Plastic Pollution Reduction
Baroness Grender Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that eight out of 10 of the top councils for recycling in England are led by the Liberal Democrats? Would it surprise her to learn that Green-led councils are not even in the top 20? Mid Suffolk, the Greens’ only majority council, comes in at 162, and when they controlled Brighton, it was one of the worst in the country.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am quite shocked to hear that the Greens are not as good as we would have expected them to be. I am sure the noble Baroness opposite may have something further to say on that.
Farming Road Map
Baroness Grender Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend has covered all the different areas that the farming road map is intended to address. Its whole purpose is as a long-term strategy: it is not quick fixes and it is not reactive. It will address many of the issues that she talked about. I cannot pre-empt what it will say ahead of publication, but we are certainly looking to address those matters. The fertiliser market is clearly global. While we do not have an immediate risk to UK supply, we know that the market price in the UK is strongly influenced and impacted by international prices. The situation in the Middle East is concerning and we are monitoring it closely.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Government ensure, as urged by the National Trust, that the Farming and Food Partnership Board includes at least one environmental landowner or NGO, so that the road map, when published, will have been shaped by a wide range of stakeholders in farming policy and will deliver for people, food and the environment together?
Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling
Baroness Grender 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 agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious issue that we need to move on as soon as we can. We have proposed that we will do this by the end of the year. The big issue is the sheer number of responses that were received; it is taking a long time to go through them. Also, the proposed by-laws are very substantial. We are absolutely determined to get it right. It is better to take the right amount of time to come out with the right decisions that will genuinely make the differences that we need to see in our marine environments.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Is the Minister confident that the Government can justify calling these marine protected areas when bottom trawling is still permitted in 90% of them, resulting in 20,000 hours of suspected bottom trawl fishing last year? An outright ban would mean that there is no need to monitor that. We are still waiting for the much-promised ban that was promised in the general election. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are all asking, “When, when, when?”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, we are working with the Marine Management Organisation on this, because we need to get it right. We had a huge number of responses. There is also ongoing research at the moment that needs to be taken into account. The way we are looking at this is that each marine protected area is set up to protect specific species or habitats. Regulators look carefully at what those are and how different types of fishing affect those different habitats and species. It is quite complex, so it is important that any decisions we make will make the biggest difference they can.
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026
Baroness Grender Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 26 February.
This Government are committed to delivering the clean power mission, which is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, lowering household energy bills and driving long term economic growth. Crucially, clean power is one of the most important tools we have to tackle climate change. This statutory instrument represents an important milestone in the Government’s delivery of the clean power mission. It is not only about accelerating offshore wind; it is also a real opportunity to deliver meaningful, lasting gains for nature. This SI reflects this Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand and that, with the right approach, they absolutely can.
I will begin by setting out the issue that this SI will address. When compensating for impacts to protected sites, developers must follow the mitigation hierarchy; that means they must first avoid, and then minimise and mitigate, impacts on protected sites. Once those steps have been taken, developers are required to compensate for unavoidable impacts, normally with measures that benefit the impacted feature affected. As our offshore wind capacity grows, securing compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features is becoming increasingly difficult. This challenge has become one of the main reasons for delays in consenting decisions.
This statutory instrument tackles that issue by widening the range of suitable compensatory measures for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available to compensate for the impacts of offshore wind, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. These will benefit ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. In doing so, this statutory instrument will not only remove one of the main obstacles to timely consenting but open up new opportunities to enhance and invest in nature.
So, rather than limiting compensatory measures to a single feature, developers could support broader initiatives, such as programmes to strengthen sea-bird populations. Through innovative approaches such as these, the statutory instrument demonstrates this Government’s commitment to ensuring that nature and economic growth can be achieved in unison.
Defra’s offshore wind environmental improvement package has been designed to strike exactly that balance. It brings forward measures that simplify the consenting process, supporting faster, more efficient decision-making, while continuing to protect our marine environment and meet the UK’s domestic and international commitments. This package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach to environmental compensation for offshore wind. This has been demonstrated through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the launch of the marine recovery fund.
This statutory instrument is another essential part of that package. Building on its existing successes, it will increase flexibility to further accelerate the deployment of offshore wind, while continuing to protect and enhance our marine environment. Today, by approving this statutory instrument, I believe we have the opportunity to deliver an approach for environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind that facilitates our transition to clean power and delivers for nature.
Before I turn to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its thorough examination of this statutory instrument. The committee’s report raised concerns regarding the laying of the statutory instrument without publishing the accompanying draft guidance. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the policy intent has been set out transparently through the material already provided. I was pleased that the committee welcomed the publication of a policy note alongside this instrument, providing helpful context and information.
This statutory instrument has been laid ahead of the accompanying guidance, to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can proceed without delay, while we take the necessary time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard. The guidance will support implementation once it is published on 21 May. This date will coincide with the statutory instrument coming into force, ensuring that all stakeholders have clear, comprehensive guidance in place from the first day.
The guidance will provide technical and practical support to developers and relevant public bodies, including consenting authorities. We have shared the draft widely with stakeholders and the devolved Governments to ensure that it is robust, aligned across the UK and, importantly, fully fit for purpose when published. I believe that the published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.
I now turn to the details of the legislation. This statutory instrument will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of practical environmental compensatory measures, as I said in my introduction. Without action to expand the compensatory measures that are currently available, the UK’s ability to unlock its offshore wind potential will be constrained.
The territorial application of this statutory instrument is the UK. It has effect in relation to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and for certain offshore wind functions in Welsh and Northern Ireland inshore waters.
We are amending the existing regulations to introduce a new bespoke compensation duty for offshore wind. This will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network.
Environmental safeguards sit at the heart of our new approach. The environmental safeguards will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature. As part of this, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. This requires developers to select compensatory measures in line with the hierarchy and to prioritise those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. This hierarchy is a central pillar of the environmental safeguards underpinning these reforms.
Another key safeguard is the role of statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider this expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.
As part of these reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is that this will bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact: for example, by targeting actions that contribute directly to improving the ecological resilience and long-term health of multiple marine protected areas.
All this work will feed into a wider review that assesses the impact of our statutory instrument on offshore wind developments and the environment. This review will be published by April 2031, with further reports following at intervals of no more than five years.
I recognise that there may be concerns about the reforms amending the current regulatory approach, so I want to be absolutely clear that this Government are firmly committed to delivering on our climate and nature ambitions. This statutory instrument implements necessary and timely change to the environmental compensation requirements for the offshore wind sector. We are confident that its provisions will uphold strong environmental protections, enable substantial and sustainable growth in offshore wind and ensure that nature and clean energy continue to progress side by side. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the statutory instrument. There is no doubt that climate change is an existential threat that demands urgent and transformative action. The soaring temperatures, floods and rising sea levels that we see are not distant warnings but present realities affecting millions.
We, the Liberal Democrats, have long championed recognition of the climate emergency and the need for a fair deal for our environment, central to which is a clean energy revolution. We are committed to an industrial strategy with tackling climate change at its core, and to a goal of generating 90% of the UK’s electricity from renewables by 2030. Offshore wind is vital to achieving that, and removing unnecessary barriers is overdue. We also recognise the Government’s ambition of reaching 43 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, which is essential for our net-zero goals and energy security.
But this transition must go hand in hand with the protection of our precious wildlife. We cannot solve the climate crisis by exacerbating the nature crisis. Our view is clear: we must double the size of the protected area network and the abundance of species by 2050. Britain’s seas currently face serious strains. Recent sea-bird statistics show continuing declines and, tragically, 10 of the UK’s breeding sea-bird species are now red-listed. Without effective compensation, the expansion of offshore wind risks pushing vulnerable species even closer to the edge.
We support the aim of the pragmatic tier system for environmental compensation in this statutory instrument. However, we share the concerns of organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts about the inclusion of tier 3 and strongly suggest that this is revisited and perhaps revised. I thank the Wildlife Trusts for their briefing on this matter.
Under these regulations, tier 1 and tier 2 measures provide direct or closely related ecological benefits to the affected species or habitat. We are concerned that tier 3 is different. It would allow measures that give broader benefits across a wider marine protected area network without a direct link to the species or site damaged. I look forward to being corrected on this by the Minister if I have got it wrong. That risks weakening the principle of ecological coherence. For example—I would be very happy to hear a response to this specific example—harm to a kittiwake colony should not be compensated through unrelated education projects that do nothing to restore the lost birds.
Trail-hunting
Baroness Grender Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I commend the noble Lord on his earlier fitness—I do not know if he still carries it out. It is important to stress that there are no plans to include other activities, such as drag hunting and clean boot hunting, in the ban on trail-hunting. The noble Lord makes a really important point about enforcement. I have asked for a meeting with Home Office Ministers to discuss exactly that, in not just this area but others within Defra, as we feel that we need to work much more closely with the Home Office to ensure the enforcement of the laws that we bring in.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to ensure that any future decision in this area, particularly on trail-hunting, is evidence-led as much as possible and based on assessing whether it causes harm to animal welfare, biodiversity and public confidence in law? The economies of so many rural communities are extremely diverse, with many more people in the countryside participating in, for instance, rambling and orienteering than trail-hunting.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I reassure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that, when I look at future policy and legislation as part of my role as a Minister, it is incredibly important that everything is evidence-led and, where scientific evidence is needed, that we take the most up-to-date scientific evidence into account.
Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms
Baroness Grender Excerpts(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We believe that it is important to encourage smaller farms and those without existing agreements to come forward to access the grants that are available to make their farms more sustainable. It is a little sweeping to say that they are not economic. All farms are different, and it often depends on how they are managed. As the noble Lord said, there is a second window opening in September to which all farms will be able to apply. We are looking to support all farms in increasing food production. Food productivity is an important part of the Batters review. Much of what we are doing in the new offer and in the farming road map is in response to the Batters review’s recommendations.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the definition of a small farm within the SFI recognises the contribution of smaller, diversified family farms to nature recovery and local food production? How will the Government avoid favouring larger land holdings that may find it easier to access the 71 requirements—admittedly down from over 100—of the still complex scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have tried to reduce the complexity of the scheme. We want to make it more straightforward for more farms and different types of farms to access. There are opportunities for horticultural growers, which are often smaller farms as well. We are looking to better support tenant farmers and, importantly, are doing more to support people who farm on moorland and in upland areas. If we are to support sustainable farming, we need to encourage all farms to feel that they are part of what the Government are trying to achieve.
PFAS
Baroness Grender Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are a central part of the Government’s programme and a priority for Defra. We are looking at the Cunliffe report extremely carefully; it is an important piece of work.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why, when PFAS contamination of marine life and wildlife is already so widespread and understood, the Government are choosing what looks like a pathway of delay and of more research, more information and consumer choice, and considering only limited change to products such as waterproof clothing and period products rather than pursuing a more aggressive approach attempting to ban PFAS now?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we want to move forward as quickly as we can. The noble Baroness and others will be aware that we are working with the EU at the moment. There are negotiations. We know that the EU is looking at its own approach and, clearly, we need to take that into consideration and to work alongside it. It is important to remind noble Lords that PFAS is a large and complex group of over 15,000 chemicals. There are significant differences in chemical structure and toxicity, so it is important that we work alongside the EU to tackle this effectively and efficiently for the long term.
British Farming: Competitiveness
Baroness Grender Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have been very clear when working on our trading agreements with other countries that our standards are sacrosanct. We will not allow deals that undermine the standards that we have in this country. We are investing £11.8 billion in the farming budget over this Parliament, so we are absolutely serious about building our farming road map and responding positively to the Farming Profitability Review from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. It is really important that any products that are produced to different environmental or animal welfare standards can be placed on the UK market only if they comply with the strict requirements that we put in place.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the way to help with this significant issue would be the Government achieving their own manifesto promise of getting at least 50% of food supply to the public sector produced by British food producers. Can the Minister share with us what is preventing the Government achieving that with some urgency?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that we talked in our manifesto about the importance of public procurement in supporting our food industry. The Procurement Act allows contracts for certain value thresholds also to be reserved for smaller UK suppliers. We want to look at the big suppliers and the smaller suppliers in order that we can deliver that manifesto commitment as best we can, because 50% is a large amount of our food procurement. Last year, we had a new national procurement policy statement, which puts emphasis on weighting environmental and social outcomes in government contracts. British farmers and local suppliers will be very well placed to meet those outcomes.
Forest-Risk Commodities
Baroness Grender Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, what projections have the Government made of the impact on regional GDP and jobs if UK food and retail businesses lose market share because overseas competitors can show that they are stronger on deforestation-free credentials? Will the Minister commit to publishing any economic modelling behind their current chosen timetable and the scope for these due diligence regulations?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Due diligence, particularly around trade and standards, is incredibly important. We want, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, to grow our economy in this country, but at the same time we must support business and ensure that we are doing so in a way that is sustainable—whether it is to do with the environment or human rights and so on. We discussed the issues she talks about with the Department of Trade, and we will continue to have very close discussions with it on how we continue to grow sustainable businesses in this country.
Yorkshire: Sustainable Water Management Solutions
Baroness Grender Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Protecting homes is clearly very important. The national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk, published in January last year, shows that around 6.3 million properties in England are at risk of flooding. With climate change, we believe that this could increase to 8 million. So this is a really important point, and I assure the right reverend Prelate that it is a government priority. If we are going to solve these problems, this is about not just Defra but us working with the MHCLG and more broadly across government. We are putting forward the largest flood and coastal erosion programme in history, with £2.65 billion to better protect properties by March this year. We have started completing those schemes, and we will keep investing in this. It is a priority.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We have plenty of time. We will have the Lib Dems first, then the Conservatives.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that Yorkshire Water, and others, are effectively exploiting loopholes in the Water (Special Measures) Act? How will they urgently be prevented from rewarding themselves for a polluting and failing service—whether it is called a bonus, a retention payment or, in the case of Yorkshire Water, so-called “fixed fees” of over £1 million, on top of a large salary for the chief executive? Should this money not be returned?