Natural England: Gamebird Release Licensing

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very aware that there is information about the importance to the rural economy of the shooting industry. That is why the Government support well-managed shooting estates.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Given that the avian influenza risk has been rated high or very high continuously since October 2024 and that licensing conditions were designed specifically to limit transmission to protected birds, can the Minister confirm that the Government feel that this approach is working given that, currently, as I understand it, only one special protection area is expected to receive standard approval this season? Perhaps I may just say that I am very much looking forward to continuing to do lots of Defra Oral Questions with the noble Baroness in September and hopeful that we will do so.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I jolly well hope that too; I am waiting to find out. She raised the important issue of avian influenza. It has caused some serious problems. This year was worse than last year—not as bad as a few years ago—and it is not going to go away, so the way we manage avian influenza is incredibly important. That has to include the way that we manage and release game birds.

Farming and Food Production: Land Use Framework

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister say more about the promised reforms to the farm tenancy forum and what it will actually deliver? Tenants manage a third of England’s farmland yet have little say when landlords respond to new environmental or energy incentives. Can she confirm whether a tenant farmer commissioner, as recommended by the Rock review, remains under active consideration?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I cannot confirm that question specifically—I would have to go back to the department and check—but I can say that the department is keen to work very closely with tenant farmers. That is why we have a tenant farming commissioner: we want to do everything we can to support more tenant farmers to become profitable and more secure.

Bycatch Risk Prioritisation Framework

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think the answer to that is yes.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government still intend to meet their legal duties to achieve good environmental status for UK seas, given that bycatch is repeatedly cited as a key barrier to this? Can she tell us what quantified time-bound targets this framework will contain to try to get us to that aim?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that the framework will be ongoing: we get it set up, we get it working, we collect the data and we monitor. It will also inform further frameworks going forward.

Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Grender]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish the Clean Water Bill; and what steps they will take before its publication to ensure that urgent protections for chalk streams are in place.

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

My Lords, the clean water Bill was announced in the King’s Speech in May, to be introduced during this Session. We have set out our ambitious programme of reforms in the water White Paper, which was published on 20 January, and we are protecting chalk streams, including by reducing the risk of harmful abstraction, by modifying water company abstraction licences and ensuring that chalk streams are prioritised for improvement in our storm overflows discharge reduction plan.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. Does she regret that, despite repeated assurances that chalk streams were an urgent priority during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, they still do not have statutory protection? Can she assure the House that they will not be left out of the clean water Bill, or indeed the final National Planning Policy Framework, especially if there is any danger of that being published in a rush over the next few days due to a change in the senior management team in the House of Commons?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are very aware that chalk streams are an important ecological resource and we are doing a number of things that will make a difference, which is what we have to do. We are holding water companies to account. We are working within the environmental land management scheme to provide incentives for farmers; for example, six of the ELMS-funded landscape recovery projects are being developed in chalk stream catchments. The Environment Agency is working, as I said, to tackle the impacts of harmful abstraction. We made a number of changes to the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that chalk streams feature in local nature recovery strategies so that they can be embedded into any legislation. There are also actions embedded in the water White Paper, which we will discuss as we take forward the legislation.

Farming Practices: Sustainable Farming Incentive

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very aware of the issue the noble Baroness refers to; we have discussed it in Parliament. The issue is that common land and shared grazing are in principle eligible for both SFI and CSHT—the higher tier—but, for technical reasons, it is not currently possible for common groups to apply for SFI or to enter the new higher-tier grants, as the noble Baroness so rightly said. The RPA is engaging with the different external stakeholders, including the Foundation for Common Land, to discuss what can be done to ensure that they can apply for grants and get the support they need. We are looking to introduce the ability to apply in respect of common land under the stewardship higher tier later this year. We will be trialling applications before we spread it out more widely.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that species-rich grassland is one of the clearest examples of regenerative farming in practice? Why, then, has support for it been removed from SFI 2026? How does that sit with the Government’s commitment to regenerative agriculture?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have tried to bring SFI into new areas because it is really important that smaller farms and different types of farms have the opportunity to get the grants to do regenerative farming. Alongside that, we are looking at other ways to support the kind of things the noble Baroness is talking about. It is also important to remember that, when there is a grant for something, it does not mean that is the only thing you can get a grant or support for. I would encourage landowners to look broadly at what we have to offer.

REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I will not detain the Committee for long, but this is a very important and intricate area. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has great experience of this from her time at the European Parliament. I remember visiting the European Parliament—it must have been almost 20 years ago—when REACH was being debated. It was, and I believe it remains, the largest piece of legislation ever passed by the European Parliament.

I did not have the benefit of the CIA briefing, but I will take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the CIA, because it does a great deal in this area and I have placed that on record. I have worked with it in the past, as with other organisations such as the Society of Chemical Industry and scientific bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry, which 20 years ago were taking a very close interest in this subject. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, because it has quite rightly raised some concerns.

My points are very brief. First, I understand the case for extending the current deadlines in the way that my noble friend has set out. I also understand the case for aligning the UK REACH submission deadlines with the development and implementation of the alternative transitional registration model. But I hope my noble friend will understand if I say that we hope that we will not be here in a few years with my noble friend making the case for further extensions to the deadlines. If there is any word of reassurance she can give on that, I would be very grateful.

My second point is to ask whether UK businesses still have difficulty accessing the hazard data required to support registrations. As I understand it, the data is still held by EU-based consortia under the provisions of EU REACH.

Thirdly—I apologise to the Minister in advance if I am wrong—am I right that in the last month 15 substances of very high concern were added to the UK list? I am encouraged by nodding elsewhere along the Benches. If this is true, can my noble friend say a little more about what the substances are? I understand that they are the first major additions to that list for some time. It would be interesting for the Committee to know the reasons for it and to be reassured that there are very good reasons for doing so.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we recognise the case for this measure and will support it. We do so because it is a pragmatic step to avoid a cliff edge—not because we believe the current system is in any sense satisfactory.

As described by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the chemicals sector could be described as the invisible backbone of our economy. It underpins everything from advanced manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, construction and consumer goods. It matters that we get the regulatory framework right, not just for the industry but for the people who work in it, the consumers and, importantly, the environment. The alternative transitional registration model, which the Minister described to us, is intended to reduce unnecessary duplication. According to the Government’s assessment, it could cut one-off industry costs by around 70%, or roughly—I think this is the estimate that the noble Baroness is looking for—around £2 billion. To stop that additional payment is extremely welcome, but businesses need certainty, not a rolling series of extensions that leave everyone guessing what comes next.

We very much appreciate that this Government are having to square the circle of a previous negotiation and a Brexit that we view as the gift that keeps on taking from the British people and from every industry in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I have four questions for the Minister.

First, can she set out the milestones that will determine whether the ATRm is delivered on time, given that the design and implementation are not, as she described, expected to be completed until summer 2027? The Committee needs some confidence that we are moving towards some kind of stable system, not simply pushing the problem further down the road. Will the Minister also confirm how progress will be monitored and how often updates will be published? What will trigger, in turn, some kind of remedial action if the timetable slips? There is a danger of the perception that the sector continues to run on a series of sticking plasters; I am sure she appreciates that.

Secondly, what assurance can she give that any future divergence from EU REACH will be strictly evidence led and transparent? I read somewhere that the system is like reading the description on the back of a book without having any of the information inside the book that is necessary to move at pace. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has already raised concerns about the lack of clarity around the circumstances in which the Government would diverge, and the Office for Environmental Protection has highlighted the problem of new EU hazard classes that have not yet been brought into GB law. How will the Government avoid creating an unpredictable system in which decisions appear to be made case by case, without a clear scientific basis? I think this is something that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was reaching towards. If the default position is alignment with EU REACH unless there are compelling reasons to diverge, we need to know what those reasons are, how they will be tested, and how the public and Parliament will be able to scrutinise them.

Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations. This is the right thing to do, and it is the right time to do it, because our energy security is under real pressure. We need every credible part of the low-carbon mix working as hard as it can.

This order will give legal effect to the decision that the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is justified under the 2004 regulations. It is a generic and non-site-specific decision. It does not authorise a single spade in the ground, still less the construction or operation of the reactor. All the real-world hurdles remain: environmental permits, a nuclear site licence, planning consent and all the other approvals that any serious project must secure. It was good to hear the reassurances on that front from the Minister.

That matters, because this Committee should be clear about what is being decided and what is not, as the Minister said. We are not approving a reactor to be built tomorrow; we are saying that, in principle, the design has passed the justification test. That is sensible, and we support it. But it is not the same thing as delivery, and we are clear that we do not want it to be confused with a regulatory green light, with progress on the ground.

Our central point is that we believe the best way to cut bills for everyone is to invest in home-grown renewable power, electricity storage and the infrastructure that gets clean electricity to where it is needed. That is where the quickest gains are, where the biggest jobs dividend is and where the strongest long-term energy security will come from. So we support SMRs and we support this justification decision, but we should not let the enthusiasm for emerging nuclear technology become an excuse to drift back into the bad old habits of overpromising on nuclear while underdelivering on renewables. Large-scale, expensive and slow-to-deliver nuclear projects have had years to demonstrate their value. Too often, they have done the opposite; they have tied up time, money and political attention that could have been used more productively and more proactively elsewhere.

That is why the balance matters. SMRs may well have a role to play, and this design may contribute to a more secure decarbonised grid, but the Government must be absolutely clear that the priority is not to deepen our dependence on the old model of nuclear development. The priority is to accelerate renewables generation, storage and the modern grid that can support them.

It will astonish the Minister to hear that I have only one question regarding this SI. How will the Government make sure that support for Rolls-Royce SMR does not slow down the pace of renewables and storage, so that we ensure that this is genuinely complementary rather than competitive with the faster deployment of the clean power that is already available? How will the Government avoid the familiar pattern in which nuclear projects absorb the oxygen while more agile solutions are left waiting in the wings?

We support this instrument but we do so on all those clear understandings—that it is part of a wider energy strategy, not a substitute one. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. I have several questions and would be more than happy for her to write if she is short of time or the relevant information. I also join in the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and there will be more about the Rock review later.

For these Benches, a central question raised by the Farming Roadmap 2050 remains: what, in practical terms, has changed in the short term for farmers on the ground as a result of this document? The language of clarity and partnership is welcome, of course, but many of the underlying challenges—income instability, an uncertain transition away from direct payments, and rising regulatory pressures—remain firmly in place. What immediate measures within the road map are intended to restore confidence, particularly for small and upland farms?

I turn to funding. The headline figure of £2.5 billion for England is in regular use, but there is limited clarity as to how that funding is allocated in practice. Can the Minister undertake to provide the House with a breakdown of how that budget is spent across the principal schemes, including the sustainable farming incentive, Countryside Stewardship, higher-level stewardship and capital grants? In addition, what proportion of that budget was actually spent in 2025-26 and what is the projected spend for 2026-27? Can the Minister confirm how many farmers have been in receipt of payments in each of the past six years and whether the Government expect that number to increase or decline under the new framework?

The reopening this week of the sustainable farming incentive is, of course, welcome. However, concerns remain about the operation of a first come, first served system. What assessment has been made of whether this approach risks favouring better-resourced farms with access to professional support, such as accountancy, over the small family farms that the early release scheme is intended to benefit?

The road map presents itself as a shared vision, yet it makes no direct reference to the tenant farmers review by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, which set out clear and practical recommendations on fairness, access and security for tenant farmers. Recommendations in this road map appear to have been informed by that review; it is just a bit of a shame that there is no explicit acknowledgment of that.

On land use, the document does not adequately address the complexity of common land arrangements, particularly in upland areas. Commoners operate within systems of shared rights that do not align easily with standard scheme design. What specific provisions are being made to ensure that those farming common land are not disadvantaged? I wonder whether, in that context, the Government will perhaps consider something such as a rolling over of higher-level stewardship agreements, with appropriate uplifts, to provide a certain level of continuity while a more suitable long-term approach is developed for what I am calling the common land conundrum, which affects around 4,000 farming businesses.

On trade, farmers continue to face a dual pressure: competition from imports produced to lower standards and friction in exporting to key markets, particularly the EU. I thank the Minister for keeping us regularly informed on progress on the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU. Would it be fair to say that some of the assumptions underpinning the road map mean that we need this resolved sooner rather than later? I wonder if even the date in the road map is a little too late.

The Government say that food security is national security. Can the Minister explain how the road map will improve the UK’s level of self-sufficiency, over what timeframe and against which measurable indicators?

Finally, at present, the gap remains clear between the laudable ambitions set out in the road map, which I think we can all support, and the immediate realities facing farmers. Can the Minister please explain how the Government intend to bridge that gap in practice in the meantime?

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

My Lords, there was an enormous number of questions—and, obviously, I do not have an awful lot of time. We are talking about the Statement on the road map; many of the questions are not about the road map and are much broader. As I have only a certain amount of time, I shall concentrate initially on the questions to do with the road map.

Questions were asked about the UK-EU SPS agreement, which is still ongoing. I am sure noble Lords are very aware that the summit was postponed. Currently, we do not have a new date for the summit, but we are continuing with negotiations. Just because the summit has been postponed, that does not mean that we are not continuing to engage with the EU. We are making good progress in a number of areas. Clearly, I am not able to tell the House about the specifics on gene editing, pesticides and so on while negotiations are ongoing, because I would not want to impact them or the outcomes in any way.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said that the environment and farming are being pitted against each other. I dispute that. We have a huge challenge in farming, which the road map is designed to tackle. That is why it is a long-term, 25-year plan. Farming is among the sectors most exposed to climate shocks, environmental degradation and growing resource pressures. So, we have a huge challenge here. How are we supposed to maintain food production and food security, and support profitable farming, while we move towards a lower-impact, market-led, climate-resilient system? That is what this road map is designed to do.

From our nature security assessment, we know that ecosystem degradation is a significant risk to food production. That is why, instead of the environment and farming being pitted against each other, we are trying to bring resilience to farming. We know that environmental resilience means that we have better food security and food production, and that is what the road map is designed to achieve.

We are trying to make farm inspections and environmental permitting more effective. We need to have inspections and permitting because we need to tackle issues such as water pollution, air pollution and problems with emissions. It is really important that we get farm inspections better organised. On a grant that we had a few years ago, we had three separate groups of people come round to inspect the same thing. That is what we have to stop—it is a waste of everyone’s time and money. We need to look at how we regulate and how we manage permits.

The noble Lord talked about land use. The Land Use Framework is an important document, because land management will be absolutely central to our commitment to maintaining domestic food production at at least its current level, while at the same time restoring biodiversity and, as I just mentioned, improving water and air quality and reducing emissions. One of the key things this document does is bring together our different policies. We have an animal welfare policy and the land use framework, as well as the different farming grants and taxations. We need to bring them together, because if farmers are to be able to properly plan for the long-term future, they need to understand how all these different things link together. Having too many different things going on at the same time is not helpful. That is something else we are trying to look at.

The document mentions the water Bill, alongside water pollution and things such as planning for reservoirs. Various things to do with farming and water that we need to be getting right are mentioned in the document.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the importance of restoring confidence. We absolutely need to do that, but there are so many things we need to do to ensure that farmers have that confidence. They need access to the right skills and advice—again, that is central to our approach. One of the important things about this road map is that we spent a lot of time talking to the sector, right across the board, because we wanted to hear what farmers had to say and what they were concerned about. A consistent message came through from whoever we spoke to: the need for clarity so that they could plan for the future. The overview of the road map is designed to answer that call for clarity so that farmers can plan. They need to know what the Government are looking to achieve and the future direction of travel, so that they can plan with confidence. Ultimately, farmers are businesses; you cannot plan for the future as a business unless you have some form of clarity and security in the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned uplands. Pages 37 and 38 of the document have a specific section on supporting upland farmers, and that includes improving access to schemes and support. One of the bees in my bonnet, as somebody in Cumbria, is that uplands have not had access to support, particularly regarding common land. I have spoken in this Chamber about that before, and I am pleased the noble Baroness raised it, as there is also a commitment in the document to ensure that

“support is accessible, practical and viable for common land”

where improvements are needed. That is why, given that the SFI has not been available for common land due to technical reasons, we have asked the RPA to look at this and try to come up with something that will work for common land. This is something I am very keen to encourage further.

On the breakdown of the budgets and the details on the numbers of different applicants, I think the best thing will be to write to the noble Baroness. She has requested quite a lot of detail, and I would not want to say something off the top of my head that was not entirely accurate.

On small family farms, we have just announced the latest SFI—the Written Statement on this has just come out—and the latest round is designed specifically to target and support smaller farms and those who have not had an agreement. We want to ensure that as many farms as possible are involved in agreements that help support sustainability, improving the environment while allowing them to continue to become more productive as farms.

That leads into the whole discussion around food security. We have to get this right. If we are to have food security for the long term, we have to get our soils right. We have to get our water pollution and our emissions right. This is why it is so important that we bring absolutely everything together.

Thinking about small farms brings me back to the comments made about Dartmoor and, again, uplands. It is important to remember that, as well as the farming road map, we are carrying out other things right now that are designed to make a difference. That comes back to the noble Baroness’s point: this covers 25 years, but what we are doing now? One of the things I am particularly excited about is the role Hilary Cottam will be playing in running pilot schemes in both Dartmoor and Cumbria on how to support those more challenging environments. Hopefully, that will make a real difference. She will be working with local communities as well as with Natural England.

On tenancy, it is great to see the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, in her place; she has done so much on tenancy. “A vibrant tenanted sector” is the headline on page 36. A lot of people do not realise just how large the tenanted sector is. It is incredibly important that it is supported in the way it needs to be. The Tenant Farmers Association welcomed the farming road map. I am looking forward to continuing to work in a constructive way with the noble Baroness on how we can make sure the tenanted sector gets what it needs out of this road map, so that we have long-term security and longer-term tenancies. The average tenancy is now only five years, which is not ideal, to say the least.

I have just about run out of time. The important thing here is that the Government are serious about having proper, long-term, year-on-year policy-making so that, instead of having short-term opportunities, farmers understand where the Government want to go. If farmers do not understand where the Government want to go, what we are trying to achieve and that we want to work with them on such things as innovation and skills—those long-term investment plans—they will never know where they are going to get the next grant or trade agreement from. That is what we are trying to achieve with this.

Thames Water

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I want to return to a point I raised in this House only last week when I asked whether the Government were delaying the clean water Bill pending resolution of the Thames Water situation. We were told then that the Government were ready to deploy a special administration regime, if required. Yesterday’s Statement raises a straightforward question: what has changed?

We are told that the Secretary of State has set out early views in a letter to Ofwat, but the underlying facts have been evident for so long: specifically, a highly leveraged company, prolonged financial fragility and ongoing environmental failure. Can the Minister share what threshold the Government are applying for intervention? Given that Thames Water has been operating without an investment-grade credit rating for a long period, does the Minister consider that this constitutes a breach of financial resilience expectations and, if so, why has it not triggered special administration, particularly on performance?

The Secretary of State has said she is not convinced by the latest recapitalisation proposal. That is significant. On what specific grounds has that conclusion been reached, and what tests are the Government applying to determine whether any proposal is credible, financeable and in the interests of the consumer?

Sixteen million customers are trapped in this monopoly. Does the Minister accept that a substantial proportion of customer bills is already being directed towards servicing debt? Indeed, one-third of every Thames Water bill is already spent solely on servicing the company’s massive debt. In assessing the current proposal, what explicit protections are being put in place to ensure that customers are not required, either directly through higher charges or indirectly through weaker outcomes, to absorb the cost of that debt?

Related to that, reports suggests that creditors are seeking adjustments to regulatory expectations. Can the Minister confirm whether any relaxation of performance or environmental standards has been proposed and share with us unequivocally whether the Government would permit such an approach?

On environmental performance, Thames Water was responsible for over 100,000 hours of sewage discharges last year. How are the Government weighing that record when considering the suitability of the current ownership and the current financing model?

Finally, the Government have repeatedly stated that special administration remains an available option. Can the Minister clarify what specific conditions would need to be met for that mechanism to be triggered, and over what timeframe?

Since the Conservative privatisation over 35 years ago, some £85 billion of bill payers’ money has gone mostly to overseas shareholders and executives, through things such as bonuses. Is it not time to blow the final whistle on this failed experiment and put the interests of the public and our environment first?

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions on this Statement. There are quite a lot of questions, so I will do my best to cover them but, as always, if I have missed anything out, we will get back to noble Lords.

First, it is important to point out that this letter is the Secretary of State simply offering her preliminary views. That is in line with the duties in Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. She puts forward those preliminary views for Ofwat to consider when it is making its decision, because it is important to be clear that it is for Ofwat, not government, to decide whether it rejects or accepts the proposal. Of course, the Secretary of State’s preliminary view, which is why we are making the Statement, is that she is not convinced that the proposal in its current form delivers for customers or for the environment, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender.

Also, while the company is considered to be stable at the moment, we stand ready for all eventualities. That includes being ready to apply for a special administration regime, if that becomes necessary. It is also important to clarify that there is a very high bar for the use of a special administration regime. The law states that special administration can be initiated only if the company becomes insolvent, or if it is in such serious breach of its principal statutory duties or an enforcement order that it is inappropriate for the company to retain its licence.

Regarding creditors and shareholders and what they would recover upon an exit of a SAR, again, the purpose of a special administration regime is not to bail out water company shareholders or creditors; it is to ensure that water and wastewater services continue if a water company fails. When a water company exits from special administration, which could be either via rescue or through transfer, the special administrator, not the Government, determines the level of repayment to creditors by applying the relevant insolvency legislation. The level of recovery that creditors may expect will be in accordance with the relevant insolvency legislation, and it is very unlikely that all creditors’ debt would be repaid at the end of a special administration, because of the priority order of repayment. I hope that helps answer some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, discussed the performance grounds. To apply successfully for a special administration on performance grounds, a strong evidence case must be made to the courts. In determining whether to apply to the court for a special administration regime, the Secretary of State must have regard to all the relevant facts and matters pertaining at the time and act in accordance with the applicable statutory duties.

On the environmental obligations raised by the noble Baroness, all companies must continue to meet their statutory obligations to customers and the environment, and regulators will continue to have a range of enforcement tools at their disposal.

It is not possible for creditors to ask for the debt to be repaid during a special administration regime because there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR that takes away a creditor’s ability to enforce debt repayments. However, employees have some protection in being able to recoup certain debts, such as unpaid wages, via the Redundancy Payments Service.

On customer impact, we have always been absolutely clear that Thames Water must meet its statutory and regulatory obligations to its customers and the environment. The Secretary of State has set out her preliminary views on this to Ofwat in the letter. The next steps are of course for Ofwat to decide. However, many concerns have been raised about not just Thames Water but other water companies and their approach to the environment, which is one of the reasons why, as a Defra priority, we will bring in a new water Bill later this year. A key element will be looking at environmental impacts.

People are obviously frustrated. One of the very first meetings I had when I became a Minister nearly two years ago was about Thames Water. It has been going on for a long time—it was going on before this Government. The business has been underperforming now for 15 years, which is a long time. It has regularly missed its performance targets and has racked up too much debt. It was right that the Secretary of State wrote to Ofwat to set out her preliminary thoughts on the next approach. Ofwat, with the support of government, has been in discussions with the London & Valley Water consortium—a group of Thames Water’s creditors—on the terms of the proposal being put forward. Clearly, a recapitalisation process of this size is complex and takes time. Although we will establish, through the forthcoming Bill to which I referred, a new, single, powerful regulator to replace Ofwat—so that we can work better when water companies fail in future—until the new regulator is established, Ofwat’s role remains. Therefore, it is still Ofwat’s decision on how we go forward.

I want to be clear that the Government are working with all water sector regulators to monitor carefully the performance of all water companies, including Thames Water. As I said earlier, if there are ever any problems, we stand ready to intervene, should it be required, because it is important that the continued provision of a vital public service in water supply and wastewater is continued. We will always act to protect the public interest.

We believe that any proposal has to be in the best interests of both consumers and the environment. It is important to note that the Secretary of State has written at this stage because we need time to understand the proposal and work it through. There are about 16 million Thames Water customers, so any decision that Ofwat makes must be done in the full understanding of various opinions, as well as on what is best for consumers and the environment. I hope that I have covered most of the questions raised; I will write if there are any further answers to give.

Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 15 April 2026.

This statutory instrument is one of the legislative measures being taken to implement the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—that is, the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. It helps implement the UK’s obligations in relation to environmental impact assessments for activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction within the remit of marine licensing. The UK must be able to meet all its obligations under the BBNJ agreement before it can ratify it. This statutory instrument will help enable that through amendments to the marine licensing regime.

Before I turn to the detail of the statutory instrument, I want to begin by underlining why it is so important that this Committee supports progressing this legislation. The BBNJ agreement is an implementing agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It aims to support the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This is a landmark international agreement that creates a legal framework to protect the two-thirds of the ocean that lie beyond any nation’s jurisdiction. These vast waters contain extraordinary biodiversity and ecosystems that are vital to the health of our planet and are home to sharks, whales, sea turtles and countless other species.

Primary legislation was needed in order to implement fully our BBNJ obligations. Accordingly, the BBNJ Bill was introduced last year and received Royal Assent on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in our journey towards ratification. We are now taking forward the secondary legislation that is needed for the UK to fully implement the agreement. This instrument is part of that work; it needs to be made before the UK can ratify the agreement and participate fully in the first Conference of the Parties, which we expect to take place in January 2027.

This instrument helps implement the UK’s obligations under part IV of the agreement, which requires environmental impact assessments for activities taking place in areas beyond national jurisdiction that could have a significant impact on the marine environment. Under the agreement, the UK is required to ensure that the potential environmental impacts of any planned activity in these areas are suitably assessed before a decision is taken to authorise the activity. This instrument makes provisions relating to activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction so that environmental impacts can be suitably considered in line with these obligations.

Currently, a small number of activities involving deposits, scuttling and incineration are already licensable in areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, to date, only two marine licences have been issued for such activities since 2011. This instrument extends the marine licensing regime to additional activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. These new activities correspond to types of activity that are already licensable when carried out in UK waters, such as construction or removal activities. Licensable activities carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction will include those carried out or controlled by UK persons, as well as activities undertaken from British vessels, aircraft, marine structures or floating containers.

This instrument makes a number of amendments to the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011. An exemption is added so that several of the new activities will not require a marine licence where they do not meet the threshold for needing an environmental impact assessment or a screening for an environmental impact assessment, as set out in the BBNJ agreement. This exemption reduces the burden on regulators and industry, while still ensuring that we can meet BBNJ obligations by enabling the new activities to be assessed first to determine whether they are lower impact or need a full environmental impact assessment. An exemption is also introduced for the removal of specific subsea cables carried out in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Removal of these cables has a low environmental impact and is considered to consistently fall below the BBNJ screening threshold.

Alongside this instrument, I highlight the Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026, which makes corresponding provision for activities within Scottish competence. These are activities that are regulated by the Scottish Government under devolved powers. The Scottish instrument adds new licensable activities to the licensing regime under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and makes other changes to that regime. This ensures that the Scottish licensing framework aligns with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement. The Scottish order was made in March 2026 and will come into force on the same day as the BBNJ agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom.

To avoid dual regulation, so that a marine licence is not required under both our licensing regime and the Scottish Government’s marine licensing regime for the same activity, this instrument provides for an exemption in relation to certain activities regulated under Part 4 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. This instrument also makes consequential amendments to ensure that existing exemptions and registration provisions can apply appropriately to activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This statutory instrument implements the necessary changes to marine licensing to enable the ratification of the BBNJ agreement. We are confident that its provisions will improve environmental protections in areas beyond national jurisdiction, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory burden. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this statutory instrument. We support the implementation of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—BBNJ—agreement and welcome this SI, which enables the United Kingdom to meet its international obligations under the global oceans treaty. We have long campaigned for stronger protection of the marine environment and support international action to conserve biodiversity in areas that until now have been beyond national jurisdiction, including the global goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030.

We note that the SI introduces a number of licensing exemptions for activities that the Government consider to pose a low environmental risk, such as the removal of cables, as described by the Minister. Although we recognise the need for a proportionate and workable regulatory framework, we believe that it will be important that these exemptions are kept under regular review and do not undermine effective environmental oversight as activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction develops over time. Although we support the implementation of this treaty and this SI, we remain clear that the Government must ensure that the new licensing exemptions do not in turn become loopholes in the future and that regulators are properly resourced to enforce the agreement effectively.

We think that some aspects warrant a bit of closer scrutiny, particularly the new exemptions introduced through Articles 39, 40 and 41. Those raise questions about the breadth of the regime. Although we understand in principle the exemption where a screening opinion concludes that an environmental impact assessment is not required, it rests heavily on an assumption of low environmental risk and the current low volume of applications. When I read up on this, I was absolutely mesmerised by the fact that only two licences exist at the moment. It is quite a large statutory instrument for just two operators.

Although only a small number of applications have been received to date, that position may change. There may be a discovery, and I guess the Government are trying to be ahead of the curve of a sudden gold rush, in effect, of dredging for essential minerals in the deep ocean. So I congratulate the Government on this, as it feels a bit ahead of the curve and that is really unusual. That is good. However, I noticed that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the UK itself was a little behind the curve in comparison with one or two other countries.