Wild Camping
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they are giving to extending the right to wild camping beyond Dartmoor to other National Parks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that last month’s Supreme Court judgment upheld the public’s right to continue to wild camp on Dartmoor—one of our country’s most beloved landscapes, with its iconic moorlands. The Government continue to recognise the importance of providing access to the outdoors. We will increase access to nature for all, including in our national parks, and work to ensure that this is safe and appropriate, leaving a legacy for generations to come.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I am glad she recognises how courageous the Dartmoor National Park Authority was in defending the public’s right to wild camp or backpack camp on Dartmoor. She will know that it took years of good practice, developing a camping code and maps of where camping took place, and working with landowners and stakeholders to arrive at a very happy solution for both the public and just about all the landowners. Will the Government build on this good practice to make good on their promise to extend countryside access? Will they use Dartmoor’s experience to enable other national park authorities and national landscapes to offer what is a truly magical experience of camping out under the stars and being awakened by larks?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I wonder what kind of larks the noble Baroness envisions; she makes wild camping sound very exciting. She asks a very important question. The Government currently have no plans to extend wild camping as a guarantee in other national parks. Every national park is different, so it is important that each one can decide for itself what is appropriate in its area. Wild camping may be illegal, but in some national parks it is allowed where appropriate. For example, in the Lake District, which I know best, people are allowed to camp above the highest wall and stay for one night; they have to make sure that they leave no mess. That works very well. In addition, as we discuss this, we need to be very clear about what we mean when we discuss “wild camping” and “illegal camping”.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, in considering this matter, would the Government kindly remember that the lack of understanding of the meaning of, and rights under, wild camping is likely to be comparable to the lack of understanding of the meaning of national park? When I represented the southern part of the Lake District in another place for 33 years I lost count of the number of complaints I got about visitors who thought that national parks meant that they could set up their tent and cook their breakfast in anybody’s garden that they happened to pass.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
This is exactly the point I was making about the difference between wild camping and illegal camping. I walked my dog at Ennerdale Water this weekend, and there were clear signs saying, “No camping, no fires”. Yet, as I walked along the lake, there were two tents. This is a real problem because these people often do not respect the environment that they are in. It is important that, while we encourage camping in the right areas and wild camping where it is appropriate, we also ensure that does not cause any damage to the environment or problems for landowners.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, as someone who enjoys larking around Dartmoor as much as possible, I can attest to the fact that it is a very finely balanced ecosystem. We will all be aware of the excellent work being done by the Prince of Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall in trying to regenerate some of the upland areas of the moor. Although I fully support responsible wild camping, unfortunately the same cannot be said for irresponsible wild camping. That was a particular problem in many national parks and lochsides across the country during Covid. Does the Minister agree that the Government must do everything they can to ensure that legislation and advice, such as that given by the Dartmoor National Park Authority on how to behave on the moor, is rigorously adhered to?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, it is a real problem. The noble Lord mentioned Covid, and the amount of rubbish left behind by illegal campers then was shocking. People abandoned their tents and all their rubbish. Who does the clean up? It is the National Trust, the national parks and the general public. He is absolutely right that this is not acceptable. However, at the same time, we have to recognise that some people camp very responsibly, in the right places and in the right way—and Dartmouth is an excellent example of that. As we develop our access strategy and promote the Countryside Code, which is also important, we will take all this into account.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I do not have strong views on wild camping; like the Minister, I am content with it as long as it does not damage the environment, the landscape, private property or farmers’ fields, and every national park has the right to decide about it locally. However, I have very strong views on people lighting fires in the countryside, whether they are camping, picnicking or just visiting. Fires in national nature reserves and moorland do enormous damage, such as destroying one-third of the magnificent Thursley Common nature reserve in 2020. They do not happen spontaneously because of global warming; in every case, people have caused the fires by discarding cigarettes or disposable barbecues. Accessing the countryside is one thing but no one has a God-given right to set fire to it with barbecues. Will the Minister give full support to all national parks, national nature reserves and Natural England by encouraging organisations and landowners to ban the use of disposable barbecues in the countryside?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I mentioned walking my dog at Ennerdale Water, where there are signs saying, “No fires”. Yet, I regularly walk along the lake and see clear evidence of people lighting fires and even chopping down saplings to try to light those fires. We need better understanding around responsibility in the countryside.
Local authorities currently have powers to ban the use of sky lanterns or disposable barbecues if they so wish. Existing powers in legislation can be used to regulate the lighting of fires in national parks and protected national landscapes. We also have the “respect, protect and enjoy” code around wild camping, which would include fires. With the dry summers we are seeing, it is becoming much more of an issue. The irresponsible use of disposable barbecues is particularly worrying; we know that we have had fires in the countryside because of them.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, given Labour’s manifesto commitments to improve responsible access to nature and enhance community rights to green space, can the Minister clarify what specific changes we can expect in the law and whether the rumours of a Green Paper are true? If they are not, can the Minister tell us why the opportunity of the Planning and Infra- structure Bill has not been used to deliver on those promises in order to overcome some of the persistent barriers for people in accessing the outdoors?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are extremely keen to increase access to nature; I am particularly keen to improve access for those who are the most disadvantaged in their ability to access it, whether that is through distance, culture or whatever. We are doing a lot of work. I have an excellent team working on the access policy at the moment. We are working extremely hard to come up with good access policies, including the national river walks, the new national forests and the other work that we are doing, in order to deliver on that promise.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, would it be important in these circumstances to arrest people for loitering with intent?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I think that that would be a matter for the police and the Home Office.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming and land management interests in Wales. Last year, mountain rescue services in England and Wales were called out to an incident every single day; in Scotland, they were called out more than 1,000 times during the year. Can we—pardon the pun—proceed with caution on any scope to widen public access in our national parks?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says. I have friends in mountain rescue. I bumped into one of them at the weekend; they had been particularly busy. The important thing is that the people who call out mountain rescue are often completely and utterly ill equipped for what they are doing. That seems the biggest problem. Mountain rescue is there to help people who get into trouble. If you have fallen and broken your ankle or there is a particular problem, that is absolutely what it is there for, in the same way as any other emergency service. To be blunt, the people who try to climb mountains in flip-flops and without proper maps—we have had this in Cumbria, believe it or not—are the ones who really need our attention, shall we say.
Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for introducing this Motion and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today with such passion and energy. I have, as ever, listened very carefully to all the concerns that have been raised, but I want to draw the attention of noble Lords back to the very positive impact that this legislation has.
Protecting our biosecurity is of paramount importance to address the climate and biodiversity crisis. This instrument introduces and amends protective measures against high-risk plant pests in Great Britain, as identified by our risk and horizon scanning process. As a result, this instrument protects biosecurity and supports trade in the UK. As part of these technical changes, this instrument recategorises certain plants and plant products, again following the completion of the risk assessments, as committed to under the Border Target Operating Model. This is part of an ongoing technical review of plant products subject to plant health import requirements and maintains the GB plant health regime as risk-based and proportionate. This instrument also amends certain official control measures to exclude large plants, plant products and other objects from the requirement for unloading in an area with a roof. This provision enables the implementation of appropriate biosecurity standards in those cases.
I emphasise that this instrument does not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom or treat Northern Ireland as a third country. Indeed, several of the measures in the instrument actually ensure that Great Britain is applying measures already in place in Northern Ireland. I am sure that noble Lords will not be surprised when I remind the House that the island of Ireland has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. Under this regime, Northern Ireland implements official controls and additional protections in response to pest risks to maintain its biosecurity as part of the island of Ireland.
This instrument also upholds the Government’s policy of unfettered market access in relation to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Indeed, the Windsor Framework underscores Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. The UK Government want to see the Windsor Framework’s benefits realised for the benefits of businesses and people in Northern Ireland, and right across the UK, in a manner that meets our international obligations, so I am pleased to state that the devolved Governments gave their consent for these regulations to extend across Great Britain. The UK Government and all devolved Governments will continue to work closely together on plant health issues via the UK plant health provisional common framework.
Noble Lords may be interested to note that I had a meeting only this morning with representatives from all devolved Governments—with Ministers—to discuss the BTOM in the context of the SPS agreement. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in support of his Motion, and to other contributors in today’s debate, and have been struck by our shared commitment to protect UK biosecurity.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for supporting the SI this evening. In respect of the late hour, I will address the noble Lord’s points that relate directly to the legislation which is in front of this evening. I will go through Hansard and any questions that I have not answered I will answer in writing— for example, on the fees, for which I do not have the details with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked why the SI applied only to GB. As I said, the island of Ireland has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. The important thing that these regulations are doing is amending the GB-specific phytosanitary legislation to ensure that the biosecurity risks posed to the United Kingdom are addressed. These are already covered in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work closely with Northern Ireland on plant health issues. Northern Ireland will continue to play a full and comprehensive role in technical and policy decisions via the UK plant health provision or common framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to the Explanatory Memorandum and third countries. To reassure him, this SI applies phytosanitary controls to European Union and rest of the world goods when entering Great Britain. That is the third country mentioned in the EM. A number of noble Lords mentioned the SPS agreement, asking what was in it and what checks would remain. The agreement will cover SPS standards and controls and wider agri-food rules related to food labelling, organics, key marketing standards and compositional standards, as well as pesticides. This is regarding checks, specifically. This will further bring down costs for UK businesses by removing the majority of regulatory trade barriers to agri-food trade, hopefully helping with the trade drop that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referenced earlier.
We want to get the best deal for British businesses and British people. There is a very limited scope of application to the agreement. We are making commitments to regulate consistently only where that commitment removes a barrier to trade. The EU cannot unilaterally dictate the regulations which the UK must implement. The UK will have to agree and then implement any new rules. It is not like when we were a member state and EU law could flow into the UK even if we had voted against it. We are not returning to those arrangements. This is about regulating in the same way in some limited areas where the UK will also have a role in shaping the relevant laws as they are designed. Again, with regard to the SBS agreement, I have been asked for some specifics, but, because detailed negotiations are ongoing, I cannot provide that information at the moment. But it will come to the House in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked why the SPS border has to be in the Irish Sea. The Windsor Framework recognises Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and therefore prevents the hard border on the island of Ireland. There is a need to maintain the biosecurity of the island of Ireland. Some pests that could pose a risk to Northern Ireland, such as protected zone pests, are present in Great Britain. Therefore, it is appropriate to have procedures in place to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
To be honest, I am not going to take any interventions; it has gone 11 pm.
On plant health threats, the UK Plant Health Service, as I mentioned earlier, has Defra, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, DAERA and the Forestry Commission as part of it. So it is properly considered and looked at. The noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Roborough, talked about the removal of border checks putting biosecurity at risk, looking in particular at the rising pest risk in the EU. The agreement will explicitly allow for the UK to take action to protect biosecurity. This will mean that the UK has access to EU databases and other systems to help us do this. This is a big benefit. The common understanding is that the UK should be able to take targeted action to protect its biosecurity in public health, in the same way as member states can in the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned FMD protection for Northern Ireland. As he said, Northern Ireland is protected under the biosecurity regime of the EU. Northern Ireland implements official controls and additional protections in response to risk, such as measures related to pest-free areas, traceability and additional notification requirements for the highest- risk goods in order to maintain the island of Ireland’s biosecurity.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about Popillia japonica. The noble Baroness rightly said that the reason these pests are mentioned in this SI is that the new requirements are already in place in Northern Ireland, so this is bringing the rest of GB into alignment with Northern Ireland; that is what the SI does.
Lord Lilley (Con)
The Minister has not replied to a single point I made. If the bug does not exist in Ireland, why are we inspecting goods coming from Ireland?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There are plenty of bugs that do not exist in our other countries and are far away that still have the propensity to come here or could possibly arrive here. Therefore, we need to be absolutely vigilant regarding any new potential pests and diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the devastating consequences if we do not do that, so we absolutely need to be doing this.
I just have a couple of points and then I am going to wind up, because it is getting late. I will go to Hansard and write on any outstanding points. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the trade and co-operation agreement and that its review is due next year. I will take that back to the department and speak about the noble Lord’s concerns on this, because he made a very sensible and relevant point. I completely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, regarding compromise. It is an extremely important point to make and, if we are to move forward, compromise is going to be critical.
In conclusion, I emphasise that this instrument is a routine update that ensures that risk-based and proportionate biosecurity controls are in operation in Great Britain. Northern Ireland continues to be able to respond to pest risks specifically for Northern Ireland where needed, and will continue to play a full and comprehensive role in technical and policy decisions affecting the UK as a whole.
I remind noble Lords that I meet regularly with DAERA and the Northern Ireland Ministers and their team. Also, I understand that we have a regular meeting of our Northern Ireland Peers this Wednesday, so I am sure that we can pick up many of these issues and continue further at that meeting.
Finally, it is very late. It has gone 11 pm, so I thank all the staff who have stayed and supported us in the House at this late hour.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister, the Front-Benchers, noble Lords who stayed late and, indeed, the staff who have kept the Chamber running this evening. This has been an important debate and I will not prolong the discussion.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Lilley that not all the detailed questions were answered—perhaps understandably— in the round-up. I hope the Minister will look through Hansard and, in particular, at the three specific questions I asked, in addition to others.
I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who expressed support for the points I made this evening. I even thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, although I suspect his frustration at Brexit might have led him not to pay full attention to everything I said. Indeed, I think we even agreed on one point, which is that an SPS agreement will not cover every barrier that currently exists on SPS.
In winding up, I will react in particular to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made. He is absolutely reasonable in saying that one could have different degrees of dissatisfaction with the Windsor Framework arrangements while still thinking that any solution might be imperfect. That is true, and we do have different if often very strong degrees of dissatisfaction.
My concern would be whether it is a stable ending point, not merely an unsatisfactory one. We have heard, and the concerns expressed show, that it probably is not stable. The reality is that having part of your country governed by another entity is not stable. In the end, there are only two stable points: one is to extend the anomaly to the rest of the country—that seems to be the approach that the Government plan to take in the reset—and the other is to remove the anomaly where it exists, which is in Northern Ireland. I hope that is the direction that will be taken.
The issues have been fully aired tonight, if not exactly resolved, and I will not seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Thames Water
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, these Benches attempted to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to protect consumers from bearing any costs associated with a special administration regime, but this was rejected by this Government. Will the Minister commit today that consumers will not be made to pay any SAR-related costs, and that under no circumstances will the Government take responsibility for repaying the rumoured £20 billion of Thames Water debt? I should also declare an interest that one of my daughters works at a firm named in the press as a bondholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government do not have any intention for consumers to pay towards this. We do not see that consumer bills need to go up to cover these debts. It is not for consumers to pay for the mistakes and poor behaviour of the water companies. In response to the second question, within the regime, we will look at it in detail, but it is, again, not our intention for the water companies to basically get away with it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we are already paying more for our water because Thames Water has put up our bills. I declare an interest as a Thames Water bill-payer. How much higher are our bills going to go before the Government actually accept that they have to put public ownership before private profit?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the reasons that bills are going up—not just for Thames Water customers but for other consumers—is the lack of investment for years and years by the water companies in infrastructure, which is why we have so many problems with pollution, for example. While it is not something that the Government want to see continue—we do not want to see consumer bills going up unnecessarily—it is important that, with the PR24 settlement that was made, that money goes directly into investment, which is why we are stopping dividends and unnecessary bonuses being paid.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the creditors who have heaped billions in debt on to the company should now pay to sort this mess out, possibly through a well-planned administration process and a swift exit, after which the company should be mutually owned by the 16 million customers? Do the Government now have plans ready and in place for Thames Water to be brought into special administration? What plans do the Government have for a new operating model for water companies to work for the public benefit?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Any future operating model will be part of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review that is currently taking place—I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that the interim report is out. That will be part of the work being carried out by Sir Jon and others.
The big issue is that fundamentally this a private company. It for the company to solve the issues of financial resilience. It is not for us to tell a private company how to manage its finances. That is really important. But, having said that, we have to be prepared for all eventualities across regulated industries and Thames Water has clearly had some pretty serious problems. If it comes to a SAR, creditors cannot ask the debt to be repaid during that special administration regime. If it did come to that, there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR and that would take away the creditors’ ability to enforce any debt repayments.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, while the Government are dithering about the future of Thames Water, its debt has increased by £3 billion, it is spending £200 million a year on its business advisers and one-third of a customer’s bill basically covers the interest payments. Is it not time that the Government recognise that privatisation has failed and that the only way of giving the water industry firm footing is through public ownership?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said previously, the Government are not going to be renationalising the water companies. The Government are not dithering. This is a private company that has some serious debt problems. It is not for the Government to tell a private company how to manage its finances. If it comes to it, we are prepared to ensure that customers continue to receive high-quality water through their taps, because that is what is really important, and that the systems stay in place.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the interim Cunliffe report was very clear that part of the problem is the short-termism of regulation and the high volatility in returns not being conducive to long-term, low-risk, low-return investors. Will the Government accept whatever the commission proposes in its final report and bring a Bill before this House so we can review the situation in the long term?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, the report we have in front of us is an interim one, so we are currently looking at it and considering the recommendations. Further work will then be done and as a Government we will then look at those recommendations and work with Sir Jon Cunliffe on how best to move things forward. Clearly, there are some serious structural issues in the way things have been managed and we need to take this very seriously if we are going to sort out the mess that many water companies have found themselves in. That may well result in a further water Bill in the future.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
What lessons are the Government learning from the water sector experience for other regulated industries? As the Minister said, there have been decades of underinvestment. The 1990s European law should have been implemented, and successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, failed to apply the law on proper treatment of sewage. What lessons from poor regulation ought to be applied in other so-called regulated industries?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure that the other regulated industries are watching what is happening in the water industry with great interest. It is important that where our industries are regulated, they are regulated properly, appropriately and for the benefit of the country and consumers. It will be interesting to see the outcomes of the Cunliffe report, particularly regarding Ofwat, the Environment Agency and some of the people who have been responsible for the hands-on regulation. We have some important and interesting decisions to make as we go forward.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that—as many people have said already—the root of the problem at Thames is the level of debt? The fact is that, many years ago, Ofwat allowed Thames Water to increase the level of its own debt beyond any reasonableness. The public have been let down as much by the regulator as by the water companies. I very much hope that the Minister will agree that we need to change the type of regulation that the water companies have to live by.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Duke makes an extremely important point. The Cunliffe report is pretty damning on how the regulators have overseen what has happened. Clearly, it has not been good that water companies, particularly Thames, have been allowed to get into so much debt. We will absolutely be considering these matters very seriously.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I was a London MP for 22 years, and I can say with some conviction that Thames Water was one of the worst and most contemptible organisations I have ever dealt with—and that is up against some pretty stiff competition. Can we scotch this myth that has been put out by Thames Water for years that it has not been paying dividends? It has been paying what are, in effect, dividends to the parent company. Technically they may not be dividends but, in effect, they are. When Thames Water makes these claims, we should call it out for what it is doing: telling lies to the British public.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is really important that we have clarity and honesty from our water companies, because there are so many problems. If we are genuinely going to sort this out, we need to have a proper understanding, and there should not be little tricks and ways of paying money—whether through dividends or otherwise—that circumvent what we would consider to be best behaviour.
Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s first duty is to protect our national security and keep our country safe. Defra recognises that the drinking water supply is a potential target for hostile actors. It works with water companies and partners across government to understand and monitor threats to water supply and to consider responses as appropriate to protect the security of our water system.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. As she knows, yesterday’s strategic defence review talked a lot about hostile actors sabotaging critical infrastructure. I wonder whether my noble friend’s department is being a tad complacent in talking simply about monitoring the threat rather than looking at what practical arrangements can be made. For example, how do we deal with a drone which is flown over a reservoir and deposits something in there? The panic effects of that being known to have happened and not necessarily knowing what the substance is would be enormous. Is my noble friend able to tell us what further steps are going to be taken to address this, perhaps with a little more urgency given yesterday’s defence review?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I refer my noble friend to a lot of the cross-government work that is taking place regarding security and state threats. Tackling the diverse range of state threats—not just drones but many other threats—requires a cross-government and cross-society response. We need to draw on the skills, the resources and the remits of different departments and operational partners. In Defra, we work closely to look at the threats and the appropriate levels of response, specifically drawing on expert advice from the National Protective Security Authority, the National Cyber Security Centre and the Home Office, as well as carrying out threat assessment with policing partners.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I apologise to the House and to the Minister that in my earlier question, I did not declare my farming interests as set out in the register, and I do so now.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will the Minister undertake an urgent review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the relevant legislation for safety in the event of a possible breach of a reservoir? There is a lack of competent panel engineers, as they are called, to undertake this work. I think the noble Lord who asked the original Question would accept that we are too reliant on large reservoirs. Will the Minister also review the de minimis rule in the 1975 Act to see whether we could build smaller reservoirs in a greater number of places?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness will be aware of the Government’s pledge to build nine new reservoirs, and we are currently fast-tracking two of those, one in East Anglia and one in Lincolnshire. As we look at the future of reservoirs in this country, it is clear that the Reservoirs Act is a few years old now and it makes absolute sense to consider whether it is fit for the future. I will certainly take that back and discuss it with the department.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, put his finger on a really worrying thing about our infrastructure. For about 15 years, I have been worried about the water supply: the large and small reservoirs, the pipes that connect them and, of course, the water treatment plants. I worry that there is sometimes confusion between the Home Office, Defra and others about who is looking after security. One simple question the Minister may want to ask is what the police response rate to alarms is, because it can be a testing of the system as well as a false alarm, or a proper alarm about people entering certain premises or doing something to the water. It needs to be higher in the priorities than it presently appears.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that we discuss these matters with the Home Office. As I said, much of what we need to do is across government—one thing that we have been trying hard to do in Defra and other departments since we came into government is to work better across government; that is an important point to make. The noble Lord asked an interesting question about police responses, which I am happy to mention next time I have a meeting with the Home Office to see whether I can get a better understanding about that.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, given Thames Water’s inability to secure private investment with its £20 billion debt burden, can the Minister confirm that, should it have to go into special administration, contingency plans include ring-fenced funding for critical security upgrades at its reservoirs? Specifically, will the Government commit to independent audits of cyber defences and physical protections during any transitional period, which has been highlighted as a period of vulnerability that might be exploited by hostile actors?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The main point is that our water supply absolutely has to be secure. We have to know that we are doing everything we can to protect it from hostile actors, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend mentioned. That is why the cross- departmental work is so important. On Thames Water, I assume the noble Baroness refers to the fact that the preferred bidder has now pulled out. Thames Water has assured us that there are other potential bidders. We need to look at the current situation and, clearly, any investment needs to include security. The PR24 investment that has been made includes a substantial sum for improving security as well as infrastructure. It is important to make the point that it is part of our ongoing discussions with water companies.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, our country has frequently been at war or under threat in our history, and our water infrastructure is always one of our vulnerabilities. Can the Minister inform the House whether there has ever been an attempt or a plan uncovered to contaminate our water supply, and what lessons have been learned if so?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I asked about that earlier today, because it is important that we understand it. My understanding is that there has not been such an incident, but that does not mean that we should be complacent. We know that our water and energy infrastructure are both potentially vulnerable to hostile attacks.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, if I could correct my noble friend, because she is probably not aware of it, in 2008 there was an attempt by eight al-Qaeda operatives to poison north London water supplies. I am pleased to say that our agencies worked brilliantly to stop it happening. As a result, in the Home Office we put in hand a whole series of work on police response times, indicators of where the outflows from reservoirs went and new barriers. Where has all that work gone? These things somehow seem to disappear. There should be some reports, and hopefully someone did something about it.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is extremely interesting and very helpful of my noble friend. I will certainly look into it, because it is an important point. Clearly, the department did such an excellent job when there was a potential attack that it has never been picked up. However, if he would ever like to take over the Defra brief, I would be very happy to swap with him.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, we know from the Covid incident that we lacked experience of simulations of such incidents and were therefore not well prepared. When did we last simulate a situation where our water is contaminated and what did we learn from it? If we have not done so recently, is it time to think of doing it soon?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is an interesting question. I do not know when we last simulated such a thing, but there was the issue quite recently in Devon, where there was accidental water contamination. There was quite a rapid response to that, including, importantly, communication to consumers and to the public. One thing we are looking at now is how we learn from that accidental contamination, because contamination does not have to come just from hostile actors.
Lord Swire (Con)
Will the Government consider increasing their investment in desalination plants to ensure the provision of safe drinking water in the event of a national crisis?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, safe drinking water has to be an absolute priority, and I am sure the department would consider all options.
Farmers: Competitiveness
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are supporting farmers with a new deal to boost growth and strengthen food security. We will protect farmers from being undercut in trade deals and back British produce. A multitude of factors influence agricultural competitiveness, and international comparisons are challenging due to factors such as differences in the structures of agricultural sectors in different countries. Defra and devolved administration officials meet routinely to share insights regarding our respective agricultural policies.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, farmers in Scotland and the EU enjoy area-based payments of around €280 per hectare, with minimal environmental obligations, while farmers in the US are reported to receive subsidies worth $30 billion. Our own farmers receive de minimis area-based payments and no further access to SFIs while planning for inheritance tax. What will this Government do to ensure that our farmers can compete on a level playing field in their trade agreements while also restoring nature in line with the obligations of the Environment Act?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have pledged £5 billion towards farming over the next few years, which will be spent through our environmental land management schemes. We are currently working to reform SFI to allow us to align it with our work on the land use framework and the 25-year farming road map. That is designed to protect the most productive land and boost food security while at the same time delivering for nature. We have published the update of a £30 million boost to HLS that recognises and rewards the vital role played by farmers in restoring habitats. We are also looking at how we can work with the farming sector in order to target those who would most benefit from future payment systems.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the Opposition seem to be obsessed with millionaire farmers? Is it not about time that they worried more about families in poverty? They call for more resources for farmers, but have they indicated where that resource is going to come from? They used to accuse us of having a money tree, but I think they have found an orchard.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend raises some interesting questions. It is clearly important that we target our resources and funding on those who are most in need. That is one of the reasons why the delinked payments are reduced the most for those who have the most and the least for those who need more time to make the changes.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, in that context can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of the main factors identified by Professor Julia Aglionby behind the cause of upland farmers’ incomes falling to half the minimum wage by 2027? They include the phasing out of the basic payment scheme, the recent negligible rise in HLS, insufficient financial reward from new environmental land management schemes and barriers to scheme transition, which is being done at a much slower pace in all the other devolved nations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I should probably declare an interest here as I know Julia extremely well and meet her to discuss exactly these issues. Julia does an awful lot of work on uplands and common land, and it is important that we are able to support the farmers, particularly in uplands, who have a much more challenging environment to farm in. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at reforming the SFI to target those who need it most. Previous schemes have not always benefited those, such as in the uplands, who need the most support.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Can the Minister confirm that in New Zealand, which is probably the pioneer of subsidy-free farming, there is no inheritance tax?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am afraid I have to admit to the noble Lord that I know nothing about New Zealand’s inheritance tax law, but I am more than happy to look into it.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests in asking this question. Does the Minister accept that it would be helpful for farmers in England, Wales and Scotland if all the supermarkets in the UK were required to show the flags of the countries of origin of meat that they sell in their supermarkets, particularly in view of the possible threats coming from imports from the USA?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there was a consultation on labelling fairly recently, which we are looking at. There are certain issues. What do we want on our labels? Country of origin is clearly something the public are particularly interested in. Also, what are the standards and the methods of production? There is a lot of interest in what labelling could include. We also need to be careful to ensure that the labelling that exists currently, and any future labelling brought in, is honest, because sometimes things that look British are not necessarily so.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Is the Minister aware that since the start of 2024 the level of sheepmeat imports is up by 59%? During the same period, the number of sheep in the UK is down by 40%. Why are the Government not doing more to help sheep farmers and upland areas?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned in response to the noble Baroness, it is important that when we reform our SFI we look at how we can support upland farmers more. It is also about getting the right balance between levels of grazing and environmental support. I will give a quick shout-out for Cumbrian sheep. Herdwick sheep are extremely important to our landscapes in Cumbria. I think it is important that our supermarkets and our butchers support locally bred meats as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, to correct the record—I live partly in a village with very small farms—it is not just rich people who have farms. What are the Government doing to support food production in this country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We have a number of plans to support food production, partly through the farming road map, which we are developing. We have appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to lead Defra’s farming profitability review, which will look at things like this. We are also looking at government procurement and buying British produce, which will support British farmers. There are a number of activities that we are currently doing.
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, within the senior Defra team—and, sadly, I include all the Defra Ministers—we do not have a single farmer or land manager. If we did, they would explain that the last Budget and recent policy changes have created a lose-lose outcome for British farmers and the British public. Is Defra monitoring the number of farms going out of business, the increase in food prices the public are having to pay and the inevitable decline of our home-grown food security?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I take issue with the idea that our home-grown food security is declining. The data we have does not support that. Regarding the senior Defra team, including Ministers, not having any farming experience, although I spend far too much time in London these days and not enough time in Cumbria, I am actually a registered farmer on our smallholding, so that is not quite true.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that competitiveness should include not just price but environmental costs? Given that our farmers can produce meat and dairy products from our sheep and cattle with substantially reduced greenhouse gas emissions than the global and even European averages, should we not be buying British, trying to minimise imports and exporting as much as we can to protect our farming industry and benefit the planet?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some important points. Interestingly, since Brexit our exports have gone down by 21%. We are very hopeful that the new agreement we are working on with the EU at the moment will enable our farmers to export more, help our agri-food trade be cheaper and easier, and help us align more with the EU. On costs, environmental costs clearly have to be taken into account as well. It can also save farmers money if they buy into the different innovative options available at the moment. For example, grants are available to reduce pesticide use. There are lots of opportunities through the different environmental schemes for farmers to become more productive and more competitive.
Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 May.
Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lord, these regulations use powers contained within the Agriculture Act 2020 which enable the Government to address power imbalances within agricultural markets. These fair dealing powers allow for regulations that impose obligations in relation to the contracts of those businesses—usually larger businesses—that purchase from smaller producers. The fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act, and their first use in the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, have previously been debated in this House, with important contributions made. I therefore know that many noble Lords will agree that these powers can play a significant role in promoting fairness in this sector and beyond.
I should first say that the pig sector is a British success story, characterised by effective relationships between producers and processors. It is a sector that delivers high-quality products, enjoyed across the UK and around the world. However, where power imbalances exist, relationships are not always as fair as they should be. As a result, farmers have too often felt that they bear a disproportionate share of the risk when market challenges arise.
A public consultation in 2022, seeking views on contractual practices in the sector, highlighted several challenges faced by producers. Defra has developed these proposals in response to the concerns raised and in close collaboration with industry, aiming to ensure fairness for producers while taking account of the practical concerns of processors. I am pleased to report that many stakeholders believe we have struck the right balance—protecting farmers while supporting existing good practice.
There will be opportunity for detailed discussion, but I would like to begin by outlining some key provisions. First, I will say a word on existing structures that already serve to protect farmers. We heard from many producers that the collective negotiation undertaken through marketing groups is highly valued. These regulations preserve this arrangement, allowing collective sellers, who purchase pigs from more than one farmer without processing them, the same protections as individual sellers.
At the heart of the regulations is the principle that written contracts should be the norm. While many transactions already use written agreements, this is not consistent across the sector. Establishing written contracts as the default provides a vital safeguard for farmers’ rights and promotes greater transparency in commercial relationships. Although industry supported this approach, it was also clear that not every transaction requires a protected contract. The pig sector includes a functioning spot market, where pigs are traded off-contract, an important mechanism for managing supply. In these cases, and others, the regulations allow producers to issue a notice to disapply the requirements for certain purchases. However, in most cases, both farmers and processors benefit from certainty. When no notice to disapply is given, farmers must be offered a fully compliant written contract, which cannot be varied without their consent. We heard clearly that farmers often felt that changes were imposed on them unilaterally, and this is not in the spirit of an open and balanced relationship.
One of the key priorities raised was the need for clarity around agreed volumes of supply. Clear terms in this area will support better planning and ensure that both parties fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences if those commitments are not met. In the pig sector, pricing is already often linked to published data or other shared information, offering a level of transparency that benefits both parties. The regulations encourage this approach by placing fewer obligations on processors who base their prices on such information.
At the same time, we were clear that flexibility must be preserved. It is for producers and processors to decide together how prices are calculated, reflecting what works best for their commercial relationship. However, when pricing mechanisms use data or factors which are not clearly accessible to producers, it is right that contracts include provisions to allow farmers to verify that pricing is fair and consistent with the agreed terms.
In addition to volumes and pricing, the regulations require that contracts clearly set out all terms relating to the purchase, as well as essential elements of the agreement that define how the relationship will operate in practice. These include matters such as payment terms, delivery arrangements, and how and when the contract can be terminated. While the specific details of these terms can be negotiated between the parties, this clarity helps protect farmers by reducing the risk of sudden or unfair changes, ensuring that both sides understand their rights and responsibilities throughout the contract. Importantly, all contracts must include a dispute resolution procedure. This will promote dialogue and help sustain the successful relationships already present in the sector.
The regulations extend the enforcement powers of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The ASCA will investigate complaints about compliance with these regulations, as it already does in the dairy sector, on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Before I conclude, I should note that these regulations make an amendment to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. After those regulations came into force, the Government were made aware of unintended consequences regarding tiered pricing in exclusive agreements. We received representations from businesses with shared ownership structures, explaining that exclusive supply is central to their model, and that the prohibition on tiered pricing was inadvertently penalising arrangements that actually benefit producers. These regulations therefore introduce a limited amendment to allow such practices in cases where a shared ownership structure is in place.
In summary, I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that these regulations represent a significant step forward for fairness in the UK pig sector. They respond directly to producer concerns, protect practices that work well, and will promote more balanced and transparent contractual arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon and thank the Minister for giving us the outline. It is an interesting backdrop, in the sense that pig prices seem to have been at their highest for a while now. I have come straight from a meeting with some Danish businesses—none of them farmers. While I am half-Danish, I wish to help only the British farmer, I should explain.
I am a big supporter of auction marts. How will this provision impact on sales through such marts? Will they be left pretty much as is allowed at the moment? Presumably, the regulations will come into their own at a different time, when the prices are particularly low and when the farmers, or pig producers, are not covering the full costs of their production.
Having been an MEP in an area with intensive pig farming and then having gone on to be an MP in another area with equally intensive pig farming, it was very sad to see the impact of foot and mouth disease on pig production. Many farmers will simply not go back into pig production again. Anything that we can do, like the content of these regulations, is very helpful indeed.
The Minister referred to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and I pay tribute to it. I still believe that we should go further and allow the adjudicator to look at the market and at particular supplies off its own initiative. If there is an imbalanced relationship that it is there to resolve—and overwhelmingly it has worked well—there is no way that someone is going to jeopardise it. That perhaps relates more to different sectors than to pigs, such as the dairy sector and fruit production. If you are in a contract and you are being unfairly discriminated against, it is difficult for you to jeopardise that contract by being identified as a complainant with the adjudicator. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue, please, to keep that under review.
Mindful of the fact of movement—which I do not think is covered by the regulations, but perhaps the Minister could write to me about this—we have a number of agricultural shows coming up at this time of year, right through to the autumn, and they are immensely important to the agricultural sector. Again, this probably covers sheep and lambs—I have not seen too many pigs at the Great Yorkshire Show, I have to say. Will the department give advice on movement of animals? I know it is on the case as regards avian flu, but some imports have already been banned because of foot and mouth existing in parts of the European Union. Will she make sure that the department gives advice at the earliest possible opportunity, well in advance of the shows taking place? That would be very welcome indeed.
I cannot let this opportunity go without singing the praises of the Malton pig factory. Again, while not directly within this remit, we have a bed and breakfast for pigs in North Yorkshire, and they are just as well looked after as we are at the famous bed and breakfasts that many of us stay in. One of the outlets for the bed and breakfast pig industry is the Malton Bacon Factory. It exported a huge amount to China, which takes pig’s trotters and other parts of the anatomy that I will not go into, which we do not enjoy in this country. That was a multi-million pound contract, and that might have gone by the wayside. The regulations focus probably more on those that do not necessarily have an initial contract.
One thing that struck me in the regulations—I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 21st report—is that it seems very odd in this day and age that many contracts are still not made in writing. Will the Government insist on that through the course of the regulation? The committee highlights in paragraph 44 that the requirements will
“include that all contracts are made in writing, contain clear pricing terms and set out how the price is determined”.
That relates to my initial question about how this will impact—presumably, the auction marts will be left alone and this will relate just to those contracts that are done individually. I would be very interested to know what proportion of the market is intended to be covered by the regulations. I welcome the regulations this afternoon and the opportunity to raise those issues.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support for the regulations and for the contributions that have been shared on this instrument. There seems to be consensus that, even in a market that often functions well, as we have heard, it is essential to protect the smaller producers in the supply chain, so I welcome the support.
The specific requirements that are set out in the regulations—on volumes of supply, pricing, contract variation and termination—represent a significant step forward for the pig sector. Dispute resolution provisions will also support continued dialogue and collaboration across the supply chain. At the same time, the regulations are designed to protect and support existing good practice. I am confident they will strengthen the many successful relationships that already characterise the industry.
I turn now to some of the specific points that were raised. Some noble Lords talked about the different flexibilities that we have built into the regulations. I want to be clear that we are confident that they will not be easily misused. The reforms deliver a real and meaningful improvement in transparency for pig producers, which has often been lacking in the past. If the reforms are to be effective, they have to be proportionate and reflect the realities of how the sector operates, which is why we have built in flexibility. That does not mean we are going to be hands off in the approach to it.
I assure noble Lords that implementation is going to be closely monitored. If we find that the flexibility is such that the notice to disapply is being abused, or if the behavioural changes we expect do not materialise, we will not hesitate to revisit our approach and take further actions. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked if we are going to be keeping an eye on it, and the answer is yes.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about auction marts. First of all, pig sales through auction marts are quite limited but they will not be impacted. This is one area where the notice to disapply may be appropriate to use. If a notice to disapply is given to the business purchaser by the producer, the regulations do not need to be complied with for that specific purchase. I hope that helps to clarify that.
The appalling pig crisis of 2021 and 2022 was mentioned, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. Everyone in the sector wants to make sure that that does not happen again. As we have heard, at the time, there were a number of related factors, including the Covid pandemic, a lack of skilled butchers and declining export demand, and we ended up with a backlog of pigs on the market, which is why we had the awful cull that we witnessed. That was quite unusual, though, and it was quite difficult to avoid what was almost the perfect storm that built up at that time. We need to learn from it, which is why these regulations will make sure that farmers do not bear any disproportionate levels of cost when market challenges come up in the future.
The regulations outline that both producers and processors need to be clear about the levels of supply that they can expect in advance. That will be subject to negotiation between the parties, to maintain flexibility, and those agreeing a contract would be able to agree any tolerances for over and under supply levels. The new rules outline that contracts should say in advance what the remedies would be for either party when agreed levels of supply are not met by the other party. This could be a financial remedy, a change in future volumes that would be supplied, or a suspension of existing penalties; we need to look at each individual situation. What is important is that it will be open for negotiation between the parties, written down in advance and subject to change only by mutual agreement of both the farmers and processors alike. The whole point is to ensure certainty and transparency across the marketplace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Cranswick incident and the difficulties around animal welfare and the breaches at that particular abattoir. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is investigating—it investigates every allegation that is reported to it. Obviously, I cannot comment on that because it is ongoing, but I reassure the noble Baroness that APHA is looking at that.
Lord Deben (Con)
Should we not be extremely pleased at the immediate steps taken by supermarkets and others when they heard about this allegation? And it is an allegation at this stage. It shows that we now have a very much more acute understanding of how animals should be looked after and what welfare really matters, which is crucially important for those of us who believe that eating meat is a satisfactory and proper thing to do.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the work the supermarkets did. They do not always get the credit that they should. That swift reaction was really important. It shows the industry coming together, right across the board, when something really appalling happens that is breaching regulations. I absolutely agree.
There were a number of questions about the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Grender, and others mentioned that. For those covered by the groceries code, the GCA has prioritised communication of the statutory requirement to maintain supply confidentiality. The GCA has relaunched the Code Confident campaign, launched a confidential reporting platform called Tell the GCA, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality, which we hope will help. The GCA’s fourth statutory review is currently ongoing. That is being led by the Department for Business and Trade and will also allow for feedback to be provided in this area and in others.
For those covered by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, a complaint does not need to be made from a producer for ASCA to investigate and perform enforcement functions where necessary. The current Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has confirmed that it will always seek confirmation from the producer that they are content for a complaint to be formally investigated before contacting a purchaser and sharing any information. It has also recently launched the Contact ASCA in Confidence service, learning from the GCA’s Tell the GCA scheme; this allows producers and anyone else to raise issues with ASCA confidentially. Although ASCA will not be able to open a formal investigation without an actual complaint, the information provided will help inform its activities.
On who will enforce this, which a number of noble Lords asked about, the option to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator was explored in a formal call for evidence back in 2016. This concluded that the extension of the GCA’s role further along the supply chain would not be appropriate. Part of this is because the Groceries Code Adjudicator has a very specific remit: regulating the relationships between the largest grocery retailers in the country and their direct suppliers. These regulations focus instead on the contracts that pig farmers hold directly, which are almost exclusively with the processing companies. We are therefore confident that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—obviously, it also handles enforcement for the dairy sector, as noble Lords will be aware—is the most appropriate means of enforcing these regulations. It will continue to focus on regulations made under Section 29 and this first important stage of the supply chain.
I mentioned dairy sector enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked whether this will be sector by sector. It will be introduced sector by sector going forward.
I was asked whether the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has sufficient resources. ASCA was relatively recently established. Enforcement for the dairy regulations began only in July 2024—less than a year ago—and existing contracts are not being covered until July this year. Currently, the office is sufficiently resourced to fulfil its remit of enforcing the regulations in the dairy sector and, soon, in the pig sector. However, we will monitor resourcing requirements as the regulations take effect, so that we can respond accordingly if need be. Similarly, we will continue to do so as further reviews are conducted and as more sectors come into scope.
Why did we choose this route instead of reforming the GCA? We have talked about the fact that we did the consultation but, particularly for pig producers, this is a highly consolidated part of the supply chain. Just four processors account for the vast majority of pig purchases. We believe that, to deliver the greatest benefits in fairness and transparency, it is right that we focus on this primary relationship between producers and processors.
These regulations were developed with extensive engagement with industry, and stakeholders were invited to comment on detailed drafting—including the text of the statutory instrument itself—to confirm that they found the whole approach workable. We are committed to using the fair dealing powers wherever they are needed. We are now working with industry on the proposals for fresh produce and the egg sectors, which will be the next areas that we look to bring in. We will continue to work with stakeholders as we do that.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked about the size of the pig herd. We do not actually know how many pigs there are, but we know that the UK pig industry is worth £1.6 billion at the farm gate and £5 billion at retail. Considering food service, external sales and export values, we think it is worth over £14 billion in total. I hope that that helps him to understand the size of the industry.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for precision-bred plants in England. They provide the practical and technical detail to implement a new science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants, as set out in the Act.
The territorial application of these regulations is England only and covers the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants as well as their use in food and feed in England. This includes a process administered by Defra to confirm that plants are precision bred—not genetically modified—before they can be marketed. It also establishes a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement.
The Government recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report and in the regret amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, most notably around provision of information and the impacts on the devolved Governments. We agree that these issues are important, and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. The department recognises that transparency is important and will be establishing public registers to ensure that information about precision-bred organisms authorised for marketing and for use in food and feed is available to consumers, farmers and landowners. We are also looking at ways to enhance this further and have recently closed a public consultation seeking to gather views on how to improve the accessibility of information on these precision-bred plant varieties, including through the labelling of seed and plant reproductive material.
We are also continuing to engage regularly with the devolved Governments on today’s legislation. In addition to monthly meetings at official level and regular ministerial engagement at the interministerial group, Minister Zeichner, as Farming Minister, is organising discussions with his counterparts in the devolved Governments to consider any concerns in more detail. Some of these talks have already begun and we value the progress that is being made. We also note that discussions are now taking place between devolved Governments and key stakeholders across industry on this policy area, and we look forward to hearing updates as this develops.
I believe that we have struck the right balance with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based, while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, I believe that we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system —to make it fit for the future.
The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet growing demand while at the same time becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve this, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for this sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades. Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, more resilient to pests and diseases, and more beneficial to the environment. In turn, this will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers.
However, to capture these benefits, we need a regulatory framework with a sound science base that encourages innovation. The scientific consensus, across key advisory committees and institutes, is that precision-bred organisms pose no greater risk to health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. The existing legislation carries a significant burden. According to the AgriFood Economics Centre, current regulations add a stifling 74% to the cost of marketing for businesses. This deters investment and limits the type of companies and products that can be brought to market. Countries that have kept pace with the science and introduced regulatory reform have seen significant investment. The Americas have attracted over 80% of venture capital investment in the sector, while only 5% comes to Europe. It is paramount that we act to change this.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your contributions and comments in what has been a very interesting debate and, in most cases, for your Lordships’ support for the regulations. We have covered a bit of old ground as well.
I want to take a moment to reflect on the importance of implementing this legislation. Without it, the potential of precision breeding cannot be realised. The existing legislation carries a significant burden, limiting which companies can bring products to market and which crop species and traits we can benefit from. Our understanding of the science has advanced. It is not proportionate to apply the existing legislation to plants produced by modern biotechnologies when the overwhelming scientific advice is that they pose no greater risk than traditionally bred varieties. The secondary legislation that we have been discussing today will change this, providing a science-based approach that is proportionate to the level of risk. As my noble friend Lord Young said, we are taking an evidence-based, balanced approach.
I recognise, however, that there have been concerns and issues raised, so I will turn to these now. Devolved Governments were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds. We recognise the valid concerns that noble Lords raise on the issue of divergence within the UK, which is why we are continuing, as the noble Lord said, to regularly engage with the devolved Governments. My colleague in the other place, Minister Zeichner, has recently been speaking to our devolved Governments and has invited them to discuss the issues in more detail. This work will build on the regular monthly meetings that we already have with devolved Governments.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the issues of progress and timing. We are making good progress in discussions. As I have said, the devolved Governments are considering their positions and holding discussions with the key stakeholders that are impacted. We wanted to crack on: we do not have the time to wait to realise the potential benefits. We have, as the noble Lords have said, gone through this in a very long debate on the legislation, but we recognise the importance of working closely with the devolved Governments.
On Northern Ireland, which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised, I want to assure noble Lords that we recognise that this is an important issue, and we continue to engage with stakeholders and officials in Northern Ireland properly to understand the potential short-term and long-term impacts. That includes recent engagement with Minister Muir— Daniel Zeichner met him to discuss specifically the implications of precision breeding. We are also engaging with the EU at the UK-EU Agri-Food Structure Group on the potential implications of its proposed regulatory framework for Northern Ireland.
The impact on the organic sector was raised by a number of noble Lords. This is one of the areas where we have a lot of work ongoing. Our engagement with the industry has suggested that the first products that would come to market would not undergo significant further processing; so, they can be kept separate from traditionally bred material, which would mean that the exposure of organic production to precision-bred material would be very limited in the short term.
However, Defra is working closely with the organic sector to prepare for the medium-term and longer-term impacts by discussing non-legislative options for supply chain coexistence, including facilitating discussions to establish which measures currently used by industry could be used by farmers to enable coexistence between precision-bred and non-precision-bred crop production. That is in line with how things are approached internationally. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about cross-contamination and the importance of getting this right. Defra is also working with the organic sector to look at any other further potential issues in the wider supply chain.
Labelling came up a lot; many noble Lords talked about it. Obviously, it was a key area of debate during the passage of the Act, and I felt that we were revisiting that to a certain extent. As noble Lords have said, the Food Standards Agency Board concluded there was no justification for the provision of labelling on grounds of consumer safety, since there was no scientific evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms. Because this was not considered to be a safety issue, mandatory labelling to indicate the process does not align with the principles behind the policy and would also raise costs for both business and consumers.
Methods of production are normally voluntarily labelled and can be catered for by the market if there is the demand; that follows the approach taken by many partners abroad, including the current EU regulatory proposal. However, I think we would support the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that voluntary labelling of benefits could well be very helpful. We have tried to get the right balance here. However, out of interest for your Lordships, there are discussions within Defra at the moment about how labelling for consumers could be improved. This is something we are looking at.
The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, mentioned consumer views and transparency. The FSA regularly gathers consumer views on a wide range of topics, and the most recent data shows that the price of food remains the top concern for consumers, alongside food poverty, food inequality, sustainability and the healthiness of the food being eaten. The FSA continues to undertake regular polling and insights to track public attitudes. We know that public levels of understanding are low, but public sentiment is more in favour.
While I am on polling, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, mentioned the YouGov polling and why it was not published. It was carried out by YouGov to look at public perception. All three polls were designed for internal use to enable us to track whether our communications around the Act had been effective. It has now been published and can be found on the Government’s website.
Plant varieties and seeds were mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Plant varieties of the main agriculture and vegetable crops must be registered on the Great Britain or Northern Ireland variety lists before seeds of the varieties can be marketed. To be listed, a new plant variety must undergo testing to confirm that it is new and an improvement on varieties that are already available to the market. As the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 removes precision-bred organisms from genetically modified organism regulations and requirements applicable in England only, a precision-bred plant variety list for England is proposed in addition to the existing variety lists.
The EU position was raised just now by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I am sure that he will not be surprised to know that I cannot comment on the EU reset discussions. Among other noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in particular, talked about the EU Commission’s proposal for the regulation of plants—the NGTs, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We are monitoring the EU’s position closely and have noted that there has recently been progress in the European Council on the draft NGT proposal. It is quite similar in aim to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 that we have been talking about today, but it is clearly going to take some time before new legislation is implemented in the EU.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that all products from the United States will need to go through the regulatory system in order to be placed on the market.
Environmental and health and safety risks were talked about. This is understandable given the controversy around genetically modified organisms in the UK historically, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lord Rooker. This is why it is so important to take an evidence-based approach and to work with experts as we develop the policy. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made the point so strongly in his contribution: the scientific evidence is clear. The risk that a precision-bred plant poses to the environment and health is dependent on its characteristics rather than the technique used to develop it.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned Africa and the impacts of climate change. The purpose of the Act was to encourage investment in research and development and innovation in agriculture, which has huge potential for climate change and for developing countries, such as those in Africa, which need to move forward in agriculture. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey —in her very important speech, with her experience from when this was first developed—talked about the importance of climate-resilient agriculture, which this will be able to support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned safety of food and feed. I reassure Members that the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes advised that
“There is no evidence that precision-bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms”.
The further movement of the Act towards including animals as well as plants was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. As noble Lords are aware, the scope of the regulations is just for plants, but we recognise that there is strong support in relation to animals and that Members are keen to know more about the Government’s plans and approach, and any potential timelines. To inform noble Lords, we are currently continuing research on this but, while it is going forward, we will not be bringing forward any further legislation on animals.
The final question was from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who talked about the Cartagena protocol. We remain committed to our international obligations and the protocol. Our proposal is consistent with our obligations as a signatory.
In my opening speech, I outlined the challenges we currently face in the food system, and recent world events really have shone a spotlight on the urgency of addressing these. We must take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technologies and advancements in scientific understanding, and we cannot afford to inhibit innovation through having outdated regulations. Harnessing innovation in precision breeding can help us to achieve several priorities: bolstering food security and championing British farming, helping to mitigate and adapt to climate pressures, and driving the Government’s missions on growth and health. The growth potential is evident, and we have the opportunity to be right at the forefront. Voting to approve the regulations today, if the noble Baroness decides to call a vote, is the only way to implement the Act in relation to plants and to realise the potential benefits of precision breeding for farmers, consumers and the environment.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I am in receipt of delinked payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to delinked payments in England in 2025. These reductions are a vital part of the transition to more targeted public investment supporting farmers to boost nature and sustainable food production.
A fatal amendment has been tabled that, if approved, would mean the agricultural transition would effectively go into reverse, as no reductions at all would be applied. I want to be clear that voting against this SI would not keep payments at the level they were for 2024. Instead, it would mean that delinked payments would go back to the 2020 subsidy levels. The fatal amendment also calls for the reinstatement of applications to SFI, but, without the reductions set by this instrument, we cannot fund SFI. Indeed, payments under many of our farming schemes would need to stop completely.
The regret amendment that has been tabled expresses concern about the impact of the reductions on farm viability. This Government recognise that farmers run businesses that need to make a profit, and we understand the valuable role that these businesses play in the wider rural community. We want to support farm businesses to be more profitable and address the underlying problems so that they can thrive.
Delinked payments do not achieve that. Delinked payments do not offer and never have offered good value for money for farmers or the taxpayer. They are part of the move away from the basic payment scheme that saw 50% of money go to the top 10% of farms while doing little for food production or nature. We are now in the fifth year of the seven-year transition away from these subsidies. The reductions to delinked payments set out in this instrument were announced last October. These reductions accelerate the end of the era of payments to large and wealthy landowners simply for owning land.
However, the Government recognise the impact that these changes may have on some farmers, which is why we are trying to make them in the fairest way possible. We are applying the reductions in payment in bands, like income tax bands, meaning that those with the broadest shoulders will see the highest reductions.
I assure noble Lords that every penny released from delinked payments is staying within the sector. The planned reductions are necessary to help fund investment in the environmental land management schemes and our other grants for farmers. So our support for farmers remains steadfast. We have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over a two-year period, with £2.4 billion of this for 2025-26. That includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. We have allocated £1.8 billion in 2025-26 for environmental land management schemes. This will boost Britain’s food security and accelerate the transition to the more resilient and sustainable farming sector that we want to see. Importantly, we are on track to spend the farming budget in full.
There are record numbers of farmers in our environmental land management schemes; 50,000 farm businesses, and more than half of all farmed land in England—that is, over 4 million hectares—are now managed under these schemes. Figures for 1 March show that that includes around 38,000 live multiyear sustainable farming incentive agreements, and we expect to publish more information about our revamped SFI offer this summer, following the spending review.
The new Countryside Stewardship higher-tier offer will open for applications for invited farmers and land managers later this year. Applications for stand-alone capital grants will also reopen this summer after a short pause, and we are investing in around 50 landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding through rounds 1 and 2. In February, we announced increased payment rates for higher-level stewardship across a range of options from this year.
We are also extending the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme until March 2026. This extension will support farmers in protected landscapes to transition towards profitable food production, while at the same time delivering nature recovery and mitigating the impacts of climate change.
We are continuing to invest in farmers through our other grant offers, with up to £110 million available in new grant competitions that are starting this spring. This includes up to £47 million for Farming Equipment and Technology Fund grants, as well as up to £63 million available for Farming Innovation Programme grants. Those will help to improve productivity, trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector. We are also expanding the animal health and welfare pathway, with more funded vet visits now available to farmers. Further, over 26,000 farmers have made use of free one-to-one business support through the Farming Resilience Fund to help them through the agricultural transition.
By investing in healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water, the Government are investing in the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn over a profit. Adopting the sustainable farming practices rewarded under our schemes will also help farmers to reduce their input costs. Reducing delinked payments as planned enables us to make these investments through our other schemes, and we believe this will serve the best long-term interests of farming.
I welcome the recent appointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to lead the review of farm profitability to provide short-term, medium-term and long-term recommendations to the Government. The noble Baroness’s review will also help our development of the 25-year farming road map in order to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come.
As we set out in our plan for change, we are focused on supporting our farmers by boosting rural economic growth and strengthening Britain’s food security. This SI is an essential step in building this future. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions to the debate. As always, I have listened very carefully to noble Lords’ concerns. As I mentioned in opening, my husband and I are in receipt of delinked payments—previously BPS—just for our small farm, but it means that I am very aware of the kinds of reductions that noble Lords have been talking about in the debate. However, delinked payments do not address the long-term challenges faced by farmers. The Government are making the decisions to try to build a profitable and sustainable farming sector so that we can deliver Britain’s food security.
As I mentioned earlier, the reductions to the 2025 delinked payments are necessary so that we can fund the spend, both committed and projected, under our other farming schemes, which support sustainable food production. We have seen increased uptake of the environmental land management schemes and unprecedented demand for our capital grants offer.
Without this SI, the spend on delinked payments in 2025-26 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a £1.5 billion shortfall in the farming budget. This would mean we would need to stop funding farmers through many of our other schemes, which would go completely against what seem to be the objectives of the fatal amendment.
The money released by reducing delinked payments is being reinvested in full through our other schemes for farmers and land managers. Every single penny is staying within the sector. How the farming budget has been spent for the financial year 2023-24 is set out in the latest Farming and Countryside Programme Annual Report. We will publish our next annual report later this year, as required by the Agriculture Act 2020. In March, we published on our farming blog a breakdown of how we plan to spend the £5 billion farming budget, covering 2024-25 and 2025-26.
I do understand the concerns that the House has raised regarding farm viability. There are a number of actions that we can support farmers with to improve their profitability. As well as urging them to take advantage of our existing offers, including grants that will support productivity and help them reduce their input costs, we can help farmers to diversify their income so that businesses become more resilient.
At the NFU conference, the Secretary of State announced a raft of new policies, including using the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce wherever possible, and making £110 million available for new grant competitions to support research and innovation, technology and equipment for farmers.
I will now try to cover a number of the questions that noble Lords raised in the debate. The first is about the closure of the SFI and the concern that this will leave farms in financial distress. I confirm that every penny in all the existing SFI agreements will be paid to farmers and any outstanding eligible applications that were submitted by 11 March will also be taken forward. I also confirm that applications for the SFI have closed only temporarily and we plan to reopen the scheme for applications once the reformed SFI offer is in place.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester, asked what the reformed SFI offer might look like. We are working to align it with the work that we are carrying out on the land use framework and the 25-year farming road map in order to protect the most productive land and boost food security while also delivering for nature. The reformed SFI will also build in more sophisticated budget controls. As the scheme is designed and evolves, we want to listen to farmers to get their feedback to ensure that we learn from the past to improve the scheme for the future. It needs to be better targeted than previously.
On small farms, which the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in particular, asked about, we are developing new schemes so that they work for as many different types of farm as possible, including smaller farms. There was, for example, no minimum amount of land that could be entered into the sustainable farming incentive. We will continue to work closely to make sure that the offer is properly accessible for small farms. As someone who has a small farm, I think we can improve that area, and we are working on that.
Tenant farmers were also mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned the Rock review. We support the principles of the Rock review, and the department has already delivered on many of the review’s recommendations. The joint Defra and industry farm tenancy forum, which represents tenant farmers, landlords and advisers, will continue to play an active role in feeding back issues from the tenanted sector into Defra. The joint forum will help us continue to evolve our schemes to be accessible to tenants and to encourage collaboration between landlords and tenants in relation to environmental schemes. Working with the farm tenancy forum, we have also looked to remove penalties for tenants who may have to exit a scheme early if their tenancy ends unexpectedly. Our survey data shows that over a third of applications for SFI came from mixed-tenure and wholly tenanted farms.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of farm profitability. We publish regular statistics on farm business income in England and other data related to farm businesses. For example, in March, we published the average farm business income forecasts, and our recently updated farming evidence pack sets out an extensive range of data to provide an overview of agriculture in the UK and the contribution of farm payments to farm incomes. That includes analysis by sector, location and type of land tenure. That kind of data is really important as we look forward to redesigning the schemes. The years 2021-22 and 2022-23 saw record highs in average farm business income at all farm levels, which was largely driven by higher output prices. Clearly, although there will be differences from farm to farm, we expect that the average farm was able to build some reserves to aid the ability to absorb the subsidy reductions that came in during the transition period.
Transitioning from the legacy agreements into new agreements was also mentioned. We are currently reviewing our approach to transitioning farmers from existing agreements into the new schemes. We expect to publish more information about this following the spending review. In the meantime, we have announced that we will increase the payment rates for higher-level stewardship agreement holders. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, if letters were supposed to have been sent out in April, it is clearly disappointing that there has been a delay. I have checked and this has been delayed. As the noble Lord has raised this here today, I will chase this and bring it up with the department.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, both talked about the impact assessment. Obviously, noble Lords are aware that one has not been produced for this instrument but, as I said, we are publishing regular statistics on farm income and other data related to farm businesses. That includes the farm business income statistics published on 14 November last year. We are looking very carefully at the income, and from that we will understand the impact on businesses as we go forward.
We are also looking to ensure fair competition across the supply chain through contractual reform. Fair competition was mentioned and it is incredibly important. All farmers should have a fair price for their products and the Government are committed to tackling unfairness in the supply chain wherever it exists. Regulations introduced last year included key reforms for contracts in the UK dairy sector. They included mandatory written contracts to require greater transparency in milk pricing. New contract rules for the UK pig sector were introduced to Parliament this month, which aim to ensure that terms are clearly set out and changes can be made only if agreed by both parties.
Similar regulations for eggs and fresh produce sectors will follow, and the Government are committed to intervene in any sectors where fairness issues exist. The regulations are enforced by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, on behalf of the Secretary of State. Additionally, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, is leading a review of farm profitability. This important work is being supported by the newly formed profitability unit in Defra.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the basic income campaign. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness and any colleague she feels it appropriate to bring along to such a meeting.
We believe that this instrument is the essential next step of the transition period. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out the importance of the transition period. If we care about the future of farming—and clearly everybody in this Chamber very much does and feels very strongly about it, which has come across in the debate—we must not unravel the agricultural transition. This instrument will enable us to invest in that long-term future for farming while also delivering for nature.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this debate and providing their knowledge and experience on this issue. This is a crucial issue which deserves our full attention. I thank in particular the Minister for her response. I know that she, better than most, will be aware of the outcry that this sudden and unexpected cut has caused in so many in our farming communities.
It will not surprise noble Lords that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this issue. If something like an SI falls, it goes back to the department and a new way, ideally, is found. Like him, I believe all pathways lead to the Treasury when these things go wrong. I also particularly pick out the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made about HLS. I, too, have been in touch today with farmers who are deeply disappointed that they have not received the letter they were expecting by today. Those letters have not been received across the farming community. I thank the Minister for taking that back, but it is very significant, in addition to this regulation.
My noble friend Lord Russell described the times that the Conservative Benches have chosen to dispense with their aversion to fatal amendments. It is clearly a pick-and-mix tradition for them. I say to them that there has never been a more important vote; a chance to end this unfair cut to farmers. It is a test of their resolve on this issue and all they have to do is walk through the same Lobby as us. We all know that a regret amendment is not a sign of the greatest strength in these moments. A fatal amendment to end this measure for our farmers is a sign that we have their backs and will go down fighting for them. To do anything else is to sell them short. I ask all Members of the House to support farmers who have been hit by these cruel cuts again and again. We urge them to stand with the Liberal Democrats and reject these regulations. Therefore, in the light of what we have heard, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Farming: 25-year Road Map
Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish the 25-year farming roadmap, announced in November 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are planning to publish the first iteration of the farming road map, on growing England’s future, later this year. The Government are working together with farmers to develop the road map and set the course of farming for the next 25 years. The ultimate aim is to maintain food production, meet our environmental outcomes, and deliver a thriving and profitable farming sector.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the confirmation that the road map will be published later this year. Generally, what will the timeline for implementation be? Specifically, will it take forward recommendation 12 of the Corry review, which made it clear that we must
“reform slurry application and storage to help address diffuse water pollution from agricultural sources”,
implementing
“a single set of regulations which farmers can understand and comply with”?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, the first iteration will be published later this year. As we are still in the process of determining the content of the road map, and therefore the timetable of implementation, I am unable to give a detailed answer to my noble friend. We will publish more details in due course. I can assure her that we are continuing with targeted engagement right across the sector in order that we can agree a collective vision and shape the first version of the farming road map through discussion with stakeholders.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern at the loss of farmland, to the tune of 10%, through the proposed clean energy projects? Will she ensure that the road map rolls back this land grab and ensures that all grade 1, 2 and 3 farmland—the most productive land—will remain in farm production, putting food security and self-sufficiency at the heart of the road map?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that food production and self-sufficiency will be at the heart of the road map as it is developed. We work very closely with DESNZ around where energy projects are sited. With the land use framework also being developed, there is a lot of discussion about the best use of farmland, because we do not want good agricultural land taken out of food production.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in order to meet the combined objectives of food security and nature recovery, we need a much more nature-friendly form of farming. However, to make that transition, it is absolutely essential that we have a much firmer policy framework that people in farming can predict. When will the sustainable farming initiative be reinstated? Beyond that, can the Minister say that there will be an end to the stop-start funding that is so difficult for farmers when it comes to their own planning?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the challenges that has faced farming for many years is the lack of long-term security. The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise that. We are currently discussing the next stages of the SFI, so I do not have information about the dates at the moment. We will of course announce that when we have more information. We want to make sure that the next iteration of the SFI is fit for purpose and will deliver what we need the farming sector to deliver. On the noble Lord’s questions on nature and the environment, it is absolutely imperative that we get this right. We have to ensure that food production and support for nature and biodiversity work together, hand-in-hand, to create the long-term environment that we need for our country.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire. I welcome the road map, but can the Minister confirm that fruit and vegetable growers will be very much part of this review? The removal of the fruit and vegetable aid scheme has caused considerable distress among those growers, and the fact that the scheme still exists in Scotland means that our fruit and vegetable growers are no longer competing on a level playing field.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are very keen to ensure that horticulture remains at the heart of any future farming plans. If we are to have a thriving food sector and become more sustainable, fruit and vegetables will clearly be critical to that, as currently we import so much of them. Obviously, I cannot say what will be included in the road map, but horticulture is at the heart of our discussions.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend explain why it is called a road map? Is it going to include all those new roads that I hope the Government are not going to build over farmland? Can we not have a better name for it?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I suggest that we have answers on a postcard.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I refer the House to my entry on the register of interests as a farmer. Part of the new deal for farmers, published in January by the Secretary of State, was to diversify income streams for farmers. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, as drafted, will divert nature restoration levies away from farmers to Natural England. Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House why this should not be taken as a reduction in diversification opportunities for farmers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I said, food production, diversification and improvements in the environment are the three central pillars of the road map that we are developing—we are extremely keen to ensure that diversification is part of it. One problem that many farmers have faced in the past is not being able to get through the planning applications that are so critical to diversification. Again, that is something that we are looking at as part of our reform of the planning system.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will be aware that over 60% of the food we have here comes over the water to this country. Bearing in mind that we are about to have a national security strategy and a strategic defence review, can she confirm that Defra has been very involved with putting into this review the fact that we are an island nation and so need to ensure that we have security of the water over which all of this food passes?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Food security is not just about what we grow in this country; it is also about what we import. We can never grow everything that we need, so having security of the waters is critical. I am certain that the noble Lord would support any work that Defra is doing to ensure that we have that security. Border Force does a lot of work as well, which is critical.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, can we not get too bound up about a 25-year road map, whatever it is called? What we are worried about is a 25-month road map. The farming sector is under great strain as a direct consequence of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced quite recently. How many farm holdings does the Minister think there will be in 25 months as a direct consequence of what the Government are doing, and what effect will that have upon the rural, and therefore the national, economy?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am aware that there are a lot of concerns around some of the recent decisions regarding funding and farming. However, one reason this has been quite difficult is that farming has been facing a lot of challenges for many years now. There has been far too little security for farmers and far too little decent payment to farmers for the goods that they have been producing. The point of the farming road map is to provide some long-term security for the first time in many years.
Lord Trees (CB)
I want to press the Minister on the land use framework and when we might see that. It will be essential to ensuring that we have a coherent and strategic plan for how we use all the land in the limited area that we have in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The land use framework will be critical in a lot of areas. Because we have only a limited amount of land, we have to ensure that we are using it in the best interests of the country, whether that is for supporting farmers and food production, for energy production or for housing and so on. It is important that we are bringing that together. I do not have a date for the noble Lord today, but I assure him that we are actively progressing the report.
Lord Swire (Con)
Self-evidently there will be no food security without food, and there will be no food without farmers. What are the Government going to do about the ageing population of farmers and to encourage younger people into farming, at a time when the farming sector has been so horribly undermined by the Government’s own legislation?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The average age of farmers has been a problem for many years; there has not been succession planning in the way that perhaps there has for other businesses, because of the nature of farming. We are working closely with the Department for Education on skills. Young people can be encouraged to show an interest from an early age through going to agricultural college, for example, and all these things help. We need to look at how young people can get the right skills to want to go into farming in the first place. It is important that farms are available for new entrants, and that is something that we need to be working on—too many county farms were sold, for example. There is quite a lot of work to be done in this area.