Farming and Rural Communities
Lord Roborough Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To move that this House takes note of the impact of the Government’s economic and planning measures on farming and rural communities.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as a dairy farmer; landowner; forester; natural capital, residential and renewables developer; and investor in natural capital businesses Cecil, Circular FX and Agricarbon and other farming-related businesses such as Deere, SLC Agricola and Anglo-Eastern Plantations. I am most grateful to my parliamentary party for making the plight of farmers and rural communities a top priority and allowing time for this debate today.
The list of negative spending and taxation decisions by this Government on farming and rural communities is long. The cumulative impact is devastating on the financial and mental well-being of farmers in particular but also the wider rural community. The reduction in inheritance tax reliefs under agricultural property relief and business property relief remains a hugely emotive and damaging subject. We remain puzzled why this was necessary, given that the Treasury expects to raise only £500 million per annum, and it will be only a transitory gain as tax-planning options remain open to reduce or eliminate this exposure, as Government Ministers have themselves conceded.
A small cohort of currently elderly farmers, sufferers of serious illness or victims of mortal accident will be caught by this capricious decision. There is a high risk that those who reasonably assume that they would not live either for the seven years needed to time out potentially exempt transactions, or even the four and a half years until the next election, will take the timing and manner of their death into their own hands. I have asked repeatedly whether the Government will keep and publish timely data on suicides by farmers and family business owners in the run-up to the reduction of these reliefs and have received a negative response each time. Will the Minister review this denial?
It seems particularly cruel that the £10 million mental health support fund for farmers has been shelved, despite the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, suggesting that mental health support is there for farmers should they consider taking control of the timing of their deaths. The massive reduction in delinked payments, which will be subject to a regret Motion later this month, as well as the abrupt closure of the sustainable farming incentive scheme, leaves many farmers in a dreadful position. Those who were trapped in the long-term higher-level or Countryside Stewardship schemes and unable to access sustainable farming incentives are hit with the delinked payment reduction without any offset. Those who were counting on new SFI income this year to replace old schemes that had ended are even harder hit. This does not appear to be a way to run a Government, whereby decisions are made that lead to considerable unfairness in outcomes and the unlucky lose financial viability.
In answer to my Written Question, the Minister replied:
“We remain committed to investing £5 billion of funding in the farming budget this year and next … We are on track to spend all the funding that is available”.
This seems hard to square, given that the National Farmers’ Union estimates that £400 million was saved by the steep reduction in delinked payments, yet only a few months later SFIs are cut off at a moment’s notice. Evidence given to the EFRA Committee by Defra Ministers and officials appeared to suggest a deliberate intention to ignore the six weeks’ guidance. Can the Minister also assure us that the £200 million investment in the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s Weybridge laboratory is not coming out of the farming budget? I wonder whether she is also able to tell us how much of that farming budget actually ends up in the hands of farmers, not in administration or projects run by others, and not in infrastructure nor arm’s-length bodies.
The £100 million rural service delivery grant being redirected to deprived urban areas, despite the widespread rural issues and the higher cost of living in rural areas, perhaps signals where this Government’s focus is. Farmers are having to contend with these capricious decisions and their often life-changing impacts while also dealing with massive inflationary pressures, low grain prices and increases in employers’ national insurance contributions and minimum wages. It has been suggested by the Government that the new SFIs that are planned are likely to require the land use framework to have been published. The Minister has indicated in a reply to my Written Question that
“the publication of the Land Use Framework”
will be
“this year. A timeline for publishing the Land Use Framework will be set out in due course”.
Could she confirm whether the publication of that framework will be necessary prior to the publication of new SFIs and what that might mean for their timing? A department official has suggested in front of the EFRA Committee that details of future SFIs would be with us in July. Can she confirm that?
The second prong of the attack on farmers and the rural community comes from planning, whether by displacing agricultural production on prime agricultural land with solar farms and other energy infrastructure, or the enhanced compulsory purchase order powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We on these Benches are broadly supportive of the Government’s housing ambitions, but there is no reason why they need to come at the expense of the rural community.
Land-owning farmers are threatened with compulsory purchase of their land at values that do not represent market value, as the value of alternative uses will be disregarded. Taking part of a holding often undermines the viability of the whole and, while the price paid may reflect the agricultural value, that is unlikely to be enough to replace that land locally—even if such land is available. It is hard to understand what is wrong with the current valuation framework that ensures fair payment for land. It is also hard to understand how this can be consistent with the ECHR on confiscation, as the Government claim on the face of the Bill.
Further to this, the role of Natural England becomes terrifying. As drafted, the Bill confers enormous powers on Natural England to CPO whichever land it chooses to fulfil its environmental delivery plans. Why does Natural England need these powers? Why can it not simply offer to pay landowners to carry out the work or deliver the services that are intended in these EDPs? Surely, there is a choice of sites where such work can be undertaken and that can introduce competition in service delivery while allowing value to be delivered in the EDPs. I fail to understand how nature restoration levies can possibly be well used by Natural England to CPO land as it sees fit. It has not been necessary to nationalise sites of special scientific interest to protect them. Just how large should we expect these nature restoration levies to be?
We on these Benches fundamentally believe in reducing the size of the state. However, capricious short-term spending and taxation decisions are not the way to do it. We want to see a vibrant rural economy, financed by fair payment for the public goods being delivered, as well as the traditional food and timber outputs from rural land. We see numerous ways of delivering this—but without killing the patient before the cure is administered by withdrawing funding before a replacement is available.
When will the Government make a decision on the inclusion of woodland carbon units in the emissions trading scheme? The noble Baroness has previously said “in due course”, but the consultation was launched last summer and surely cannot be very complex. The additional financial incentives would encourage new tree planting to meet and even exceed targets. Our climate is perfect for healthy, vigorous establishment and growth in trees. Our target of 16.5% tree cover, as I have previously said from the Back Benches, is unambitious, and our progress even to that is very disappointing. Trees capture significant quantities of atmospheric carbon, replace high-carbon emissions materials in building, reduce peak flow rates in flood events, help to purify water and benefit biodiversity. Surely, we must do everything in our power to increase this tree cover. The Government’s own chief executive officer of the Forestry Commission, Richard Stanford, eloquently explained these benefits to the APPG on Forestry and Timber Security, as did the Woodland Trust team to the APPG on Woods and Trees.
When can we expect mechanisms to allow water companies to pay for the flood mitigation and water quality improvements that regenerative farming, peatland restoration and new woodland planting deliver? When will action be taken to solidify the strong position of the woodland carbon code and the peatland carbon code by certifying them under the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market? How will the Minister incentivise the private sector to pay for nature restoration and biodiversity protection and improvement? Surely the planning Bill is a golden opportunity to move forward on this, beyond our own biodiversity net gain measures on a larger scale. Why are we squandering this opportunity by giving it to Natural England? Would the Government consider tax incentives to encourage private investment in nature restoration, or even changing the rules on bidding for government contracts to require companies to invest in it?
Farmers and the wider rural community deliver unquantifiable value to our country; feeding us, protecting and restoring nature, sequestering carbon, growing timber to displace the 73% that is currently imported, protecting our archaeology, looking after our fresh water, maintaining our countryside for access and removing litter. Most of these public goods are not paid for at anything like their true value—if at all. This is simply not sustainable for the rural community. For the farming and rural community to move forward with confidence, existing spending commitments cannot be changed overnight and random new taxes imposed. The rural community needs confidence that this Government are committed to ensuring that these public goods will be paid for. I very much look forward to the insights of all other noble Lords in this debate and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Motion, and to the Minister for attempting to answer as many questions as she could in the time available. I look forward to her later answers to those that were missed.
I will summarise and highlight a few points. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a very welcome contribution to the debate, but I take issue with his comments about inheritance tax on family farms and family businesses. Family businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Without them, we would not have Pearson, Rolls-Royce, GKN, Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Whitbread, Sainsbury et cetera. Large businesses start as small businesses, and they are started by individuals and families. At the moment, we have companies like Dyson and JCB, which are private companies and are thriving.
We on these Benches want fair treatment for all family businesses and to allow them the chance to compete effectively with public and overseas companies so that they can grow into future champions of our economy. Having to be prepared at all times to pay a 20% IHT charge, as well as funding the dividend tax liability on that, is highly damaging. I would go further than my noble friend Lady Shephard and others—all family businesses, including farms, need these reliefs to thrive.
My noble friend Lord Grayling made a powerful case that it is absurd, when we have so much land that is not the best and most versatile, that the Secretary of State for Energy continues to permit so much solar development, in particular on this best and most versatile land. I also completely agree with him that housing development should be prioritised on brownfield land before greenfield is taken.
A number of noble Lords spoke about the disparity in opportunity, healthcare, et cetera, between the rural and urban environments. I particularly noted the powerful discussion of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, of access to emergency and chronic healthcare, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans highlighting the productivity gap between the rural and urban environments. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, highlighted the planning constraints on livestock farms in Northern Ireland that make it so difficult to improve animal welfare and allow for better management of animal waste. It was encouraging that the Minister mentioned ongoing work to allow farmers to do more on the planning front to support their businesses. I hope the Government will consult widely on that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford summed up the mood in the countryside. There is an all-time low in morale, which means there is a huge opportunity for this Government to improve things. I hope that some of the suggestions raised in today’s debate will be taken forward. In the meantime, I beg to move.
UK Fishers: EU Agreement
Lord Roborough Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve outcomes for UK fishers after the current agreement with the European Union expires.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, 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. We know that the EU wants a new multiannual access agreement. We will listen to what it has to say and will work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for the UK economy and coastal communities.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, there have been alarming reports in the press that our European friends seem intent on securing and even improving their access to our exclusive economic zone fisheries ahead of any negotiation of other issues. Can the Minister confirm that this Government will not only defend but substantially increase the quota position of our fishermen in our waters ahead of the 26 June deadline?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, as a Government, we will always push for the best opportunities for our fishers and the fishery industry. We would like to see long-term strategies to provide the industry with greater stability, which is important to it. At the same time, it is important that we always follow scientific advice when developing negotiations and catch limits.
Sustainable Farming Incentive
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, I first declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a dairy farmer. I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement in your Lordships’ House and for allowing an opportunity to scrutinise the decision to cap sustainable farming incentives in this manner.
We on these Benches are proud of the Environment Act 2021 and of the transition in farming support payments to environmental land management schemes. ELMS is a crucial step in fulfilling our legally binding commitment to achieve a 30% recovery in nature by 2030, as well as ensuring that farming payments are for public goods. To cap the sustainable farming incentives with no notice, despite the Government’s own website informing that up to six weeks’ notice would be given for withdrawal of SFIs, is a betrayal of our farmers and our natural environment. Many were already facing unexpected financial hardship from the massive reduction in delinked payments, planning for the reduction in IHT reliefs, the increased minimum wage and national insurance contributions. This adds more pressure to those who were expecting to transition to SFIs this year but had not yet applied. Fewer than half of farm holdings that were in the basic payment scheme have SFIs.
The NFU’s farmer confidence survey shows farmer confidence in England and Wales at its lowest level ever. Some 88% of farmers believe the phase-out of direct payments will negatively affect their business, and 51% of farmers were planning to use ELMS to mitigate that phase-out. These dramatic changes in government support with no notice upset any attempt at budgeting, with costs already largely set for this year based on revenue projections that have now been dramatically cut. This will cause significant further hardship and heartache.
What assessment has been made of the impact of the SFI announcement on the financial viability of the farming industry? How many farms are likely to be pushed beyond breaking point this year? Has the estimated £400 million being cut from delinked payments been fully reallocated to the environmental land management schemes? Do the Government still intend to open the Countryside Stewardship higher tier this summer as previously committed to? In regard to the environment, what impact will the SFI decision have on compliance with the legally binding commitment delivered in our Environment Act to deliver improvements in biodiversity and nature recovery, given the central importance of farmers and land managers in achieving this?
Government messaging about the timing of new SFIs has been muddled, mentioning both 2026 and 2025 and it being potentially contingent on the finalisation of the land use framework. Please could the Minister be clear today on exactly when farmers will be given access to new SFIs and how their emphasis will differ from existing SFIs? Can the Minister also confirm that the £5 billion budget settlement for farming remains intact and will be fully distributed over the years ending in 2025 and 2026?
Given this Government’s disappointing financial decisions relating to farming and the wider rural economy, it would also be helpful if the Minister could enable us to understand what role she sees for private sector finance in replacing the public purse in land management. ELMS is an important segue into that, identifying valuable natural capital activities in land management, which in turn can morph into quantified public goods. In order for the private sector to step in, we need to see financial incentives. What financial incentives would the Government consider appropriate to deliver this investment? Will the woodland carbon code and peatland carbon code be admitted into the emissions trading scheme, creating real market demand? Will tax incentives be considered, or public bidding rules? Finally, could the water industry play a greater role in financing nature-based projects for reducing peak flow rates and flood events, and improving water quality?
The farming community needs help to plan after so many blows; I hope that the Minister can help with her answers.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement. They will no doubt by now be aware of the significant disappointment and dismay the sudden closure of this scheme, without consultation or warning, has caused. What analysis did the Government do before this announcement to establish the likely impact on smaller farmers such as family farmers and those on significantly less than the minimum wage? Were there impact assessments in respect of farmers losing their basic payment this year with the immediate removal of SFI, and without, as yet, any clear replacement scheme?
Can the Minister please share with us the expenditure implications? It is our understanding on these Benches that if the BPS cuts this year are taken into account, more than £400 million of the £2.5 billion farming budget will remain unspent. Given that this was a budget intended to reward farmers for nature restoration and sustainable food production, can the Minister reassure us that this will not damage both? Can she explain how the Government will ensure that key environmental work is rewarded, and carried out by farmers who can no longer get access to this funding?
Does the Minister accept that there is a danger that the larger landowners, the ones that are more corporate, are highly likely to have already taken up the SFI and be part of the 6,100 new entrants this year? What advice does she have for the smaller operators, some of Britain’s poorest farmers, who are now left behind? Is she further aware that only 40 hill farms were new entrants this year, and that the previous Government failed to provide sufficient support for hill farmers, which in turn led to an over 40% drop in hill farm incomes in just five years? Is there any plan to help the small farms, upland farmers and commoners affected by this sudden change?
Can the Minister share with the House any discussions with farming stakeholders in advance of this change? Stakeholders tell us there were none, and the NFU said that it had just 30 minutes’ notice.
Finally, will the Minister please share what steps the Government will now take to increase the farming budget to reflect the Government’s nature and climate targets? We would be very happy to share the suggestions in our own manifesto if that would be in any way helpful. These targets, we would argue, have been greatly damaged by this cut in SFI.
Biodiversity and Conservation
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a farmer, forestry developer, landowner, owner of fishing rights and investor in Circular FX, Cecil and Agricarbon, which provide services to the natural capital industry. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Grayling for securing this timely and important debate on the Government’s strategy for biodiversity and conservation. As Conservatives, we hold a deep-seated belief in our responsibility to preserve and enhance the natural heritage entrusted to us; that is why we brought forward the Environment Act 2021.
I must bring up the dreadful news on SFIs from Defra this week, as it impacts directly on the topic of this short debate: we expect farmers to deliver most of these improvements. Many were already facing unexpected financial hardship from the massive reduction in delinked payments, but this latest news adds many more who were expecting to transition to SFIs this year but had not yet applied. I ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact of the SFI announcement on the financial viability of the farming industry? What impact will that have, in turn, on compliance with the legally binding commitment, delivered in our Environment Act, to deliver the 30% improvements in biodiversity and nature recovery? If incentives to benefit nature restoration and biodiversity largely target action by farmers and landowners, how can pausing them help?
The Government have committed to a nature restoration levy, which will possibly—I hope we will hear—replace the current biodiversity net gain system that we created. We on these Benches have grave concerns about its creation, as articulated by my noble friend Lord Grayling, and also about placing its administration with Natural England rather than with local authorities. How can the Minister reassure us that this will deliver better outcomes for nature?
Atlantic salmon populations have collapsed by over 75% in our rivers over the last 50 years, as evidenced by reported rod catches, and despite almost all fish being caught and released over recent years. The Atlantic salmon is a crucial indicator of the health of our river catchments and it is now on the IUCN red list. What specific measures will the Minister take to address water quality, pollution, selective restocking and habitat degradation in our rivers to support its and other species’ recovery? I urge the Minister to identify the salmon as a keystone species for biodiversity and nature restoration efforts. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, might agree with this strategy, given her comments on water quality. I note my noble friend Lady Helic’s comment that the hare is probably also a worthy inclusion as a keystone species to gauge the success of nature restoration.
I fully support the comments of my noble friend Lord Caithness: bracken can be a scourge, and it is depressing that its presence is so widespread in locations where we should really be planting trees in order to fulfil our strategy of restoring our woodland cover. My noble friend Lord Grayling mentioned the renegotiation of our TCA with the EU prior to mid-2026. I agree with his environmental comments and add that we also expect this Government to negotiate a deal that delivers complete zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone for British fishermen.
Given this Government’s disappointing financial decisions, and as my noble friend Lord Courtown rightly highlights, we need more private sector finance to replace the public purse. It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand what role she sees for private sector finance to replace public finance in biodiversity and conservation improvements. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply to this short debate and the many questions posed, in writing if necessary.
Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument to ensure that flood reinsurance can continue to operate effectively. For that reason, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition are pleased to support it. Although the measures are necessary, they raise several questions about the future of the Flood Re scheme and the Government’s broader approach to flood risk and resilience.
The flood reinsurance scheme established under the Water Act 2014 was designed to provide much-needed reinsurance for household insurers facing flood risk, ensuring the availability and affordability of flood insurance for properties at risk of flooding. This initiative, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, remains a crucial safety net for many home owners across the country. It has offered vital support as we face increasing flood events that threaten the stability and safety of homes across Britain.
However, we must recognise that the scale of flooding is rapidly increasing. Recent assessments by the Environment Agency indicate that approximately 6.3 million properties in England are at risk of flooding from rivers, seas or surface water. This is projected to increase to 8 million properties by 2050, reflecting the escalating threat posed by climate change and extreme weather events. This highlights the importance of ensuring that the Flood Re scheme is sufficiently robust to support the growing number of home owners at risk.
The statutory instrument proposes an increase in the total levy from £135 million to £160 million. The Government’s assessment indicates that this rise will likely be passed on to consumers, resulting in an estimated increase of £1.60 per household insurance policy. Although this increase may seem modest on an individual basis, it raises concerns about the cumulative effect on policyholders, especially those already facing higher premiums due to rising costs in other areas. This adjustment reflects the growing challenges the scheme faces in a world where extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition acknowledge the necessity of this adjustment, given the financial pressures on reinsurers, driven by factors such as inflation, global natural catastrophe claims and the need to preserve the scheme’s financial resilience. If the rate and risk of household flooding continue to rise, can the British people reasonably expect these annual increases in insurance premiums to become the norm?
I have several other key questions for the Minister today. First, can she confirm whether the Government have consulted with industry stakeholders about the feasibility of expanding the Flood Re insurance scheme, particularly in high-risk areas and to houses built after 2009?
I am most interested in the Minister’s response to my noble friend’s question regarding farmhouses and buildings. Although these are likely to have been sited in less flood-prone locations, the Government have made significant commitments to building 1.5 million new homes in the coming years, a substantial increase on the recent rate of building completions. As my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering highlights, how does the Minister intend to protect these new homes from flood risk, particularly those in high-risk areas? Will the Government commit to ensuring that all new developments are designed with flood resilience in mind?
Could the Minister confirm and explain the role she sees for nature-based solutions in the management of floods at a catchment level in future? Here, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as the owner of land in a number of river catchments.
Finally, can the Minister inform us what progress is being made in the transition from Flood Re to risk-reflective pricing for household flood insurance when Flood Re expires in 2039? We are approaching midway in the life of Flood Re and it would be desirable to see some progress.
These are questions that go to the heart of the Government’s approach to flood risk, resilience and insurance. While we understand that the increase in the levy is a pragmatic measure in the light of global challenges, we must not overlook the broader implications of a changing climate and the evolving risks that flood-prone households face. With that, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these questions.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today. Personally, I was very pleased when Flood Re came in; I thought it was incredibly important legislation. Anyone who has lived in a house that has flooded, like I have, and in communities that flood, will know how very important it was that we had this insurance scheme come into place. I therefore thank noble Lords who have supported this small but extremely important SI today; it is important that the scheme stays viable and continues.
I would like to try to cover most of the questions that have been asked. There has been a desire for government to look at whether the scheme can be extended; that came across clearly from all who took part. Before I go into the particular individual responses and specifics, let me say that although we have no plans to make changes right now, we are continuously keeping all our policies under review, including those relating to flooding insurance. It is important that we discuss, debate and listen to others as we move forward in how we make those decisions around policy changes. If we make any changes to the scheme in future, it would be important that we secure the appropriate reinsurance for that, which would be challenging in the current market. To put it into context, this would mean that the levy we are talking about today would then need to be increased even further.
I know that noble Lords are aware that, currently, leasehold properties with three or fewer units, where the freeholder is living in one of those units, qualify for Flood Re building insurance. The problem with larger blocks not being eligible is that they are considered to be commercial businesses, and that is why they fall outside of the scope of Flood Re.
The Flood Re scheme as it is set up at the moment, and as it will continue to be set up through the statutory instrument in front of us, is funded by the providers of household insurance, not those who underwrite commercial policies. Buildings insurance is the responsibility of the freeholder and kept separate. However, I recognise that there is a problem.
When Main Street in Cockermouth flooded, for the second time in only six years, I held meetings with business insurance companies and high street businesses to look at ways we could move forward, because there are still alternative things that we can do and that the Government can look to support.
Having said all that, and with properties built after 2009 having been referred to—the noble Baroness knows that that is something that I was concerned with—we are planning to explore this further. Minister Hardy, who is the Minister responsible for this area, has asked Flood Re to look into the matter to understand the scale of concern and how industry might respond, to ensure that those living in properties that currently do not come under the scheme could be provided with appropriate insurance cover. Although it is not in front of us today and not something we are actively looking at, we have asked for this to be considered further. In the meantime, contents insurance policies can be applicable, so there is that potential as well.
High Seas Treaty
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The key thing that we are doing around bottom trawling is looking specifically at the areas that are most important and need conserving the most. When we look at making agreements with other countries, that is clearly an important consideration, because there is no point in designating somewhere a marine protected area if we do not look carefully at which parts need protecting the most and ensure that damage does not take place. It is good that we have 60% of our MPAs protected, but, clearly, we need to move forward and do more.
Lord Roborough
My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords have seen the potentially tragic news of a serious shipping accident off the Yorkshire coast this morning. I know I speak for all noble Lords in expressing our sympathies and support for the crew, the emergency services and their families. Can the Minister share with the House the nature of the product being carried on the tanker, what risks this poses to the public and the marine environment, and what steps the Government are taking?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. I am sure that we were all extremely shocked and concerned on hearing about the collision that has just taken place in the North Sea. It is an emerging picture; we are still hearing more evidence as to exactly what has happened. I assure the House that we are speaking closely in Defra to the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which are leading on the government response. They are assessing the situation, as it has only just happened. I assure the noble Lord and the House that Defra’s agencies including the Environment Agency are engaging on any clean-up that is needed and assessing any pollution. We are not sure at the moment exactly what the situation is. There has been a fire, which makes it much more difficult to look at the extent of damage and pollution. We will keep the House updated as we hear further information.
Beaver: Reintroduction in England
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend. The Government condemn any illegal release of beavers. They not only are unlawful but, as she said, can lead to damage and conflict, and they undermine legitimate releases. Just to confirm, it is an offence in England under Section 14 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to release a beaver into an enclosure or the wild, except under the authority of a licence from Natural England. Regarding penalties, doing so without a licence carries a penalty of either an unlimited fine or up to six months in prison.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a host to an illegally released beaver—not by me. As the Minister pointed out, the reintroduction of beavers to the UK may well have a role to play in managing waterways and reducing the risk of flooding. We have discussed nature-based solutions in this House before on the then Water (Special Measures) Bill, and I would be most grateful to the Minister for an update on progress on nature-based solutions within the water sector.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. The Government are very serious about this. Nature-based solutions will be incredibly important if we are to get the outcomes and results that we want. We are continuing to make progress, and I am happy to keep the noble Lord updated as that progress continues.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]
Lord Roborough ExcerptsTuesday 11th February 2025
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 View all Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 11 February 2025 - (11 Feb 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion B. Before I speak to the detail of the changes made in the other place, I start by thanking all noble Lords for their continued interest in this important Bill. I give particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who is not in his place today, and the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for their collaboration with my officials and me over the last few weeks. It has been much appreciated.
I am pleased to say that, following constructive engagement with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, the Government have tabled amendments that will ensure the public have access to understandable and readily available water company financial data. While it is true that water companies are already required to report annually on their finances, as I have explained during previous debates, the Government agree that more could be done to improve the accessibility of this information. I also understand that the House feels strongly about this being required through legislation, rather than existing non-legislative processes.
The amendments tabled will therefore achieve our shared objective of improving the transparency and accessibility of reporting on key financial metrics. They will insert a new Section 35E into the Water Industry Act 1991, which makes clear that water companies should provide an intelligible overview of their financial position at least once a year. The overview should include a summary of significant changes that have taken place over the last 12 months and will cover key aspects of water companies’ financial positions, such as share capital and debt levels. In addition, this information must be made available in a prominent place on a water company’s website, ensuring accessibility for members of the public. Subsection (4) of new Section 35E also provides Ofwat with the power to determine the information that the water company must publish, as well as the ability to review requirements on financial reporting from time to time. This will ensure that reporting requirements can keep pace with changes in the expectations and needs of bill payers.
Ofwat is also provided with the necessary powers to enforce this new requirement, either through existing water company appointment conditions or through new rules. I would like to be clear, however, that the Government expect this power to be used to ensure that reporting requirements remain relevant, rather than to dilute or diminish the ambition of reporting requirements. Financial reporting will remain underpinned by existing statutory obligations and licence conditions. I am also pleased to confirm that Ofwat’s duty to issue rules relating to financial transparency will commence upon Royal Assent, in line with its duty to issue other rules under Clause 1.
I hope all noble Lords across this House will agree with the other place in its amendments to improve public access to, and understanding of, water companies’ financial information. Beyond this, I know that many noble Lords have expressed concerns around how water companies report on changes in their ownership structures. On this point, I am pleased to confirm that Ofwat will consult to require companies to present information on ownership structure clearly and prominently as part of its upcoming consultation on regulatory accounting guidelines.
I turn now to the changes made in the other place that will require Ofwat to provide a draft of its rules on remuneration and governance to the Secretary of State at least seven days before they are issued. This change was made in response to the changes made at our last debate by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I emphasise that the Government acknowledge the sentiment of the noble Lord’s changes, which were to ensure that there is sufficient oversight of Ofwat’s rules. However, as I have previously outlined, we cannot countenance a provision that would both delay Ofwat’s rules coming into force and compromise the independence of Ofwat. I emphasise that the Bill already includes a requirement for Ofwat to run a statutory consultation on the rules before finalisation. This will guarantee adequate scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules. I also hope noble Lords agree that it would not be appropriate for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed through affirmative statutory instrument.
On this basis, I hope that noble Lords agree with the other place in its amendment to require Ofwat to provide the rules to the Secretary of State. Again, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Roborough, for working with me constructively to reach an agreed position on how we can ensure proper scrutiny of the rules. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for her constructive engagement with the Official Opposition during the progress of this Bill.
We are delighted that the Government have listened to the clear view of the House that more transparent financial disclosure of the state of water companies’ balance sheets and their capital structuring plans is urgently needed. The Government’s amendment delivers much of what the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who is not in his place, asked for, which we supported him in insisting on. We join other Members of the House in congratulating the noble Lord on securing this meaningful improvement to the Bill.
While the Government’s Amendment 2 does not deliver the same level of oversight of Ofwat’s rule-making power that our own amendments would have delivered, I am pleased that they have now tabled a substantive amendment in the other place. We accept this change to the Bill.
We disagree that our amendments requiring a statutory instrument would have led to material delay in the delivery of the Ofwat rules. However, we accept that our amendment was not conducive to a fully independent regulator. Given Ofwat’s clear failures over decades, it is no surprise that this House has supported our amendments on two previous occasions. We on these Benches question the merit of the regulator continuing to have its independence from government treated as sacrosanct. This Government’s intervention to encourage regulators to prioritise growth already demonstrates that this independence is illusory. We look forward to reading the findings of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review on this matter in due course.
Even though it does not go as far as we wanted, we welcome the Government’s amendment, which will give the Secretary of State a seven-day opportunity to review the draft rules and, presumably, voice any concerns to the regulator prior to their publication. We welcome this additional accountability of the regulator to the Executive, who are, in turn, accountable to Parliament.
I note that, in the other place, members of the party sitting on the Benches to my left appeared to speak in favour of my amendment, and the amendment retabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Had they seen the merits of the amendment earlier and not abstained twice in your Lordships’ House, we may have been able to achieve even more on the accountability of the regulator.
In conclusion, I thank all Members of the House for their engagement throughout the passage of the Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the Minister’s Bill team and the Opposition Whips’ Office research team. We respect the fact that the Water (Special Measures) Bill was a manifesto commitment, and we are pleased that it will leave this House in a better state than when it arrived. We hope that it will continue to help the cleaning up of our rivers, lakes and beaches—the most important goal of the Bill. We await the publication of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review and intend to continue to push His Majesty’s Government to do more, without increasing the burden on water consumers.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for his support and his kind words as to how we have reached this position. I agree with him that the Bill leaves this House, as most Bills do, in a better shape than when it arrived.
I hope that all noble Lords agree with the other place in its amendments brought forward today, which will strengthen water company reporting requirements while ensuring that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward without delay. These are important changes, which have further strengthened the Bill. I am grateful for the collaboration that took place with noble Lords across the House to arrive at this point.
I also hope that the amendments brought forward by the Government provide reassurance to all noble Lords that, where there has been strong feeling across the House on certain matters, the Government have not only listened but taken meaningful action. On this basis, I hope that all noble Lords can support Commons Amendments 1C, 1D and 2B. I once again thank all noble Lords for their time and interest in this important Bill.
Foot and Mouth Disease
Lord Roborough Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests, including as a dairy farmer who remembers well the terror and isolation experienced by all livestock farmers during the last foot and mouth outbreak. Can the Minister explain to the House what lessons have been learned and what would be done differently, were this dreadful disease to reach our shores, to prevent a repeat of that terror and the awful scenes of burning carcasses that tormented our entire country?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
The noble Lord is right when he says that the mounds of burning carcasses tormented our country. I do not think any of us who were around at the time will ever forget that. He asks about lessons learned. In addition to regularly exercising our disease response capabilities, lessons identified reviews are undertaken at the end of any outbreak in order to identify and evaluate where improvements to disease response capability processes and organisational structures for managing an outbreak of exotic notifiable disease can be made. This is something we always do.
Following both the 2001 and 2007 foot and mouth outbreaks, extensive inquiries and reviews were undertaken. That led to some critical changes coming in, including, for example, the introduction of a ban on swill feeding, standstill periods for cattle, sheep and goats of six days and 20 days for pigs, and improvements in livestock traceability. These were all implemented in response to the recommendations of those lessons identified reviews and they are critical in order to prevent infection—in the case of swill feeding bans, for example—because we need to minimise any implications of the disease coming to this country again.
Global Warming
Lord Roborough Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a developer of new, woodland carbon code qualified forests through LR Strategies; as an investor in Cecil, a data platform for nature reporting, and in Circular FX, a trading platform for natural capital; and as a farmer and landowner.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing this important debate. I always listen with great interest to contributions from the noble Lord, who has unique insights into these issues. Other noble Lords spoke with great authority on many different areas, and they have left me with little more to say on illustrating the extent of the problem.
How we in the UK interact with our landscape and ecosystems will have marginal impacts on global warming or global ecosystems, but it is still critical. As a wealthy and small nation, we are well placed through our actions to create, demonstrate and export best practice. Our actions will also have a massive impact on how we experience global warming and climate change in our country; we must continue to act.
It is also important that we remember the line of the great ice hockey player, Wayne Gretzky:
“Skate to where the puck is going, not where it has been”.
Softwood trees we plant now will mature in 30-plus years in a climate not experienced in this country for 100,000 years. Our mighty oaks planted now will take 75-plus years to mature, and that could be in a climate that this country has not experienced for as much as a million years. Therefore, it is critical that we focus on planning ahead and stewardship rather than preservation, in order to protect and allow adaptation in a thriving, healthy, resilient ecosystem.
There is much anecdotal good news, as many noble Lords have highlighted. I add that Knepp and Nattergal have achieved remarkable things with rewilding, and evolving over time the balance between rewilding and food production. Foresight and Gresham are highly successful in reforesting tens of thousands of acres, with the help of the woodland carbon code. I was also lucky enough to spend a day with BaumInvest at its Finca La Virgen reforestation project in Costa Rica, where sloths, monkeys, frogs, deer and ocelots had all recolonised this 750-acre reforestation project since it was planted only 12 years ago. That project is enabled by the sale of carbon sequestration units under the gold standard.
However, all these achievements are measured in the hundreds, thousands or low tens of thousands of acres. There are 60 million acres in the UK, and we are a tiny country. Thunder Said Energy estimates that 6 billion acres globally have been deforested since 1850, releasing a quarter of all anthropogenic emissions and destroying ecosystems that had been in place since the last ice age and before. It estimates that 3 billion acres could be reforested, allowing decimated ecosystems to recover on a global scale and massive recapture of carbon dioxide. This is less than 20% of available land, and with careful planning can protect global food production.
Although the UK may be a small country, it is climactically advantaged for growing trees and has considerable areas that either are not farmed or could potentially be better used economically and environmentally for growing trees. We also have a strong market for timber, given that we currently produce only 20% of our timber needs. However, the cash flow profile of timber production, with it taking around 40 years until the first meaningful revenue is generated, has made it difficult to persuade land managers to change land use to forestry. Does the Minister propose to revise—I hope upward—our previous Government’s commitments to new forest creation? What more will and can this Government do to help achieve those targets?
In government, we established the Woodland Carbon Code, which creates additional incentives for reforestation via the award of carbon sequestration units, which can then be sold to help bridge the cash flows between planting and first harvest. It is unfortunate that recent rule changes appear to have made qualification unnecessarily difficult. Can the Minister say what progress is being made with the E&Y consultation on additionality qualifications, and what progress is being made with the code certification under the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s core carbon principles? When do the Government intend to announce the results of the consultation on admitting WCC units into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme? Could the Minister update the House on what other initiatives are being pursued to bring private finance into nature restoration and other nature-based solutions?
Within the context of the horrendous changes to APR and BPR for inheritance tax, forestry investment will also be damaged, as forestry previously qualified for 100% business property relief. Given that forests can take from 30 to over 100 years to mature, these are multigenerational assets that lose their appeal if they are subject to inheritance tax, requiring disposals to fund that liability. This will tilt the equation back towards annual crop and animal farming. I urge the Government to rethink this disastrous change in the tax code while there is still time and before permanent damage is done to families and family businesses.
The forestry sector has been disappointed with the Defra biodiversity net gain calculations, which appear unable to capture the full life cycle biodiversity gains from forestry, which are evident to anyone spending time in forests. While new forests may often be predominantly of productive species, all new forestry schemes are required under UK forestry standards to have strong diversity of species planted, which creates vibrant new ecosystems. What progress is being made to improve the BNG calculations so that they work for forestry?
The role of land use change in nature conservation, preservation and enhancement goes far beyond just forestry, as many noble Lords have noted. While this particular land use change may give the most bang for the buck in protecting and enhancing nature, we need other, more incremental land use changes that preserve and enhance our food security, while being kinder to our soils and our native flora and fauna. These include regenerative farming, the rewetting of peatland and highly selective rewilding, in addition to the reforestation I have discussed—lots of “re-” words.
Land use needs to change, but the right choices can preserve our ability to feed ourselves without it being at the cost of carbon emissions, and with massive benefit to ecosystems. With the excellent Environment Act, bequeathed to us by my right honourable friend Michael Gove, the last Government initiated local nature recovery strategies, biodiversity net gain, a general duty to preserve and enhance nature, species conservation strategies, protected site strategies, conservation covenants and the power to ban the import of commodities from forests at risk. That Act is the greatest boost to nature recovery since the original Wildlife and Countryside Act and the creation of the national parks.
I very much amplify the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, on the terrible impact of predation on our most prized species, as well as his call for a soil action plan. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her gentle chiding of this Government’s commitment to nature restoration, and to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for his warnings to this Government on their need to restore trust with farmers and landowners after a disastrous Budget. I urge the Government to pay heed to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s warnings of increased wildfire risk as a result of global warming.
We have the opportunity in this small but productive country to take leadership on land use changes and demonstrate to the world how to develop nature-based financial solutions which can allow us to be a world leader in standards, markets, and advisory and financing solutions. To quote Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa in The Leopard:
“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”