Agriculture: Mental Health Pressures

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford for securing it and for the compassion and clarity with which he opened it. Combined with his rural knowledge, it gave us a very good introduction. I must admit that the butty van sounds like a good way of helping to make things better, as best we can.

The first debate I had in this House in my name was on children’s mental health and I have the climate change position in my party, so I come to this debate with those two threads very much in mind. In truth, they are part of the same thing. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northworld, said it very well: if farmers prosper, so do our rural communities. I do take issue with one point that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, made in his speech. I would like this debate to concentrate on what we can do to help our farmers with practical solutions to the unique set of problems that they face. To my mind, to frame this as city against country is too easy a dichotomy, and one that I do not feel is particularly helpful in moving this debate forward.

There is no doubt that our farmers face a blizzard of competing and unavoidable pressures, and many of them have been named by previous speakers, including climate change, the increasing unpredictability of extreme weather, growing financial strain, social isolation, long working hours, regulatory upheaval and a historic stigma based in self-reliance that keeps too many of them from seeking the help and support that they deserve.

Research consistently shows that UK farmers have worse mental health than the general population. I was going to go through some of the statistics from RABI, GHQ-12 and the Farm Safety Foundation, but those figures have been mentioned. What is true is that farmers face greater rates of mental ill-health than other comparable workers. These rates are unacceptable. This is not a new problem. Friends in the other place have raised it. This issue has been raised across parties. I am also struck by the fact that we do not have enough research on the scale of the problem. A lot of this work is being done by charities and a lot of the statistics we have are now a bit historical.

My question to the Minister is: what actions might the Government take to try to improve their understanding of the rate and scale of these problems? Will they do more now to widen access and help provide support directly to our farmers?

The Question names three pressures. It would be a mistake to treat them as separate. They are all intertwined and compounded, and they interact. I will look at them as separate threads, but I think it is important that we understand that.

The first pressure is economic uncertainty. We have had a big change in government policy, and that process has been slow and uneven to say the least. We have had the basic payment scheme and the move to ELMS. This has left farmers with a great deal of uncertainty, and they tell us time and again that that uncertainty creates the greatest stress and pressure points. Will the Government look again at what more they can do to commit to a proper multi-year funding settlement so that farmers can have greater certainty for long-term planning and budget cycles?

I strongly believe that solar presents a real opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talked about 20% of solar on farmland. I do not recognise that figure at all. The figure I have is less than 1% by 2050. A quarter of our farmers already use alternative forms of stable income to offset the increasing losses from climate change. There has been an announcement on GB Energy and community energy today, which is welcome, but I ask the Minister what more could be done to help provide renewable energy to farmers as a stable source of income.

The second, obviously related pressure is regulatory change. I am not against regulatory change. We need this, but it needs to be better communicated and signposted; and it needs to be done with farmers, not to them as an afterthought. It is uncertainty and rapid change that causes them anxiety and leads to these tragic situations. Better communication and the Government doing much more to use trusted intermediaries to help deliver and communicate those messages is something we heard about in the Environment and Climate Change Committee.

The third pressure concerns the environment and climate. We are increasingly moving to a cycle of extreme flooding—if your fields are flooded, you cannot plant your crops—and extreme heat, and heat and sunlight destroy the crops in the field. We have talked about the worst harvest. The Minister is well aware of that, but I will give this figure. The Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit estimates that cumulative harvest losses across 2024-26 amount to £5 billion in real terms for our farmers. Our farmers are very much in the front line of climate change, and we need to do more to support them.

Warm thanks have been given for the farming welfare grant, particularly the work the Minister has done on this, and I recognise that as well. But we need to take that further. There is a need for more support. We need more imaginative ways of reaching farmers. It is quite a hard community to get into to have these difficult conversations. I want to put on the record my support and the support of our Benches for the various charities and organisations: the Farming Community Network, the DPJ Foundation, RABI, and the Farm Safety Foundation’s Yellow Wellies campaign, all of which are working extremely hard to support farmers. It is important for all of us to say that if anybody knows farmers who are struggling, it is essential that they get the help and support they rightly deserve.

My final message to the Minister is that the changes we make need to be made with farmers, not done to them. For me, that is one of the most important things the Government can do to help improve this situation.

Climate Change: Food Supply Resilience

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of climate-related extreme weather for the resilience of the UK’s food supply.

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

My Lords, the United Kingdom Food Security Report of 2024 suggests that rising temperatures will increase the likelihood of extreme weather events, which do of course represent significant risks to UK food security. So we are investing in resilience by spending £200 million up to 2030 through the Farming Innovation Programme, and £65 million to support farmers, given recent drought conditions, including an extra £50 million for sustainable farming incentive agreements for short-term and long-term resilience to our changing climate.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the National Audit Office is concerned about our food security: 2026 is on track to be our worst harvest, and our five worst harvests have all been since 2020. A major El Niño event will make matters worse. Add in global conflict, and we have a recipe for food inflation and possible shortages. A freedom of information request reported in the Guardian found that just 20 of Defra’s 6,613 staff are working on climate adaptation. Is safeguarding our food security receiving adequate consideration?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

In looking at where staff work, it is important to take into account that many staff work across different briefs in the organisation. While people may not be specifically working on something, there are implications across other parts of the department which are also involved in that work. Food security is a critical part of the work Defra does. We are looking at ways to increase resilience in the face of the increased effects of climate change.

Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Earl Russell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly want to congratulate the Government and to say, well done. I think this was first put forward eight years ago, and it is finally happening. I appreciate it is not happening until next year, but we need to recognise the long amount of time it took to get here. I hope the results will be very rapid.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which we on these Benches welcome warmly. As the Minister is all too aware, I have raised the issue of waste crime in the House several times. I am genuinely pleased that these regulations are arriving as a crucial part of the of the long-term solutions we need to get control of our waste system and lock the criminals out.

As the Minister said, this SI does not arrive in isolation; it follows the Waste Crime Action Plan and the instrument beginning the rollout of real-time digital waste tracking. Together with the exemptions reform promised later this year and next April’s instrument completing end-to-end digital tracking ahead of the deposit return scheme, we are finally beginning to see the basic architecture this sector has needed for years, so that we can know who is moving waste and where it is going, and make sure our systems are fit for purpose. This is the first time I have been able to say that I am really hopeful and see a future and a way forward. I really do welcome this.

On the Environment Agency’s own estimates, around 18% of the waste in England passes through criminal hands at some point in its journey. This structural feature of the current system has been allowed to flourish for a number of years. As a result, we have a big historic legacy of waste sites that need to be cleared.

I note that the Environment Agency’s watchlist for high-priority sites has grown to 139 as of 10 July. I welcome this transparency but, again, this legacy still needs further work. I thank the Minister and officials in the Environment Agency for all their work and for the change of culture under this Government over the last 18 months or so. That is genuinely welcomed.

Turning to the instrument itself, as the Minister said, it replaces the older carriers, brokers and dealers’ registration system with a proper environmental permit split sensibly into three categories: waste controlling, waste transporting and combined activities, so that oversight can match risk rather than applying as a single blunt instrument. Gone, hopefully, are the days when it was possible to register your dog as a waste carrier. Permits will run for three years, and the Environment Agency gains real power to check before granting a permit, rather than acting only after the damage is done. It also gains powers to suspend and revoke. This is a genuine structural improvement.

I want to be fair to the Minister on timing—she has already spoken about this—but obviously, this instrument has been a long time coming. Consultations closed in 2022, but the delay is not down entirely to this Government, but to past Governments. It is great that this instrument is here.

I have several questions. On exemptions, how will the department ensure that charities and other low-risk categories are not quietly colonised by operators or organised criminal networks seeking to avoid scrutiny? Will monitoring be ongoing, not one-off assessments at the drafting stage? On interrogation, how will permitted regimes interact with the digital waste tracking that has already been rolled out? Obviously, a permit is only as good as the data behind it. On exports, illegal and misdescribed waste exports remain a major route for criminal activity. What assessment has been made of this instrument’s bearing on waste that should not be leaving our shores or that is doing so mis-permitted?

On funding and delivery, with £45 million in new money for the Environment Agency—we obviously welcome that—and several reform strands running in parallel, how will the Government monitor and review the programme as a whole, not just instrument by instrument, so that we know how the money is working and that it is delivering the results we expected? Does the Minister agree that we need overall benchmarks and reporting across this piece, as we are undertaking these various strands of structural reform?

On industry awareness, reform closes a loophole only if waste producers know that carriers need a permit and that there are checks that one is in place. What steps will ensure that businesses understand this, that they are encouraged to apply for the right permits and that they know what they need to do? I slightly worry that the resources for this information part of working with industry may not be sufficient for that structural change across the whole industry.

This instrument is to be renewed in three years’ time, so can the Minister confirm that at that point, proper checks will be in place to review what happened over the first three years, on an individual carrier and broker basis? A permit granted once and never revisited would simply not resolve the problem and could allow illegal activity to continue.

On transition, criminals and the organised criminal networks adapt quickly—sometimes much more quickly than Governments can. We have this 12-month window during which the old registration remains valid. In this transition period, what work is being done to make sure that that is not an additional opportunity for the organised networks to exploit the change of system?

None of this works without an Environment Agency properly funded and staffed to issue permits, monitor compliance and take enforcement action against those who ignore them. So what continuous review are the Government undertaking to make sure that the Environment Agency has the staffing, the computer systems and the ability to conduct all the tasks that it needs to do?

We absolutely welcome this instrument and are really pleased to see it. It is about time that we turned the tables on these organised criminals. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has a Private Member’s Bill coming up, and I encourage the Minister to work with her on trying to offer whatever support the Government can for it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations before the Committee. I can be commendably brief—or briefer than I normally am—because we give a very warm welcome to these excellent regulations. We on these Benches have repeatedly raised waste crime and called for tougher measures against the perpetrators. During consideration of the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government did not support our amendments to give police the powers to seize the vehicles of perpetrators of these crimes. I am sure that, if the Minister were to draw this to the attention of the excellent, caring and meticulous Lords Minister for Crime and Policing, he might wish to reflect on this again.

Nevertheless, we welcome this step to better monitor the transportation of waste, taking into account which activities are low risk and which are high. These regulations are at least intended to ensure compliance and better identify criminal activity. I understand that the consultation demonstrated that a majority of respondents supported replacing the carriers, brokers and dealers’ registration system with this permitting regime under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. That said, can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that businesses are made aware of the changes, as well as their ability to afford the costs involved, because there will be permit fees, registration fees, time costs, technical competence costs, tax, et cetera?

These regulations give more power to the Environment Agency, as well as responsibilities to issue permits. The increased enforcement costs are estimated to be £22.1 million, but the Explanatory Memorandum also states:

“The Environment Agency may benefit from efficiency savings”.


So can the Minister provide an exact figure for how these savings will be made?

More broadly, I come back to the one major quibble we on the Opposition Benches have had—making the National Crime Agency the lead in the joint unit on tackling waste crime. We are dealing with massive, organised crime here. I perfectly well accept and believe that if a farmer’s slurry tank leaks, the Environment Agency is the perfect body to investigate it, as with a leak from a factory.

Farming Practices: Sustainable Farming Incentive

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that farmers need clarity and certainty, which is why we have brought in the 25-year farming road map. With regard to larger farmers, that is also why, from September, the SFI will be open to all farms. We are trying to encourage farms that had not previously taken part to come forward and be supported by the Government.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

We certainly do not see larger farmers as the enemy, but we are aware that small farms have particular problems in accessing these grants. So I kindly ask the Minister: what further measures are the Government taking to make sure that smaller farmers have the skills and the ability to access these grants?

Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is probably a cost for the water companies to assess.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that the Government are on the verge of planning the NPPF. Does the Minister agree that it is more important that this is got right than got out quickly? She talked about making sure that we do something about the run-off from roads. Can she add any more detail to that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

When the NPPF was revised fairly recently, for the first time it included a lot of positive actions on the environment—for example, about how it needs to be taken into account during planning. In fact, sadly, I keep a copy of it in my drawer so I can refer to it if I need to. I am pleased that we are continuing to revise it and to look at how planning and the environment work together rather than against each other. The noble Earl raises an important point about run-off from roads, and we need to look at that in more detail.

Waste Management Carriers: Regulation

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One thing we need to do is to work more closely with local authorities, because waste collection and disposal is the responsibility of local authorities. Much of the problem is that carriers, brokers and dealers can get away with behaving irresponsibly, which is why we are looking at the current registration system. We need to make it harder for rogue operators to find work, fundamentally: if they cannot get the work in the first place, if they cannot get the waste to begin with, they cannot dump it. It needs to be tackled from all sides.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for genuine progress that has been made; there is obviously more to do. My noble friend mentioned Bickershaw, a huge site mere metres from a school and from houses. The Government’s own record shows that there are at least 17 super-historic sites that blight their communities. Does the Minister expect that, under new leadership, more action will be taken to deal with this toxic legacy and clear up these historic sites?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As has been mentioned, Bickershaw and other sites have been an absolute disgrace and a blight on local communities. That is why we are bringing in all the different initiatives I talked about within the waste action plan, why we are trying to give the Environment Agency more power and more ability to make arrests, and why we are looking at how to stop this at source. This is not going to be solved simply; we need to make sure that we tackle it from all sides. Whatever Administration we have going forward will be absolutely committed to do that, I am sure.

Hares: Close Season

Earl Russell Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is entitled to his views on this, as everybody is. However, having looked at the evidence, my view is that a close season should run from the beginning of February through to the autumn.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, on animal welfare issues, I declare an interest as a dog owner. Some 45% of dog owners report that their dogs feel fear from fireworks, and the majority of people who have horses similarly find that fireworks affect their animals. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to bring forward legislation to restrict the decibel limit to 90 decibels, and to restrict the time that fireworks can be sold, so that pet owners and their pets do not suffer needlessly?

PFAS

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that I am always happy to be brave when I can and I will encourage the department to push forward as best it can in this area. It is important and I recognise the huge concern both in this House and among the public.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said that this is a starting point and we broadly welcome that, and I note that she said that this is an extremely complicated group of chemicals used in many industrial processes. The Minister also spoke of Europe and the action being taken there. Fundamentally, the approach being taken in Europe is different to that being taken in the UK. Can I ask the Minister for further clarity about how we can have further co-operation with our European partners on these important issues?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Lord says, the EU is developing a broad ban on PFAS. We know that industry is concerned about any plans being workable, which is why this is the starting point in working with industry to get it right. We need to see what the EU’s proposals are; we do not know yet. We are expecting it to announce an update next week, which will be followed by a consultation. I am sure that we will debate that much more in Parliament. But our plan is the starting point; we want to work with the EU. We are waiting to see what it comes up with. Then, I hope, we can be braver.

Global Biodiversity Loss and National Security

Earl Russell Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published on 20 January.

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

My Lords, nature underpins our security, prosperity and resilience, and understanding the threats we face from biodiversity loss is essential to address them effectively. This important assessment provides strategic analysis that is designed to help government plan for future risks that may arise. The UK is already taking comprehensive action to strengthen resilience to environmental risks, both at home and overseas. The findings in the report will support and inform that action.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, a nature security assessment was initially withheld and then only partially released following an FoI request. Given the gravity of its findings for biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and our future national security, will the Government now publish the report in full? What policy responses are being developed as a result? Will Ministers engage in open dialogue, both at home and with allies, that recognises the interlinked climate and nature emergencies as essential to our natural security strategy and future prosperity?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is important to note that this is a strategic tool and not a prediction of future possibilities. The idea behind it is to help government plan for future shocks that are credible enough to warrant preparation. The way it has been managed reflects standard national security planning for preparedness. On policies, we are taking comprehensive action to strengthen resilience to environmental risks, both at home and aboard, through various ways. Tree planting in England is at its highest rate, and we are restoring peatlands, improving water quality and protecting pollinators. We have introduced landmark legislation to protect our oceans. We are supporting food security with new technology and farming schemes that reward sustainable production, and we are also committed to providing international climate finance—I could go on. Maybe the noble Earl and I can pick this up in more detail after the Question.

Animal Welfare Strategy: Rural Communities

Earl Russell Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am aware of the concerns around foxhounds. To reiterate, the consultation will look at all views and concerns. I urge people who have concerns around the future of foxhounds to take part in the consultation, so that point can be properly considered and discussed as we move forward on the manifesto commitment.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, our rural areas are defined by their communities, of which farmers are undoubtedly a very important part, both economically and socially. However, imported meat products, often produced at lower animal welfare standards, are threatening their ability to make a living. Will the Government therefore look at ensuring that imported meat products are clearly labelled so that consumers can make informed choices to support British farmers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the issues the noble Earl raised, I point him to two parts of the animal welfare strategy. First, we reference labelling. It is something that we will be looking at, not just on the issue he talked about but more broadly. There is a section on labelling. Secondly, we have a section on international impacts around animal welfare, which include trade. In the strategy, we recognise that animal welfare is a global issue, and we will continue to work internationally to champion high standards of animal welfare. That includes looking at how we manage our trade, because we have said quite publicly that we will not allow poor animal welfare standards to undermine our own standards here that our farmers meet.