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.

Farming and Food Production

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, profitability is really important, which is why the Batters review was so important. As part of increasing profitability, we are already implementing some of the recommendations from that review. As I said, our full response will be arriving later this year, and we will look at what else we can do. It is really important that we work closely with farmers but also processors, other producers and the horticultural sector. It is really important that we look at what we can do to increase profitability in a number of areas, and also at trade and the ability of our farmers to export, because obviously that makes a big difference. Clearly, the SPS agreement that we are looking at negotiating at the moment will also support that.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that true food security cannot exist without climate resilience? Considering the recent severe weather disruptions to UK crop yields, will the Government’s priorities in this parliamentary Session include a legally binding good food Bill to formalise national self-sufficiency targets alongside nature restoration metrics? If not, why not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that no good food Bill was announced in the King’s Speech this time, and I cannot presume to guess what is going to be in the next King’s Speech. Clearly, resilience to climate change is absolutely critical. From different perspectives, we know that farmers struggle when we have severe flooding and that drought and wildfire risk is also a real problem, so improving resilience for farming to both very dry and very wet weather is an absolute priority for the Government. We have invested a record £2.65 billion in flood defences, for example, and that will include supporting farmers as well. The environmental land management schemes will also allow for grants to look at some of the impacts of climate change.

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.

Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 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, magnesium L-threonate monohydrate has recently been authorised as a novel food following a public consultation and a safety assessment by the Food Standards Agency, which concluded that it is safe under the proposed conditions of use. This instrument sets the purity criteria—that is, the required safety and quality standards—for this form of the mineral magnesium, to permit its use and sale in food supplements in England. The instrument is a routine and technical measure, which will ensure that food supplements regulations continue to operate effectively following the authorisation of novel substances for use in food supplements.

The regulatory approach taken here is well established. Where new substances are authorised, it is necessary to update the relevant legislation so that they can be used in practice, and to ensure that clear and enforceable quality standards are in place. Noble Lords will be aware that, under our existing legal framework, vitamins and minerals may be used in food supplements only if they are listed in legislation and meet appropriate safety and quality standards.

Magnesium itself is already a permitted mineral listed in legislation. However, different chemical forms of that mineral must also be specifically listed before they can be used. A related statutory instrument already laid under the negative procedure adds this substance to the list of permitted forms of magnesium. However, for food supplements containing this substance to be lawfully sold, purity criteria must also be established. An SI following the affirmative procedure is required to set the purity criteria for this substance in legislation. That is the sole purpose of the regulations before the Grand Committee today. The criteria specified in this instrument reflect the scientific specification assessed by the Food Standards Agency and will ensure that, where this substance is used, it is manufactured and marketed to a consistent and safe standard.

Food law is a devolved matter. This instrument applies in England only. Wales and Scotland have made equivalent amendments to their food supplements regulations and Northern Ireland applies the existing EU equivalent regulations, as required by the Windsor Framework.

It is important to emphasise that this measure is enabling, not mandatory. It does not require any business to use this ingredient or change its products. The use of this new optional substance will initially affect only the applicant who requested this authorisation and who benefits first from a five-year exclusive use period. During this period, only the applicant may use and sell magnesium L-threonate monohydrate as a form of magnesium unless another business obtains authorisation based on its own data or with the applicant’s permission. In the longer term, other businesses will benefit from the authorisation of this substance, supporting choice and product innovation while maintaining robust safety standards.

Food supplements legislation is in scope of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which will involve alignment with EU legislation in this area. In this case, the substance has already been authorised for use in the EU, so we expect no change in practice for businesses when alignment takes place. We therefore consider it appropriate to proceed now, following the Food Standards Agency’s safety assessment, to allow this substance to be used in GB as soon as possible.

To conclude, these regulations fulfil our requirements to update food supplements regulations where new substances have been authorised for use in food supplements, and they continue to uphold high standards of safety and quality for consumers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I rise for the fourth and final time. I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose. On these Benches, the priority is a fair deal for consumers, which means that all food supplements must meet the highest possible standards of quality and safety. The Food Standards Agency has assessed this form of magnesium as safe and on that basis we do not oppose its authorisation, but we have one or two questions about how the purity criteria will work in practice.

Water Companies

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

One thing we have been doing is working with landowners on small storage areas. We know it can be very effective in things such as flooding, as well as providing water for livestock, for example. It is a very good point because, as well as building new large reservoirs to provide drinking water, we need to look at how we put less pressure on our water system. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be very helpful.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, are the rumours true that the Government will not publish the water Bill until Thames Water is resolved? The company is in breach of its licence conditions by not having held any grade credit ratings for nearly the last two years and by having failed to tell Ofwat and the Government about change of control. The only plan for the future appears again to be to leave it up to shareholders to own and pillage. Its independent expert states that the cost to the Government of special administration would be zero in the medium term, so why not get on with it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware of any such rumours. I do not know where they have come from, but I am not aware of them. On Thames Water, the Government are actively working very closely with Ofwat, which is evaluating the latest proposals from the consortium. Clearly, in doing that it has to take the best interests of customers and the environment into account. We are looking at all and any eventualities that may come out of those discussions with Ofwat, which includes being ready to apply for a special administration regime if necessary.

South East Water: Disruption of Supply

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

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

The Government established the Water Delivery Taskforce last spring to ensure that we have sufficient water supplies and wastewater capacity to support the Government’s ambitions and the country as a whole. Having sufficient water supply is absolutely critical for the country, and is something that we are taking very seriously. I am sure the noble Earl will be interested in looking at how the proposals in the water Bill, which is coming later this year, will also help to support the long-term security of our water industry.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

At what critical point of failure are the Government willing to act in the interests of customers in the South East Water area, who have been failed time and again? Will the Government now urgently consider a different model from the previous Government—one which rejects shareholder profit being placed above investment in more resilient systems—and change to something like a mutually owned public-benefit model, or will we continue to see care homes struggling and businesses closing because they are failed by a service that is so fundamental? When exactly will we get a water Bill to fix this?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not think there is anybody in this House who would disagree that the water industry needs a serious shake-up. That is one reason why we brought in, as a priority, the Water (Special Measures) Bill when we came into power in the previous Session, and it is why a priority for this Session is the water Bill that will come later this year. Clearly, proper support for customers is critical. We cannot have a situation where customers cannot rely on their water service. We will be bringing in reforms in that Bill that should lead to greater control in order that we do not continually end up in the situation that we have ended up in recently.

Access to Nature Green Paper

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I meant she had never seen a red squirrel, which is very sad. I am also happy to pitch for a red squirrel on the cover of the Green Paper when it comes out.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Will the Minister explain how the Government’s planning reforms will improve access to nature and identify the most nature-deprived communities, given what feels like the absence of a clear strategy? Access to nature is the strongest driver of local pride, and there is significant public support for something along these lines, including the National Trust’s own Nature = Future campaign.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One reason we are determining the new national river walks in the places we are looking at is to get more deprived communities out into nature. That is why the Mersey Valley Way, which starts in Stockport, was chosen first. It gets people from those deprived communities out into nature, close to home. The figures we are getting at the moment suggest that it is being well used. It is incredibly important and we will continue to do what we can to encourage those who do not access nature to do so for their own health and mental well-being.

EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course, while the negotiations are ongoing—there are regular meetings, and it is reaching an intensive phase—I am afraid I cannot give any detail at all. However, as I said before, as a sovereign country we need to choose to align where it is in our national interest, but at the same time we need to ensure that where we have areas where we believe we need to be able to do our own thing, if you like, we are in a position to do so. But, as I say, those negotiations are still ongoing.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, how will the Minister ensure that farmers, consumer groups and innovators are not only consulted but that their concerns get to directly shape the final SPS agreement? Although I understand that the negotiations are ongoing, is she able to give any kind of guarantee here today that there will be explicit safeguards for novel foods and precision fermentation so that regulatory alignment does not stifle British innovation?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, while negotiations are ongoing, I am unable to give guarantees, but I will say that we are working extremely closely with all those who would be impacted by the outcomes of any SPS agreement, particularly on agri-foods. We meet very regularly with farmers, producers, hauliers and supermarkets—I spent last week in Northern Ireland doing a big business round table with Northern Ireland producers particularly on this—so we are very keen to ensure that we hear from everyone who is likely to be impacted.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, listening to this debate, it becomes apparent just how diverse our nation’s agriculture is. For every remark by one speaker, there is probably someone who knows about agriculture in a different part of the country, in a different sector, where it is not directly relevant. But the message that comes across—and I declare my interests in agriculture in Cumbria, which the Minister knows about—has the same effect: what ought to be a profitable activity, providing public goods, which is not merely food but a whole range of other things, becomes unsustainable quite simply because it does not pay. It does not matter how you look at this; at the end of the year, if income and expenditure do not balance, then that enterprise cannot survive for all that long.

I think that government has an important role to play in every advanced western society. The Government provide a framework around which farming, agriculture and land use functions, not least because the consequences of what is done are so important in widely varying ways to other parts of the economy. What worries me about the debates on agriculture in this country is that, if agriculture is not sustainable and if the businesses, be they big or small, become unsustainable and cannot survive on their own commercial terms, either because they cannot generate enough revenue from husbandry or other land use activities that they carry out, or, equally important, because of the incidence of tax that they will have to pay—it is no good thinking that an inheritance tax is a kind of one-off thing; the reality is that you have to put aside money year on year in order to build up a reserve or, alternatively, borrow money which then has to be paid off over a long period to pay off the debt that is owed to the state—we will continue in a world where many of those who are operating in a smaller way in the agricultural sector are on standards of living below those promised to the employed sector by the minimum wage.

That is not the basis for a long-term, sustainable, rural, agricultural food sector. I believe that we will end up, if we are not careful, in those kinds of circumstances, because the analysis that is necessary behind working out what the policy needs to be is not the kind of thing that is simply learned in an economics course or an agricultural economics course at a university. It depends on an understanding of the realities of what carrying out this business entails. My concern about the context of the debate this evening is that policy is not being made with sufficient understanding and recognition of the realities of what is underlying this whole part of the economy. If you do that, it will not work. Already in agriculture, the rate of return that people expect is probably 2% or 3%. Who in the commercial world—I have chaired some commercial companies—will invest getting the rates of return that you get from agriculture?

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It was fine; they are good words. But good words are not enough here. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who normally sits across the Chamber, said on a number of occasions, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. The litmus test for agricultural policy, like every other policy, is: is it engendering a sector of the economy that is working in the public interest? I am deeply concerned that the way in which it is being approached by the present Administration is not going to bring that about.

Finally, as somebody who is also about to leave, I would like to add my sentiments to what a number of others have said about the way in which the whole infrastructure of the House has supported my work here. I make a particular reference to the nurse, whose name I never knew, who identified that I got sepsis and sent me straightaway to hospital.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Sorry, I was so fascinated—I was pondering the thought.

I thank the Minister for setting out with such clarity this statutory instrument and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing forward his regret amendment, which has created an opportunity for a much broader-ranging and, I think we can agree, interesting debate. It has been an absolute privilege to be here for the last speeches by, for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Inglewood. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on various issues—sometimes we did not agree on one or two of them, it must be said—and with my colleague on the Conduct Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is a fairly typical in-the-background public service to protect the reputation of this place, for which he should be thanked and we should be enormously grateful. It is fitting that we have heard from so many experts, particularly on this area.

On the regulations before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long-term foundation in our view for supporting agriculture. We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform cannot mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. In a way, the question before us tonight is not whether the change is needed but whether this stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those most affected; we have heard evidence that it is not.

The first concern is the pace and scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change, yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available. For businesses operating on tight margins, that creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long-term planning. A transition, as we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining the very resilience it is expected and hoped to build.

Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going. I appreciate that the Minister set out some of this in her opening remarks, but the NFU—I thank it for its briefing—has made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes. It says that there remains a lack of clarity, and in some cases confidence, about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.

Thirdly, there is the impact on different types of farm. Smaller and family-run farms are often less able to absorb sudden changes in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support will become unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. We have heard already about the economic consequences of that.

There is the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. We believe the shift away from direct payment is justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focused system, but that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers participating fully in new schemes, we risk weakening farm viability and environmental progress at the same time. The position of these Benches is therefore balanced; we support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support, but we share the concerns of this Chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.

I have three brief questions but, as we are nearly at the end of the Session, if the Minister wishes to answer in writing, I would be more than happy to receive that. First, what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms being pushed into financial difficulty? Secondly, can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? Thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? I particularly refer the Minister to paragraph 78 of the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that we ask her

“about the financial impact of the transition to the new support schemes, especially on small farmers”.

These are very practical questions.

In closing, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. It has been an absolute honour working with him on opposite Benches. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal Motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue—I reminisced more fondly than he did. Having these kinds of amendments and ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is critical for the issues we have heard about this evening, so I thank him for raising this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of broad concerns have been raised that I will do my best to address now. For any outstanding specific questions, we will look at Hansard and ensure that we write to noble Lords with more detailed responses.

The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way to support our farmers, protect food security or restore nature. We should continue to invest in the environmental land management schemes and the range of grants and other support for farmers which deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity.

Concerns were raised about farm profitability and the impacts on farmers of the phasing out of direct payments. I will go over some of this. We recently published our 2025 farming and countryside programme evaluation report, which sets out an assessment of the impacts of the first three years of phasing out direct payments. It includes a detailed look at the key transition channels for the sector, which include rents, diversification income, income from agri-environment schemes and productivity improvements.