Batteries (Placing on the Market) (Northern Ireland) Regulations

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for moving this amendment so that we can again debate this crucial constitutional matter. I have every sympathy with the points he made, because what we face again here is legislation by sleight of hand. We are in fact approving comprehensive regulations for the battery sector, but we are told they are none of our business as a United Kingdom Parliament because it was determined in Brussels, without any of our representatives present, and formed into a directive which is directly acting in Northern Ireland, an important part of our country.

We are asked to debate today the much lesser issue of the impact of the enforcement mechanism, which we are allowed to discuss and approve, not the wider impact of the battery regulation on a growing and complex sector, with many businesses at stake. So the Minister is able to tell us—reasonably accurately, perhaps —that the impact assessment says that it is not going to cost very much because that impact assessment assesses only the administrative costs connected with creating these new offences. It does not go into the detail of what might happen if people actually had to pay the fines, of course, and it leaves out the question of the huge compliance costs with the underlying directive.

The case being made is that it already applies, so businesses have already had to impose it. It is rather odd that the Government have not got round to putting in the enforcement mechanism until now. We have been told that it is much delayed compared with the EU’s requirement upon us, but, none the less, they got there in the end. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, made the powerful point that in a democracy, if you are imposing potential large fines or imprisonment on people, that is surely something which your country and elected Parliament should control, not something which you are told you have to do because of an EU imposition on part of your country.

My second great worry about this is that it illustrates not only that laws are imposed on Northern Ireland without proper debate, democratic consideration or economic assessment, but that we end up with them in Great Britain as well. We are now told by the Government that the only way they think they can guarantee the very important integrity of our internal market—with a far bigger economic impact on both sides of the Irish Sea than the issues the EU is imposing, and with far less trade at risk—is that it all has to be taken for granted and that we have to adopt the measures that the EU is imposing on Northern Ireland, otherwise our internal market will be disrupted. Not only does the Windsor Framework now mean that Northern Ireland has to accept undemocratic law on itself, but we will probably end up with it in GB as well.

These are mighty issues arising out of what look like rather technical and small directives and statutory instruments to handle them. I again urge the Minister to take back to the wider Government that they cannot go on like this. They cannot go on pretending that we live in a sovereign democracy if, by the back door, these laws can be imposed on part of our country, and then perhaps on the whole country, without proper consideration. This must be the number one issue in the reset and the Government should not take no for an answer. There are easy solutions in a reset. Please get on with them.

UK Water Companies: Chinese Financial Influence

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not think that the Government are in denial. Through the White Paper and the Bill that we will bring forward, the Government will look at the best form of ownership for water companies, but it is also really important that we get the right kind of investment. The water industry requires over £200 billion in new investment before 2050 and we have to remember that capital markets are global. If we artificially restrict the kind of investment that we want to see, we will reduce competition and increase costs for customers. It is incredibly important that we get this right, while closing doors to investment that compromises our national security.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, given the very big capital requirements that the Minister has rightly identified, and the need to pay compensation to existing shareholders if the Government wanted to buy it out, is it not the case that the country cannot afford nationalisation of the water industry?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have expressed concerns previously in your Lordships’ House about the costs of nationalisation, which is why we are looking at the best way forward when we bring forward the new water legislation. I really look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say about how we move forward.

Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

This is no way to legislate for Northern Ireland. It is not right to annex part of our country to the European Union. At the time of the Windsor Framework, I and some colleagues in the Commons opposed it and pointed out that there were much easier ways of organising the trade and border arrangements between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Government should go back to that work and understand that we do not have here a system of handling Northern Ireland’s law and trade which meets the requirements of the loyalist community, and maybe others in Northern Ireland as well.

The Government should be ashamed of how undemocratic this process is. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has rightly identified, there is no point in consulting all the people who are to be affected by regulations in these areas in Northern Ireland because the Government cannot change them—and the Government cannot be bothered to work out the impact costs, or even the impact benefits, of the regulations because they rightly understand that they are a spectator. They are not in charge of any of these things.

Then we are told in the documents that there is going to be no review of how this works out. All the other examples that come to the Commons and the Lords from government for consideration go through a proper process. There is consultation with the people they are going to affect. Both Houses expect a proper assessment of costs and benefits. We expect a proper debate and if the Government have got it wrong, we expect them to go away and change or amend it. We certainly expect there to be a review after the process, so that we can see whether it has worked out in the way that the Government wanted.

The fact that none of these things can happen on any of these SIs means that we are going to spend a lot of time, on SI after SI, complaining about the process, so I have this suggestion for the Government. They have embarked on negotiations for something they call the EU reset. So far, all I have seen is a list of things that the EU wants, with the Government indicating that they would like to give those away in order to purchase some greater friendship or influence. It is always very odd that they think you get influence by giving in to what the other party wants. That is not the way most people negotiate.

Would it not be a good idea for the Government to put to the EU that this is doing damage to relations between communities in Northern Ireland and to the way in which they are governed; that it is undemocratic; and that we surely need a new settlement over how Northern Ireland legislation and trade are conducted? I very much recommend the mutual enforcement model, where we say that we will not send anything that is non-compliant from Northern Ireland to the EU and that we do not want to impose any new barriers on the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland border—indeed, that we would dismantle all barriers between GB and Northern Ireland.

Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a long-term problem that has been going on for many years. Unfortunately, the water industry has simply not been held to account in the way that it should have been, and that is why we are bringing in the clean water Bill and changing the regulator.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Can the Government give us their estimate of the cost and the timetable for putting in the extra pipes and processing capacity so that we can clean up our rivers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

Farming Road Map and Profitability Review

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes some good points. I am more than happy to discuss these issues in the department and with the Farming Minister. Looking at our response to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, on tenancy, because she particularly mentioned this, we recognise the benefits of longer agricultural leases and the importance of security of tenure for tenant farmers. New industry-led guidance was published in March of this year, which hopefully will help more landlords and tenants look at how long-term agreements are of benefit to both landlord and tenant. Also, we know that the Law Commission is looking to review agricultural tenancies within its 14th programme, and we welcome that, because we genuinely believe that longer-term tenancies are better for the sector.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Is this not a policy to make us more dependent on imported dairy and meat from the EU, because these policies will find that the carbon targets, the grazing policy and the wilding policy will mean far fewer farm animals in our country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I disagree with that. In fact, I think the opposite. When we have met industry sectors, whether pigs, cattle or whatever—particularly in Northern Ireland, interestingly enough—we have found that they really see the benefit in the opening up of markets by us working closer with the EU. A lot of the trade restrictions, the paperwork and the bureaucracy will go. We lost, I think, 40% of our trading opportunities with Brexit, but this is an opportunity to have more trade and support for our farming industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. The word “agroecology” may be used only three times, but sustainability—improving water, air and soil quality—runs all the way through the document. Just because it does not say the word, that does not mean this is not a key part of what the document intends to deliver. As I said earlier, environmental degradation leads to poor farm profitability: the Batters review was about farming profitability. That is also what the farming road map is designed to improve, because we need to improve our farming profitability.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Why are the Government asking for carve-outs from bad EU laws when, as a sovereign country, we should just say that we do not accept bad laws?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is part of the negotiations.

Thames Water

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that that is not the assessment by Ofwat at the current time. However, the noble Lord makes some good points. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water meet regularly with Ofwat. We are watching very closely for when or if there is a considered view that it has tipped into that space.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that Thames Water needs to put in a lot of new, larger waste pipes and an extra reservoir to cater for the extra population that we have experienced in the area? What is the Minister’s rough estimate of how much capital this new investment will take?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the basis that I do not know how many pipes, what size reservoir and where it would be, it is difficult to assess a capital investment. The Government have a reservoir policy. We have committed to building new reservoirs. No Government have done that for many years now, which is partly why we have issues with supporting housing development and important infrastructure development in the south-east. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government because we must get this right to ensure that our economy is fit for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can see where the noble Baroness is coming from. The difficulty is that if a company continues to pollute regularly and other water companies are being fined, where is the fairness and logic in letting one company off the hook because it has got itself into a worse mess? These are difficult, complex areas to get right. It is very much Ofwat’s decision, and I am sure the Government will continue to discuss such matters with it.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Pursuant to the Minister’s kind reply to me, I welcome the Government’s wish to have more reservoirs. She might like to ask about the Abingdon reservoir plan for the Thames area, which has long been around. It was much needed when I was MP for my local area and is even more so now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I know the Abingdon area applications very well. In a previous life I worked in communications on major infrastructure, and I remember it crossing my path probably 20 years ago now.

Water Companies

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, Defra is very keen to be able to implement SUDS. We know that it makes a huge difference. We know that we need to use sustainable drainage to tackle flooding, particularly given the size of the building programme and the Government’s ambitions in housing, for example. I can only assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to press the department on this.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

We do need more capacity for reservoirs and water storage. Where have the Government and the regulator got to in granting the permits so that work can get under way to make that much-needed provision?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are very keen to press forward with new reservoirs. It is unfortunate that no new reservoirs have been built in almost 40 years. There are a number of reasons for that, and it is one of the reasons why we brought in the Planning and Infrastructure Act: to allow major projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—to be able to move forward more quickly. We are currently working through that process.

EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, we are discussing this area with the EU. One of the approaches that we have around the new technologies, whether you are talking about gene editing or novel foods, is that it is important that we are able to strengthen the UK’s credibility as an innovative regulator, bringing in these new technologies. We are very proud of our scientific community and of the work being done in these areas, and we will continue to support them to the best of our ability.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Under dynamic alignment, will we be able to block a measure which we think is anti-innovation but which the EU asserts is not?

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

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I first draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer and landowner who is also in receipt of delinked and other government payments. I am very grateful to the Government Chief Whip for moving this debate to a civilised time this evening; I think that is much appreciated by all noble Lords. I thank the Minister for outlining this SI, although we regret its introduction. Indeed, it is now at the end of this Session that we are about to lose significant agricultural expertise from this House, which keenly understands the impact of legislation such as this on the ground and in our close-knit communities.

When in government, we replaced the basic payment scheme with delinked payments based on historic BPS claims. We intended this to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods, as outlined by the Minister. The reductions we put in place put these delinked payments on a gradual glide path to zero in 2028. This Government dramatically accelerated that decline last year and have continued at a similar rate this year. This, in effect, ends the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect, undermining their budgeting.

We support the long-term transition, but not at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the Middle East has caused uncertainty over fuel prices and fertiliser and a shortage of industrial CO₂. Grain prices remain at low levels, undermining profitability for our arable farmers. However, it is not just external factors that are adding pressure to farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Government have left farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI application window last year, the family farm and business tax, increased employer national insurance, and the Government’s refusal to consider our cheap power plan to lower energy costs all have a cumulative impact.

I note that the Government are set to spend £100 million to reopen the Ensus bioethanol plant in Teesside to mitigate CO₂ disruptions. But this might not have been necessary had the Prime Minister not, in effect, sold out the UK’s bioethanol industry at the last minute in the UK-US trade deal. These plants provided a valuable source of demand for our farmers producing wheat. Closing them down to benefit American ethanol producers means that we are now supporting American maize or corn farmers at the expense of our own farmers. The deal reduced British tariffs on a quota of 1.4 billion litres of US ethanol, when the total market size for bioethanol in the UK was coincidentally 1.4 billion litres. These are not events outside the UK’s control; these are government choices. This SI reduces the direct financial support farmers receive at a time they need it most.

Ultimately, this SI does not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability—let alone profitability. I beg to move.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend and challenge the Government on how they are going to spend the money they are going to allocate. While I can understand the wish to have a transition, it is right that it has to be done at a sensible pace. The really big disappointment of the farming community is that the alternative schemes the Government are bringing in are not the kind of schemes that are particularly attractive to many farmers or that promote the production of more domestic food.

I would hope that the Government will have a rethink now. Do the Government not understand there is currently a crisis in world trade and the supply of food in the months ahead because of the difficulties of getting fertiliser out of the Gulf area, the damage being done to chemical and fertiliser plants by more than one war and by the very acute trade disruption with no immediate signs of being resolved? Those I have heard from in the farming industry tell me that not only are fertiliser prices extremely high but there is no visibility as to when they will be able to buy serious quantities of fertiliser again at sensible prices. As we know, without proper fertiliser applications, yields will plunge and there will be a further shortage in food provision.

It is a tragedy that this century there has been a big decline in the amount of home-produced food that farms have been able to make because of the grant choices of the EU and successive United Kingdom Governments. I would have thought that now is a wonderful opportunity for a rethink to place at the very centre of agricultural subsidy policy, in line with many other countries around the world, the need for more domestic, reliable supply and production.

The Minister reminded us that some small pots are available for those important topics of innovation and new technology. I agree that there can be a new agrarian revolution; it was this country that launched the original one. There is now huge scope for mechanisation with robotics and drones and all the other things that can come in. However, the amount of money being offered in these small grant schemes is very small and unambitious. We have some great farms and some great farmers. Many of them would like to have access to serious money for that big investment and that pioneering technology that could start to make the difference.

I urge the Government to think again: put food production as the central issue that we need to deal with; understand the urgency of the collapse both in British farming and in the wider world market because of the interruptions to fertiliser and other chemicals; and do something to make available the money they are saving by the rundown of the existing ground system in a more intelligent and purposeful way, so that farmers can get decent money to rebuild their ability to feed us.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, my maiden speech in 2019 was on the impact of Brexit on food and agricultural produce, with a focus consistent with my interests as a Devon farmer on the Devon cream tea. It is fitting that my final words are on matters agricultural and the delinked payments regulations—the final decoupling of our agricultural subsidy regime from the common agricultural policy.

When I joined the House, one of the silver linings of the Brexit storm clouds was the promise of autonomy over agricultural policy, which we sought to deliver through the Agriculture Act—scrutinised largely online during those dark days of the pandemic. The birth of environmental land management and the sustainable farming incentive promised a brave new world of public money for public goods, under which the blunt instrument of CAP area payments would be replaced by the agile deployment of Defra’s budget to allow British farming to increase productivity and sustainability in equal measure.

During the passage of that Bill, this House reiterated multiple times the long-term nature of agricultural business and the need for certainty and continuity in government policy to enable farmers to adjust their business models at an appropriate pace, consistent with the annual harvest cycle, their very narrow margins and their necessarily long-term investment strategies. Despite the hard work of many at Defra and the Rural Payments Agency, that continuity has not materialised. Farm and food businesses have been battered not only by the pandemic and by wars in Ukraine and Iran, but by extreme climatic events, drought, flooding and government policy that has become even less clement than the weather.

Agriculture

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Sir Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 16 April, be approved.

I declare my farming interests, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The instrument continues the important agricultural reforms that we are making in England—reforms that support the long-term prosperity of the sector. It applies progressive reductions to delinked payments for 2024. Delinked payments were introduced on 1 January 2024 in place of payments to farmers under the basic payment scheme in England. The reductions in the instrument were first announced in our agricultural transition plan in November 2020. They continue the progress of gradually phasing out untargeted subsidy payments over our seven-year agricultural transition period in England. We are now in the fourth year of that seven-year transition.

We remain committed to moving away from untargeted payments, which have served our industry so poorly. Most of the money has been paid to the largest landowners, and the payments have done little to improve food production or the environment over that time. I reiterate that the overall annual farming budget is being maintained at an average of £2.4 billion per year across this Parliament —money that is no longer being spent on untargeted subsidy payments and is not lost to farmers. Instead, it funds the sustainable farming incentive and other farming support.

As was the case under the basic payment scheme, we are applying the reductions to delinked payments in a fair way. Higher percentage reductions are applied to amounts in higher payment bands. We plan to make delinked payments in two instalments each year, which will of course assist with farmers’ cash flow. By continuing to gradually reduce the subsidy payments, we are freeing up money so that farmers can access a range of environmental land management schemes and grants to suit all farm types. We planned for the agricultural transition, and we are delivering on it.

[Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am pleased that the Minister and the Prime Minister are keen on promoting more home-grown food. As the transition occurs, what proportion of total subsidies paid will be for promoting food? It still seems to be too small.

[Sir Mark Spencer]

My right hon. Friend will understand that the basic payment scheme did not motivate food production at all, as it was not linked to it. As we move to the new regime, we are promoting better productivity through grants for better equipment. We are investing in new technology. Alongside that, we are pushing to improve gene editing and gene technology, to try to make agriculture more sustainable and more productive at the same time. As we go through this transition, we are certainly keen to increase the productivity of our agricultural sector.