Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion and all noble Lords for their strong support for the measures being brought forward. As noble Lords have said, this has been a long time coming, so it is really good to see that we have finally got this in front of us today. One thing that has come across really clearly, not just today but in a number of questions and parliamentary debates, is the huge problem of criminal waste activity that now blights so much of our countryside. There were a number of questions asked. I will do my best to cover them off, and if there is anything else I have missed, I will make sure I get back to noble Lords in writing.
First, on evaluation and monitoring, we recognise that tackling waste crime requires sustained effort and a willingness to adapt as circumstances evolve. Delivery of the waste crime action plan will be accompanied by a process of continuous review and improvement. We will also regularly assess the effectiveness of the measures that are introduced. We will consider any new evidence as it emerges and, importantly, identify opportunities to go further where existing interventions are not achieving the desired outcomes. This is designed to ensure that our approach to tackling waste crime remains agile, responsive and focused on achieving lasting change.
The Environment Agency is also developing improved indicators for 2026-27, including measures on larger-scale offending, response times and deterrence. The current Environment Agency scorecard metric covers only a narrow proportion of illegal waste activity. Waste crime is hard to measure as it is deliberately hidden: only around 27% of incidents are actually reported. Defra is working closely with EA to deliver new indicators, improving visibility of the problem and getting a better grip on it.
Defra is leading the delivery of the waste crime action plan, working closely with the Environment Agency as the national lead for waste crime. That is being done alongside HMRC, the Home Office, police forces and local authorities, because if we are going to successfully tackle this, we need co-ordinated cross-government action. As I mentioned in my speech, we have committed an extra £45 million over three years, and an extra £5.6 million uplift in 2025-26, designed to increase front-line enforcement, intelligence and operational capacity, so we have more officers, specialised units and multi-agency activity.
We are also bringing in structural reforms, including CBD reform, digital waste tracking and exemption reforms. They are being implemented to design crime out of the system so that prevention and compliance are integral, rather than relying on reactive enforcement alone. We are also driving through other concrete operations measures: earlier interventions, permit action, restriction notices, prosecutions, use of advanced technology including drones and satellite imagery, and strengthened intelligence via the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which I will come on to shortly. On monitoring effectiveness, we will deliver improved metrics but also review the multi-agency waste crime response and adapt its delivery so that the action plan remains live and responsive.
The noble Earl asked about digital waste tracking. It will work by requiring information to be submitted to a central system of all movements of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, with a few pragmatic exemptions, from the point the waste is produced to the point it arrives at the waste receiving facility. It will replace paper processes with consistent, near real-time data, improving traceability and highlighting any unusual movements linked to misdescription, diversion or illegal export. That is one of the ways in which we will tackle the illegal export issue that the noble Earl asked about. The first phase started in April, and it will be mandatory from October. The second phase will cover the whole waste movement chain. It is planned that that will be available for all relevant operators to use voluntarily from spring next year, with a mandatory rollout from the following October.
The noble Earl raised the exemptions. We need to reform the waste exemption regime because we need to stop criminals having the opportunities they currently have to hide illegal activity behind permit exemptions. That is why we are removing the three most abused exemptions and tightening up conditions on the others. Exemptions allow low-risk waste activities to operate without a permit, but we know that some have been widely abused by criminals. We will also bring in limits on quantities, tougher operating conditions and stronger record-keeping. We need to remove the weak points and protect the permitting regime. We are currently working on what the necessary legislative amendments would look like for that. Again, when doing that, we will take into account some of the issues that the noble Earl raised, as we do not want to cause problems for people who are legitimately doing their work.
The noble Earl also asked about businesses and people working in the system. Clearly, when designing regulations such as this, we have to work with those who will use them, to ensure that they work in the most effective way and we do not end up realising that they are not practical when we start monitoring. It is all about how things will practically make a difference.
On the Explanatory Memorandum, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the Environment Agency and efficiency savings. The new controllers and transporters system will mean that operators are required to submit more detailed information as part of their permit applications. This information will be used by the Environment Agency to more efficiently identify high-risk operators and conduct monitoring and compliance work.
The noble Lord referred to the £1 billion cost of cross-county organised crime. The way that we will try to work with the National Crime Agency, which is the point the noble Lord was speaking to, is that the Joint Unit for Waste Crime will provide the crucial collective operational capability. To ensure that the wider system for tackling waste crime remains effective in the face of an evolving threat, Defra is working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office to undertake a review of the end-to-end multi-agency response to waste crime. That will cover areas such as information sharing, local-to-national co-ordination and prosecution capabilities. The review will also identify opportunities to strengthen how agencies work together and ensure that the overall system remains effective, resilient and equipped to meet future challenges. The existing capabilities, including the JUWC, will continue to play a key role within this strengthened framework.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I take that to mean that, although the National Crime Agency will not be put into the lead, it will have an enhanced role. Is that what the Minister said?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Defra and the Environment Agency will be the lead, but we will work absolutely hand in glove with those other agencies to make sure that they effectively tackle the problem we have. As I say, we will monitor anyway so, if we find that it needs changing in any way to strengthen that, we will be able to do that once we have continued to review and monitor. We are bringing all these changes in because we want to make a difference and we want to stop what has been happening.
I have mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that I would be very happy to meet her to discuss her Private Member’s Bill, and I hope we can do that in the not-too-distant future.
I appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, coming in to offer her support for this SI. As she said, this has taken a long time, and I am sure she did quite a bit of work on it, so it is important to see that work started by one Government has been completed by another. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure my noble friend is aware that, as a Government, we have created the ability to hold the directors and higher-up members within the water industry to account, including through criminal charges. That is an important step forward. The key thing is that we cannot carry on as we are, which is why we have pledged to bring in the clean water Bill this Session to tackle all the issues that he and other noble Lords are so concerned about.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, we have a unique responsibility to protect our chalk streams, given that we possess 85% of the world’s total stock. These chalk streams have suffered mistreatment, given that they are located in some of the most densely populated areas of our country. They suffer from creaking sewage treatment systems, industrial and agricultural run-off and pressure from development. The Minister mentioned that in an earlier answer, but is it not time now to encourage true catchment-level restoration projects through landscape-scale recovery schemes that can deal with priority issues for each individual river and stream? Will she take an early opportunity to stress that to the new Prime Minister?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are investing a lot into chalk streams. As well as the £2 billion that water companies are investing over the next five years into targeted actions towards chalk stream restoration, which is part of our plan for change, we are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream clean-up projects across affected regions. Much of that will be catchment led, because a lot of local projects are worked on right across catchments.
Farming Practices: Sustainable Farming Incentive
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are looking at the uptake of the current round of SFI, which has been very encouraging. We recently said that 50% of the SFI budget has been allocated, and we will be reviewing that. It is also important to look at the changes that this is encouraging, because much of it was designed to make the biggest difference. We work very closely with farmers who do regenerative farming, such as Martin Lines. It is important that we target what we see as making the biggest difference the quickest.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the introduction of sustainable farming incentives under ELMS remains something we on these Benches are particularly proud of. They were intended to be part of a transitional scheme preparing farmers for greater private finance involvement in restoring nature through sustainable farming practices. The 25-year farming road map contained aspirations on this but very little detail, so could the Minister give us some real-world evidence of private sector finance creating incentives for sustainable farming?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is important to assure noble Lords that, just because something is not specifically in the farming road map, that does not mean that it will not be part of this long-term plan. The whole point of the farming road map is that it is not specific and dialled-down—it is a 25-year look ahead. On the basis that it is a long look ahead, you would not expect all the detail and information to be in it, because that will be developed as we move forward, and things will change a lot over 25 years.
Food Supplements Purity Criteria (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (England) Regulations 2026
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI. These draft regulations are a purely technical measure, setting the purity criteria for magnesium L-threonate to be used in food supplements and for its legal sale and use, in compliance with the Food Supplements (England) Regulations 2003. This is a novel food. It was examined by the experts on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which pronounced on its safety and uses. The current levels authorised in the novel foods authorisation are 250 milligrams of magnesium per day, which is roughly equivalent to 3,000 milligrams of magnesium L-threonate per day. This level was established based on health-based guidance values.
The Food Standards Agency consulted on this matter. I understand that concerns were raised during that consultation that the maximum level initially proposed for magnesium L-threonate in food supplements would result in a lower amount of base magnesium compared to the EU’s maximum level of 250 milligrams. This would have risked disadvantaging British businesses that market their products in the EU. The FSA, after consultation with outside organisations, agreed the level that we have before us, which is the same as the EU’s. On this occasion, UK scientists made that decision and it was not foisted upon us by the EU. The future, however, looks rather different.
The assessment of safety is not one set figure but a range, allowing this revision to a higher but still safe level. I commend the work of the independent experts in the ACNFP, whose assessment allowed this product to get approval. They get abuse from ignorant people, who complain that they do contract work for the food industry and therefore must be biased, but I do not want the Government to employ any so-called expert if he or she is not good enough to get contract work from an outside company. These are excellent people and I commend them.
I would like to raise some broader concerns about food regulation. There has been much noise about the Government’s intentions for dynamic alignment with the EU. The sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement involves 18 key agri-food policy areas. The Government want us to believe that this deal will simply ease traffic at our ports, when in fact it requires adopting thousands of EU laws, including future changes to them, over which we will have no say whatever. This includes policies such as those approving or restricting food texturisers, enhancers and processing aids; dictating vitamin dosages, mineral concentrations and ingredient reporting; and authorising emerging food technologies, synthetic alternatives and lab-grown products. Many noble Lords across this House will have views and insights on each of these areas, but they will be denied any say. More broadly, the deal risks sacrificing areas of growth and progress, such as precision breeding and gene-editing, or the development of vaccination programmes for cattle against MTBC, mycobacterium tuberculosis complex.
What assurances can the Minister give that these successes will continue under the SPS agreement? Will she clarify what safeguards, if any, are in place to ensure parliamentary oversight of future changes and to protect parliamentary sovereignty over UK law? These are important considerations; they are not relevant to the measure before us, but we will face them in future if the SPS agreement goes ahead. It is important that we have a say and can make recommendations over regulations such as those before us today. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, as I said at the beginning, we welcome these regulations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their participation and questions in another short and sweet debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the EU and divergence, and the noble Lord just touched on that as well. To clarify, this form of magnesium has been approved as a novel food in the EU, where it can be used in food supplements. There are some minor differences between the EU’s and the Food Standard Agency’s assessments, but they do not create a material difference or any safety concerns. In the FSA’s view, the differences are due to differences in assessment style rather than in the product itself. In addition, the applicant has confirmed that the product, as manufactured, will comply with both the EU and GB specifications. That therefore does not give rise to any concerns regarding its trade between GB and the EU.
While we are on the EU, the noble Lord talked mainly about dynamic alignment and the legislation that will come with that, and asked for reassurances in that space. We are still in the middle of negotiations and I cannot go into the detail of them. They are not directly relevant to this statutory instrument, but the noble Lord knows that I am always more than happy to sit down, have a cup of tea and discuss these issues with him in detail as we move forward through the EU discussions. We know where we are on that.
Just to finish, the noble Baroness also talked about review periods, safety, and so on within that. Clearly, a lot of these areas are in the FSA’s area, and we in Defra—and, I know, the Department of Health and Social Care—meet regularly with our colleagues in the Food Standards Agency, because it is really important that we uphold standards and work very closely together. I will reference these concerns in our next meeting with the FSA, because the noble Baroness makes very important points that when we are bringing in new legislation around novel foods, we need to ensure that we are confident in their safety for the long term and that consumers are being suitably protected.
Having said all that, I remind noble Lords that this statutory instrument is very much a routine technical measure; it does not place any new burdens on businesses but ensures that use of the substance meets clear, consistent safety and quality standards. I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions and commend this SI to the Committee.
Marine Licensing (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment etc.) Order 2026
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important SI. Two-thirds of the world’s oceans lies beyond any nation’s jurisdiction, so it is crucial that we support international co-operation and that we take our own responsibilities and opportunities for action seriously. That is why the previous Conservative Government played a leading role in negotiating the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement. In our waters, we have established 296 marine protected areas, and we have established the Blue Belt programme and backed our overseas territories. Indeed, the UK overseas territories are home to an estimated 94% of all known UK biodiversity. We must take that role seriously.
This secondary legislation follows the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Act to ensure compliance with the treaty, specifically regarding environmental impact assessments for activities that require a licence and for which the Marine Management Organisation is the licensing authority on behalf of the Secretary of State. This will ensure that potential environmental impacts are assessed before activities are approved in areas under the UK’s control. The Official Opposition therefore welcome the order.
More broadly, however, the Government do not seem to be taking their role seriously. Until recently, they were determined to give away the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and to pay for the privilege, despite concerns about its ability to protect precious marine biodiversity around the Chagos archipelago. The Chagos Islands MPA was designated in 2010 and is home to coral reefs and 76 species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list of threatened species. Sadly, the Government do not take the UK’s international role seriously and were prepared to give this all away for the Chinese shipping empire to pillage every inch of that ocean.
Closer to home, last year the Government decided to grant the EU 12 years of continuous access to UK fishing waters, despite concerns of overfishing and concerns from the UK fishing industry. Indeed, one organisation described the deal as a
“horror show for Scottish fishermen”.
When the Government show a disregard for our sovereign territory, marine life suffers as a result, not to mention the other financial costs to our economy and public finances.
As this instrument passes to help us meet the obligations of the BBNJ agreement in full, I urge the Government to reflect on how they are living up to the UK’s international role in other areas. If we are expected to be responsible for areas beyond our national jurisdiction, it means taking our sovereign territory overseas even more seriously. What assurances can the Minister give that UK fishing waters will not be harmed further in the Government’s planned UK-EU reset? What further steps are the Government taking to protect marine life in and around overseas territories? I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but I commend and welcome this order.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this short but sweet debate. I am pleased that noble Lords fundamentally have supported this statutory instrument, as it is important. We do need to ratify the agreement, so I thank noble Lords for their broad support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about enforcement and resources. The Marine Management Organisation’s enforcement strategy includes a range of tools, including advisory letters and formal enforcement action. We want to apply any enforcement proportionately on risk and evidence. We can place conditions on licences requiring licence holders to keep records, make returns or provide information to the Marine Management Organisation. However, we are also looking at how the MMO can develop intelligent gateways in areas beyond national jurisdiction to assess where there may be non-licensed activity taking place and how to address that. Regarding non-compliance, any breach of the licence terms and conditions may lead to that enforcement action being taken. That can include variation, revocation or suspension of the licence, the issuing of an enforcement notice, civil penalties or criminal proceedings—which carry a maximum penalty of an unlimited fine and a term of imprisonment of up to two years.
On resources, the MMO charges for licence applications on a cost recovery basis. Applications under BBNJ will be charged at the highest band-3 hourly rate. While the MMO applies a cost recovery approach, not all costs are currently recovered through this mechanism. The remainder are covered by grant-in-aid funding. We are looking to move towards fuller cost recovery to get to that place.
The noble Baroness mentioned that there have been only two applications for a licence on an activity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. One was for the Virgin Orbit launch, which I am sure the noble Baroness is aware of. She also asked how we could increase resource if we suddenly had more activity. A cost recovery basis should cover it, but we do not anticipate many activities. Our evidence shows that there have been very few so far. We have a few case studies. It is difficult to completely assess the volume, but we do not expect much to come forward.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the lack of a review. I am unaware as to whether there is a process for that, so I shall pick that up and ask for more information.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his comments. He mentioned the environment around the Chagos Islands. National security is paramount, but we have secured a deal that will help to protect the unique environment of the Chagos archipelago. The UK and Mauritius have both committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments. The agreement will be supported by an enhanced partnership between the UK and Mauritius under which the UK will support Mauritius’s ambitions to establish a marine protected area that protects the globally significant ecosystems in Chagos. This has been welcomed by conservation NGOs, including the Zoological Society of London. The UK and Mauritius have been working together to attach great importance on the need to protect marine diversity, including the fight against illegal fishing.
This legislation will help to ensure that the UK can meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and be able to ratify it, while establishing a flexible proportionate approach to regulating licensable marine activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It is a crucial step, ensuring that effective measures are in place to protect our environment for the future.
Farming and Food Production
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can absolutely reassure my noble friend that the uplands are very close to my heart. My mother’s family were upland farmers in Wales and I currently live in Cumbria, so I know the issues around upland farming very well. The SFI offer that is coming forward will include seven moorland actions. I know that not all uplands are moorlands, but it will help and payment rates will be increased. I have had very constructive meetings with Dr Hilary Cottam, who is looking at a new approach working very much from the ground up in upland communities and bringing them together. We are looking at pilots first in Dartmoor and then in Cumbria because we know that it is a challenging landscape to farm in, and we want to support the best we can.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the Government announced this 25-year road map for farming in November 2024. That is 18 months ago. The noble Baroness has said it is going to happen this year, so when exactly might we see it in 2026? Will Defra now stand up for British agriculture against Treasury and government attacks when farm closures are at a record level and 51% of our farmers are thinking of simply giving up and leaving? When will the Government realise that supporting farming, our farmers and food is good for Britain? That should be the principal aim of any 25-year farming plan.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Part of the reason we decided to do a 25-year farming plan is to work with farmers and rural communities to ensure that they have some kind of certainty, some sort of security for the future, because there simply has not been enough of that in recent years. We feel that having a long-term approach that is worked up with farmers, the people who are on the ground and who understand that long-term thinking and security, can help to support them as businesses and our food security for the future.
Water Companies
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, delivery of strategic water infrastructure is crucial to tackling wider systemic issues. What assessment have the Government made of the benefits of smaller farm reservoir networks alongside large-scale water storage? That is the shortest question of the day, I dare to suggest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
One thing we have been doing is working with landowners on small storage areas. We know it can be very effective in things such as flooding, as well as providing water for livestock, for example. It is a very good point because, as well as building new large reservoirs to provide drinking water, we need to look at how we put less pressure on our water system. The noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be very helpful.
EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. An important component of the negotiations and one of the reasons why we are looking to agree a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, particularly on agri-foods, is making it easier, cheaper and quicker for British businesses to trade with the EU. In the business meeting that I had in Northern Ireland last week, there was a very positive response from businesses regarding the potential opportunities that will arise from this.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the freedom to break out of the ridiculous EU ban on gene editing was one of the greatest successes of Brexit. We passed the law fully supported by the Labour Party, and the Food Standards Agency has developed all the necessary guidelines. Our industry is geared up and raring to go, with products that will benefit people, animals and the environment. Can the Minister assure us that, whatever else the Prime Minister—whoever that may be—sells out in reintegrating the United Kingdom back into the straitjacket of EU bureaucracy, gene editing will not be sacrificed?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, I am not able to give detailed information around the negotiations because they are ongoing and we do not have outcomes. However, I assure the noble Lord that issues such as gene editing are being discussed.
Animal Welfare Strategy: Rural Communities
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate raises an important issue. I have previously met representatives from both Jewish and Muslim communities on religious slaughter. There is some acceptance of pre-stun slaughter for halal meat, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. We are discussing that within the department. I will continue to do so, because animal welfare has to be at the forefront when we look at slaughter.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the animal welfare strategy seeks to regulate British farming even further and suggests unilateral action on the use of pig crates and hen cages. Can we have a cast-iron guarantee from the Minister that the same welfare standards will be applied to all imported food, including bacon and eggs, so that our farmers are not unfairly disadvantaged? Also, if any hunt members have broken the law on hunting, prosecute them fully, but trail hunting has nothing to do with animal welfare and would penalise all legitimate hound trailing, which has been done in this country for over 200 years, including Cumbrian footpacks such as the Melbreak in the Minister’s old constituency and the famous Blencathra in mine.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I may have to disagree with the noble Lord around some of our opinions on hunting. However, on the issues that he raised about trade, which are really important, the UK’s trade strategy has set out that we will not lower food standards and that we will uphold our high animal welfare standards. All agri-food products have to comply with our existing import requirements in order to be placed on the UK market, which includes ensuring that imported meat products have been slaughtered to animal welfare standards equivalent to our domestic standards. We also recognise concerns around methods of production which are not permitted in the UK, and we will always look at whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage and any impacts that may have.
Changing Weather Patterns and Floods
Lord Blencathra Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, regarding development on flood plains, MHCLG is consulting on the new National Planning Policy Framework, which will introduce a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change to help ensure that local plans are informed by the latest evidence and that planning decisions support long-term climate adaptation and coastal management goals. That is part of those planning reforms.
Regarding flooding, as I mentioned, I have a house that is on a river. We have to use the Flood Re scheme, as other people do with insurance. That really is the most effective way to ensure that you can get affordable insurance if you live in a house that is designated to be at risk of flooding.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
For the first time ever in this House, I think, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. Agricultural land covers 70% of the UK’s land area, meaning that the countryside is where most of our national capacity for holding water rests. With heavier rainfall becoming more frequent, small-scale on-farm reservoirs, attenuation ponds, leaky dams and other natural flood-management measures can slow the flow, reduce downstream flooding and improve resilience. As has been said many times, farmers are willing to do that work, but they need clear incentives and a stable funding framework. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, I too love a good argument, but on this occasion I am certain that the Minister and I will be in complete agreement that the Government will give farmers a key role to support on-farm water storage and flood management infrastructure.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In my response earlier to my noble friend I talked about ELMS, the environmental land management scheme, and I will provide a bit more detail about that. The Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme provides a number of ongoing actions to help create water storage and prevent flooding, including actions on arable land and grassland to mitigate flooding and create flood-plain storage. Capital grants are available to support natural flood management, which can improve soil health, as I mentioned previously. Together, the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, the sustainable farming incentive and the ELMS capital grant schemes provide support to help plan, plant and manage agroforestry systems, wood pasture and so on, which also helps to hold water.