewardship schemes and large-scale landscape recovery schemes—collectively known as environmental land management schemes. Despite a commitment to give up to six weeks’ notice of a planned closure of SFI applications, the Secretary of State abruptly closed applications with 30 minutes notice at 6 pm on 11 March, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has said, apparently breaking two commitments at once.
Only a minority of farmers who were previously receiving BPS had actually signed up to SFIs. Today, I am speaking particularly for two cohorts of farmers who are bearing the brunt of this SI’s excessive reduction. The delinked payments cut is particularly painful for those who were unable to apply for SFIs as they were already in environmental schemes that were less profitable but designed to work alongside this phased reduction in delinked payments. Those farmers were simply abandoned, with no compassion from anyone.
When the SFIs were closed to new applications, this affected another cohort of farmers, who were expecting to replace old environmental schemes and the delinked payments with SFIs but who had not yet completed their SFI applications. These farmers are simply in despair. There is no transparency over the timing of the payments under new SFIs, nor what their nature will be. There is certainly no confidence that they will enable these farmers to continue delivering environmental goods as they had planned, or even, potentially, to remain in business.
The Minister earlier stated that the details of revised SFIs will be released this summer. Many farm businesses are in crisis after delinked payments and the cut of SFI applications. Could the Minister please indicate how much has been identified within the existing farming support budget for these new SFIs?
Our actions in government demonstrated our commitment to paying farmers with public money for the public goods they delivered, as well as allowing them to plan ahead financially with certainty. This Government have acted in a way that allows for no financial planning by farmers and have created incentives for those farmers now so disadvantaged to compromise environmental principles and push for greater output in order to remain in business.
Farming is a competitive industry. Food production is largely commoditised, and our farmers compete not just against their neighbours but also against farmers across our country, our continent and the world. Although many of our farmers are capable of competing effectively, smaller farms, particularly in less-favoured areas, can find this competition too much. When we rightly include our high demands for animal welfare and environmental protection, this competitiveness is further undermined. Is it any great surprise that the average age of farmers is 60, and there appears to be limited interest in the next generation engaging?
Farmers in Wales, Scotland and the rest of Europe continue to enjoy much higher levels of financial support. Even the great prairie farmers of the US enjoy heavily subsidised crop insurance and the massive ethanol blending mandate supporting corn prices. Where are the hedgerows, wild birdseed belts and woodlands on these prairies, protecting and enhancing the environment? How does the Minister expect our farmers to be able to provide competitively priced food, protect and enhance the environment, and provide all the other public goods, as well as supporting their families, when the Government slash support and environmental payments at a moment’s notice?
In answer to my question on Monday in your Lordships’ House, the Minister said that diversification and improvements in the environment are two of the three central pillars of the 25-year road map that the Government are developing for farming. Cutting SFIs at a moment’s notice seems a strange way to demonstrate that commitment. My question was about how nature restoration levies in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill as drafted will go to Natural England, rather than farmers and landowners, and be used for developing its environmental development plans, potentially on land that it will compulsorily purchase. This is a prime opportunity for the Government to help farmers diversify and supplement ELMS. Why does the Minister not want this opportunity to be offered to farmers?
I am pleased to see that the party to my left have followed my regret amendment by tabling a fatal amendment. It is good to see noble Lords from many, if not all, Benches working together to support our farming community. As is the long-standing custom of this House, we on these Benches will not support the fatal amendment. In this case, this would undermine the Government’s power to control their finances and, as the Minister rightly pointed out, undo the previous transition from delinked payments to ELMS. However, I strongly urge the Minister and all members of her Government to understand the terrible position this SI is putting many farmers in, and to act quickly to help those affected. Either moderate the impact of this SI or reinstate the existing SFIs. I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter, as I have been involved in UK agriculture for my whole life. Normally, I try to be helpful and even occasionally to inject some humour into my remarks—with varying degrees of success, admittedly. But I am sorry to say that, tonight, I am cross—not with the Minister, for whom I have great respect and indeed affection. But the fatal amendment and regret amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—which they have so devastatingly put to us tonight—highlight the frankly chaotic and opaque financial position for UK agriculture. SFI, Defra’s flagship scheme, ran out of money and slammed shut without any warning. The House of Commons Minister called this a “cause for celebration”. I wonder what would happen if DWP ran out of money and tried announcing something like that to the House.
The Minister mentioned the existing higher-level stewardship agreements, of which my family holds one. These were acknowledged by the Defra House of Commons Minister as having punitively low rates, and it was announced weeks ago that these would be updated before now, but nothing has been heard since. I am afraid that the Minister was wrong when she told us earlier that they have been increased. I have just checked the Defra website, which says that we agreement holders will be written to “by April” with increased rates. I ask noble Lords to check their diaries: today is 30 April, and nothing has been received.
The next iteration of the SFI, we are told, will be after the spending review, which probably tells us all we need to know about it. Meanwhile, the accepted tapering down to zero, over time, of payments under the BPS, as UK agriculture exited EU support, has been out of the blue cut by a totally unexpected 76% for smaller farmers—all of this while speechifying about environmental schemes, food security and a grand-sounding 25-year plan for UK agriculture, which no farmers I have spoken to have even heard of.
I am sorry to say this, but Defra’s credibility—and I have been involved in agriculture my whole life—has never been lower in the eyes of the sector it is supposed to support, and what little trust remained has now evaporated. All that said, while these Motions are both accurate and justified, I shall, given my involvement in the industry, with great sadness abstain if they are put to the vote.
Lord Roborough
At end insert “but that this House regrets that they reduce the delinked payments to farmers at a faster rate than previously expected, undermining the viability of farm businesses and harming rural communities.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. Like others, I have sympathy with the Minister as there were so few words in support of this SI. I think most of us also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that perhaps it is more to do with the Treasury; I note that her noble friend, who makes many of these decisions, is sitting in his place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave some examples decades ago of when my Benches may have supported fatal amendments. That was decades ago. It is a long-standing custom not to support fatal amendments. This is about responsible opposition. I would also note that our regret amendment has been tabled for several weeks, in contrast to the fatal amendment which appears to have been put down relatively recently.
I have put forward constructive ideas that this Government can adopt to moderate this SI or reintroduce SFIs. I hope the Benches on my left will support our regret amendment and send a clear message to the Government to consider these. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Thames Water: Bids
Lord Roborough Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Obviously, water privatisation happened quite a long time ago now, which was when different foreign states came in and invested in our water system. I am sure the noble Baroness is very aware of the work going on through the Cunliffe review at the moment in order to try to get our water companies into a better state. The Government are very keen that we sort out the problem with Thames Water, but that is Ofwat’s and the company’s responsibility at present and we are just watching to ensure that Thames Water does not fail, because we cannot afford to have water companies failing.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister, in light of the depressing state of British Steel, inform the House whether shareholders from any particular geographies would be excluded from investing in or controlling our water industry?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am afraid I cannot specifically answer that question. I am very happy to go away and look into it for the noble Lord.
Farming: 25-year Road Map
Lord Roborough Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I suggest that we have answers on a postcard.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I refer the House to my entry on the register of interests as a farmer. Part of the new deal for farmers, published in January by the Secretary of State, was to diversify income streams for farmers. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, as drafted, will divert nature restoration levies away from farmers to Natural England. Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House why this should not be taken as a reduction in diversification opportunities for farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, food production, diversification and improvements in the environment are the three central pillars of the road map that we are developing—we are extremely keen to ensure that diversification is part of it. One problem that many farmers have faced in the past is not being able to get through the planning applications that are so critical to diversification. Again, that is something that we are looking at as part of our reform of the planning system.