Forest-Risk Commodities

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks a really important question. We announced a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct as part of the UK trade strategy, and that is exploring the UK’s effectiveness in preventing human rights harms, labour rights harms and environmental harms in supply chains. That is how we are looking to support businesses and give them access to the kind of information my noble friend talks about.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, while it is right to take steps to protect forests overseas, I point out that Brazil and Indonesia, for example, have 50% forest cover, versus only 13% here. These countries already protect their forests through the Brazilian forest code and the Indonesian timber legality assurance scheme. Can we not do more to make the world greener in our own country by increasing our paltry 16.5% forest cover target? I declare my interest as an investor in SLC Agricola and Anglo Eastern Plantations, and as a forest developer.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have ambitious tree-planting proposals, including planting three new national forests—one has already begun and two are well on the way—because it is important that we increase tree coverage. We are also looking at how we can better protect the forests we already have, particularly our ancient woodlands. The environmental improvement plan the Government have recently published addresses many of those issues.

Global Biodiversity Loss and National Security

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At least the noble Baroness thinks I sound good. The revised environmental improvement plan is designed to deliver everything the noble Baroness talked about. We are working very hard in Defra to ensure that it does.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures aims to bring nature into the core of business and financial decision-making, recognising that the health of our natural environment is crucial to the long-term health of our economy. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to accelerate adoption of TNFD reporting to incentivise better performance and thus encourage businesses to channel investment into nature recovery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for mentioning the TNFD, because it is very important. We are continuing to fund the Green Finance Institute to progress market capacity building and uptake through the TNFD UK consultation group. That is evolving to include a pilot programme on integrated nature transition plans. Fifteen businesses are currently already signed up to that. We are also in the process of onshoring the International Sustainability Standards Board’s general sustainability and climate disclosure standards in the UK. That will draw on the work of the TNFD. We are looking at its imminent work on nature standard-setting. Once that direction of travel is clear, it can inform our future paths on policy and regulation.

Water Companies: Fines

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, to follow my noble friend’s question, the Government have announced that water company fines will help fund environmental restoration, including 100,000 new trees. To put that in context, a block that size would be only 50 hectares and cost £200,000. That seems a token effort. Will the Minister commit to more ambitious targets for the use of these fines in environmental restoration and tree-planting? I refer the House to my interest in developing new forests.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government have very ambitious plans for tree-planting, including three national forests, one of which has already begun planting and two are progressing well, so we are very keen. We understand the impact that trees can have in mitigating both climate change and flooding. We absolutely want to work with farmers to ensure that we can help and support them to plant trees in order to support their ambitions.

Yorkshire: Sustainable Water Management Solutions

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that we talk regularly about the importance of this not just to the Treasury but to other departments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, the Forestry Commission and the Woodland Trust have produced excellent research on the water-related benefits of tree planting, peatland restoration and rewetting wetlands. This demonstrates that reductions in peak flow rates during high rainfall events alleviate flood severity and that better water retention reduces drought severity and improves water quality. How will the Minister bring together the water companies, the insurance industry and infrastructure owners, as the beneficiaries of these nature-based solutions, to fund true catchment-scale investment not just in Yorkshire but all around our country? I declare my interest as a landowner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned in response to the earlier question, we know that natural flood management attracts contributions from partners, including private partners, and that is something we must do. As the noble Baroness has just said, flooding has a big impact on climate change. We are not going to solve this unless we bring everyone together—the Government, infrastructure developers, the private sector and so on.

Meat Labelling

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The question from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, gives me the opportunity to mention the demonstration of life protocol for sheep and goats. I know that he is a very strong proponent of this. In fact, his support was instrumental in establishing the protocol, which is based on the New Zealand model. I am glad to confirm that the Government very much support this. The demonstration of life protocol provides assurance for Muslim consumers that the stunning of sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements. The protocol protects the welfare of the animals involved while also supporting any opportunities for trade. The Food Standards Agency oversees the monitoring and enforcement of animal welfare in slaughterhouses, and it also supports the protocol. So the Government will consider ways they can encourage halal slaughterhouses to use this protocol.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, data from the Food Standards Agency revealed that in the last decade 27% of inspections of slaughterhouses permitted to perform religious non-stun slaughter concluded with a rating of improvement necessary or urgent improvement necessary. This compares with just 10% of all other establishments. Can the Minister clarify what the Government are doing to strengthen the enforcement of existing rules and standards? I refer the House to my registered interest as a livestock farmer.

Nitrogen Reduction, Recycling and Reuse (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Environment and Climate Change Committee for its excellent work in producing this report. I thank its members for their contributions to this debate, as well as those who submitted valuable evidence to help assess ways in which we can reduce nitrogen pollution.

I am pleased to highlight that the 2023 data shows that we met our commitment to reduce annual emissions of nitrogen oxide by 55%, based on 2005 levels, under the Gothenburg protocol to the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution.

Before I continue, I draw the Committee’s attention to my registered interests as a dairy and livestock farmer and as an investor in the soil-testing company Agricarbon and the nature finance companies Karner and Cecil.

This report’s recommendations affect a range of sectors, including agriculture, wastewater and transport, which are identified as the main contributors to nitrogen pollution in England. To take into account the holistic nature of this issue, we welcome the report’s recommendation for a cross-departmental, circular approach to nitrogen pollution; this will help deliver better outcomes for farmers, public health, nature, wildlife and the climate. We also agree that, at present, there is a lack of a clear policy direction from the Government to give businesses the certainty they need. We strongly endorse the report’s recommendation to simplify the regulatory system.

The Government’s response does not reject any of the report’s conclusions, but it does not fully agree with each of them. As Conservatives, we welcome the Government’s emphasis on the need for value for money and on streamlining different outputs where possible, such as by merging the recommended nitrogen strategy into the upcoming circular economy strategy for England. However, I express concern about the approach towards the agricultural sector in particular. Throughout their response to the report, the Government highlight their existing commitment to increase over three years funding for the Environment Agency to conduct farm inspections, with a target of 6,000 by 2029. Although we recognise that farms must adhere to the rules, we are concerned that this approach uses a stick rather than offering a carrot to hard-working farmers. The Government must ensure that these inspections are led by advice—for example, in increasing farmers’ awareness of the potential profitability benefits of regenerative farming practices; improving soil structure and fertility; and supporting yields while reducing reliance on manufactured fertiliser.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Leicester for his pioneering role in regenerative farming in this country—perhaps the new Norfolk system. I should also draw attention to another of my interests: I am an investor in SLC Agrícola, a Brazilian farming company on 2 million acres that is, surprisingly, already regenerative. It is very much its own scale and access to technology, as well as the best advice, that enables it to be so.

When it comes to incentivising transitions to greener practices, we should recognise that farmers already use nitrogen fertiliser judiciously and that its use has fallen by 50% since 1990, as highlighted in the evidence given by Tom Bradshaw. Moreover, we are still awaiting details on the reformed sustainable farming incentive offer. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are considering compensating farmers for reductions in fertiliser use through the SFIs that are yet to be published? Can she also indicate the role of existing and new market-based nutrient neutrality schemes in helping to meet these targets, while also providing financial incentives to land managers?

Industry contacts have informed me that the inclusion of support for nature-based solutions in the Water (Special Measures) Act has already had tangible benefits in activity levels. What further contribution to nitrogen reductions can be achieved through the implementation of the Cunliffe review? As the Minister has already been asked when we should expect the White Paper on water strategy, I will not ask again, but, if there is any more information on its timing and legislation on the back of that, it would be helpful.

The committee’s report rightly expresses concern about the low levels of understanding of farm regulations and identifies the

“lack of a trusted source”

for guidance amid the number of sources available. The Government have agreed with this conclusion, but their response goes on to list a number of sources: the catchment-sensitive farming scheme; a planned new nutrient management tool; the amended farming rules for water statutory guidance; and the catalogue of compliance that is currently under review. This demonstrates the existing problem. Will the Government commit to creating a simplified source for these schemes that ensures that farmers are made aware of their existence and are promptly kept updated of any changes?

To tackle ammonia emissions, the Government have said that they are considering an extension of environmental permitting for dairy and intensive beef farms, but concerns have recently been raised that some farmers may not be able to afford the investments necessary to remain compliant. We hold our farmers to higher standards than those against whom they are competing overseas; that carries greater costs, undermining competitiveness. What concrete actions are the Government planning to support profitability for our farmers while they bear these higher costs? Will the same environmental standards be extended to imported food products in order to protect British farmers from unfair competition?

Further, will the Environment Agency or its successors provide assistance to farmers and recommendations to planning officers in relation to planning applications for the infrastructure that is needed to reduce pollution? Too many necessary infrastructure developments are held up in the planning system; I have experience of this myself, I am afraid. As the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, highlighted in her excellent report, farming profitability is on its knees, and loading more regulation and cost on to the industry is potentially disastrous.

Later this year, the Government are due to announce a new farming road map for 2050. Could the Minister commit that they will listen to stakeholders in advance of policies being announced so that businesses can plan ahead effectively, as the first step of rebuilding trust? I am sure that, across this Committee, we want to help businesses to reduce, recycle and reuse, but the Government must allow for businesses’ financial models to be sustainable in the first place. By 2030, the Government hope to deliver a 73% reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions against a 2005 baseline level, and to reduce ammonia emissions by 16% by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Will they commit to keeping this target under review to ensure that a focus on fixed end-point targets does not create viability issues for businesses or excessive costs for consumers?

We challenge the Government to seek to understand how private businesses work in the farming industry as well as in the wider economy. Businesses are being crippled by increasing costs of employment through national insurance contributions and minimum wages, through less flexibility in employment through the Employment Rights Act and through the unique challenges to the farming industry from the unreliability of environmental land management schemes under this Government. Creating greater investment and compliance burdens through regulation undermines our farming industry. Compliance with statutory requirements must be incentivised and guided by the appropriate timelines and easily accessible information, not just enforced by an empowered arm’s-length body. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government on this matter and I am very grateful for other noble Lords’ contributions to this debate.

Flooding Interventions

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that Flood Re was set up for a certain period of time. I am doing this from memory, and I shall tell the House if I am wrong, but I think it was due to run through to 2036.

We are looking at possible alternative arrangements. Clearly, the last thing we want to do is take away households’ ability to have insurance. We do not want to go back to how it used to be—people being completely uninsurable or having excess limits of, say, £10,000. That is not the future we see for insurance. The noble Lord is right that it has been set up as an intermediate system, and we are looking at ways to move forward.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Environmental Audit Committee’s fourth report on flood resilience in England in October 2025 highlighted that Defra’s flood budget is increasingly a thin blue line protecting the nation’s transport, energy, housing and utilities from escalating flood impacts, yet it remains siloed, with no cross-government accountability for measurable outcomes or value for money. Will the Minister clarify what work the department is doing beyond using standard HM Treasury guidance to ensure value for money in flood investments?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, we have invested a record amount of money in addressing flooding. We have also reviewed the way funding is applied and how communities, businesses and so on can apply for it. The new programme we have set up has four metrics, and if I briefly go through those, it will help to answer the noble Lord’s question.

There are two outcome metrics and two output metrics. The first outcome metric is around economic benefits. It captures all the damage that has been avoided to properties, infrastructure, agriculture and a range of other areas, as well as the positive economic benefits of such things as natural flood management, which we are very keen to invest in. The second is around the risk to properties. The Environment Agency is developing a way of reporting on the reduction in flood risk due to the investments made through the national flood and coastal investment programme. I think that is due to report in April.

The first output metric is around how properties benefit from the new investment. That is made up of three parts: whether it is large reductions in, small reductions in, or prevented increases in any size of flood risk. The last metric is around asset condition, which initially remains the percentage of Environment Agency high-consequence assets at target condition. So we have a whole new system of managing exactly those outcomes and investments.

Biodiversity and the Countryside

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Grayling for securing this important debate on the impact of this Government’s policies on biodiversity and the countryside. The scorecard is looking pretty grim, as many noble Lords have pointed out in this fascinating debate, and I will address further some of those points.

Before I do so, I refer your Lordships’ House to my registered interests as a quasi-regenerative farmer with Countryside Stewardship, landscape recovery and sustainable farming incentive schemes, as an owner of woodland and developer of new forests under the Woodland Carbon Code, as a peatland restorer under the Peatland Carbon Code and as an investor in natural capital-related businesses.

Most of us in this debate bear the scars of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Creating a new system via the environmental delivery plans to protect and compensate for damage to nature in development simply confuses the issue when we, in government, put in place protections and market structures that ensure that nature overall should benefit from development through our landmark Environment Act 2021.

My noble friend Lord Grayling and others mentioned the biodiversity net gain market, created in the Environment Act and underpinned by the mitigation hierarchy. The BNG industry report from July this year highlights 21,000 acres now dedicated to biodiversity net gain after only 15 months of operation, and forecasts a £3 billion market size by 2035. Should the Government accept our amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, this would allow those BNG markets to continue to develop, with greater experience building among those buying these units as well as selling them, proving that nature does not need to get in the way of growth.

Earlier this year, the Government conducted a consultation on its functioning. Can the Minister tell us when the Government will respond? We would welcome any changes that make the system easier to use for smaller developers and that allow the market to function more effectively for nature and growth. I agree with my noble friends that this need not mean exempting small developments.

What nature needs as much as our rural community is consistency. Habitats need to be left alone in order to thrive; farmers need to be able to plan ahead to make good decisions for their businesses and the right decisions for land use. This Government have halved inheritance tax reliefs under APR and BPR, destabilising that long-term planning. They have smashed delinked payments, brought SFI applications to an end and forced the farming community to wait until a date—which we hope we will hear shortly—in 2026 before any information or payments will be available for new schemes.

While the one-year extension to Countryside Stewardship mid-tier schemes, due to end this year, is most welcome, it was late. The net result is anecdotal evidence that many farmers have ploughed up or cultivated land that had been managed under these environmental schemes, in order to have some confidence that their businesses would survive. Can the Minister confirm that the beneficiaries of this extension will be able to apply for the new SFIs to be launched next year, rather than having to wait another year and potentially being closed out again?

This Government, and indeed previous Governments, are not providing the answers that biodiversity and the countryside need. The Government must incentivise private investment in nature recovery and other natural capital markets. Farms are businesses, not just producing food but sequestering carbon, protecting and enhancing nature and looking after our landscapes.

The Minister accepted the importance of water companies investing in nature-based solutions in the Water (Special Measures) Act, and at Third Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, her colleague made helpful and clear commitments about the role of private land managers in delivering environmental goods in these EDPs. I hope that this is part of a progression towards functioning natural capital markets that will replace the burden on taxpayers with investment by the private sector. That could be the underpinning of a more prosperous future for the countryside, delivering even more biodiversity and nature restoration, which we are debating today. The £3 billion forecast for BNG alone is larger than Defra’s farming budget.

Businesses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, mentioned, are also good citizens that see the value in protecting all our futures. That is why many are already buying voluntary carbon units and investing in carbon insetting in their supply chains to reduce their overall carbon footprints. They are also evaluating what they can do under the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures’ recommendations to improve the natural environment and their reporting. While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that it would be welcome to see this become more widely used in the UK, I would also be cautious about the reporting obligations and costs that this might place on smaller and medium-sized businesses.

Can the Minister inform your Lordships what the result has been of the consultation on including woodland carbon units in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme? The consultation closed 15 months ago. This could be a valuable step towards incentivising much more tree planting, a healthier rural economy and greater biodiversity. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already mentioned the disappointing performance of tree planting in the UK versus, frankly, unambitious tree-planting targets. Steps such as this could incentivise much larger-scale planting.

My noble friend Lord Grayling made important points about the restrictions we still operate under in our coastal waters. The Government chose, unnecessarily, to allow our European friends to continue to have access to 40% of our fishing rights, when we could have recovered them all in June next year. The one-off coastal recovery fund of £360 million is a pretty disappointing attempt to buy off our coastal communities, when the full value of our fishing rights would have delivered an extra £600 million a year of revenue. In addition to responding to my noble friends’ questions, can the Minister be clear that the Government have the power to revisit the policy on marine protected areas without consulting and deferring to our European friends?

Lastly, I agree with my noble friends Lord Harlech and Lady Shephard and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that farmers need to be allowed to make a return on their land and to help prevent food security being undermined by the loss of the best and most versatile land to energy production. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

River Pollution

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend an update on where we are on Camber Sands and Southern Water at the moment. The pollution incident is really worrying, and it is disappointing that it has happened. We are pleased that Southern Water has now taken responsibility for this plastic pollution incident. The Environment Agency is currently conducting a thorough investigation. It is also looking at what regulatory action should be taken and is working with Rother District Council on the clean-up operation. It is absolutely unacceptable that something like this should happen. For too long, these serious pollution events have not been taken seriously. It is absolutely right that the Environment Agency is looking thoroughly at this incident so we can understand exactly what has happened in order to try and prevent it happening again in the future. We need swifter penalties to clamp down on polluters. We have given £104 billion in private investment to help cut exactly this kind of pollution incident.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Cunliffe review and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill all offer the potential for the mobilisation of greater private capital in dealing with non-sewage pollution in our rivers. Can the Minister inform the House what progress is being made with private sector investment? How big a contribution is planned and how much will therefore be saved for the benefit of the taxpayer? I refer the House to my registered interest as a land and river owner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As part of dealing with any major area that requires investment and funding, we will of course consider how private investment can support what the Government are trying to achieve. We believe that it is important for us all to pull together to make the right kind of progress.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this Government’s deal with the EU allows Europe to retain around 40% of the fishing rights in our exclusive economic zone and territorial waters for a further 12 years. This undermines the substantial expansion of the private tax-paying fishing sector that should have been possible. The fishing and coastal growth fund from taxpayers’ money’ is poor compensation and unfairly distributed, particularly as regards Scotland. Can the Minister explain how this can be in tune with the Government’s pro-growth agenda?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

The funding is being allocated using the Barnett formula, which is the normal mechanism used by HM Treasury to determine funding for the devolved Governments. That is the mechanism used and, while allocations are not directly linked to the size of each nation’s fishing industry—the noble Lord mentioned the Scottish fishing industry—devolved Governments have full flexibility to target this funding to best meet the needs of their coastal and fishing communities, so there is an opportunity. This is extra funding on top of other funding that has been granted, so it is providing a support to coastal and fishing communities.