Natural England: Gamebird Release Licensing
Lord Roborough Excerpts(6 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I mentioned earlier, the report carried out by Dan Corry looked specifically at all the arm’s-length bodies in Defra—and there are a lot of them—to see whether the work they are doing was efficient and necessary and whether we could work more effectively and efficiently by reviewing the way they operate.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the highly critical judgment against Natural England in this court case is the latest in a long list of failures: Ebbsfleet jumping spiders, fish discos, bat tunnels, pony culls and, even as we sit in this Chamber today, dangerous wildfires in upland areas following Natural England policy. Will this Government, under their new leadership, ensure that Natural England follows science, not prejudice, and focuses on delivering the best outcomes for nature and for our economy? I declare my interests as a farmer, landowner, developer and sporting rights owner.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, we have not been culling ponies. A lot was written about that, but I am not aware of any ponies that were culled or that are going to be culled. The Dartmoor pony is an important species in that part of the country. As for the other issues, we will obviously be looking at the judgment and analysing it, and we will respond to it in due course.
Farming and Food Production: Land Use Framework
Lord Roborough Excerpts(6 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is right that it is a very small percentage. People sometimes think that solar panels are on agricultural land when in fact they are on brownfield. A very large solar development near where I live has just been given permission; it looks like it will be built on a lot of fields but, actually, it is an old mining site and brownfield.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the land use framework identified the need for greater intensity and yields from our best farmland to compensate for the loss of production elsewhere. Market prices for agricultural commodities do not currently support an incentive to intensify this production and underpin our food security. Can the Minister clarify what support is given to farmers with this land through ELMS to meet the Government’s goals and enhance our food security? I declare my interest as a farmer.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are supporting farmers through a number of different schemes. For example, we have committed at least £200 million through the farming innovation programme to support productivity improvements. We are also supporting skills development, farmer collaboration and adoption of innovative land management practices. There is a lot going on and a lot of options for farmers who are looking for support.
Bycatch Risk Prioritisation Framework
Lord Roborough Excerpts(6 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are looking to start with the larger vessels because that will make the biggest difference and have the biggest impact. From that, we will look at a mandatory rollout. We will look across vessels of all sizes, because we need to make the biggest difference.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the English Atlantic salmon is also a victim of bycatch, yet it is on the IUCN red list of endangered species. The salmon is an easy to monitor species that is a key contributor to and indicator of the health of our native ecosystems. What progress has been made on rolling out the bycatch initiative to UK vessels and EU vessels, where this Government have given another 12 years of access to our fisheries? Will EU vessels be managed under this plan? I declare my interest as the owner of fishing rights in England and Scotland.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps I should declare my interest, as I have fishing rights in England for salmon and brown trout.
A lot of these issues are tied up with the negotiations that we are doing with the EU around fishing rights and what access the EU will have, so it is difficult for me to comment on that in any detail. On the salmon bycatch, this is an important question. We have some real issues with numbers of salmon, as the noble Lord knows. Defra has been exploring the different options to improve the data collection for salmon bycatch. That includes monitoring, using REM on vessels, so that we can have a clear picture, get more data and look at how best to target the problems that this is causing to salmon stocks.
REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
Lord Roborough Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this measure to extend the transition period for businesses to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under the UK REACH regulations. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee.
The UK’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals replicated the EU REACH regime. To manage the transition, requirements to submit further information were phased, and the deadlines were extended twice by our previous Government, in 2020 and in 2023. This statutory instrument extends the deadlines to submit information to the HSE for registrants, downstream users and distributors that continue to import chemicals from the EU. This will allow the compliance costs of registered businesses in the chemicals sector to be spread more evenly. It is worth noting that 98% of registered businesses in the chemicals sector are small, medium or micro businesses.
In addition, the SI will provide more time for the Government to introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of Brexit. This is expected to reduce costs for industry significantly, so can the Minister update the Committee on when this new model will be introduced?
The Minister might be pleased to hear that I do not have many additional questions, given that so many have been asked. But I highlight the Government’s response to concerns submitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about divergence from the EU in this policy area. The Government stated—the Minister was kind enough to repeat this—that
“divergence only occurs where there are compelling reasons, for example to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we will retain full control of our regulatory decisions”.
If that is the case, why will the Government not take the same approach to the SPS regulations soon to be determined by the EU, in particular on the role of precision breeding?
I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask one question on something not directly related to this SI: the chemical Asulox. Emergency authorisations for its use ended a few years ago, and we are already seeing the impact of the withdrawal of Asulox from the market, as bracken moves further and further up the hill, outcompeting grass, outcompeting degraded peat and undermining our habitats. Will the Minister commit to take that away and see whether anything can be done to reintroduce Asulox to the market? I very much look forward to her response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their important contributions and for the careful consideration given to the regulations. I will go through some of the questions and issues raised.
Noble Lords asked about the deadline extension. Clearly, this is now the third time. The deadlines were first altered when we were still preparing for EU exit, to allow businesses enough time to compile and submit the full required information, given the complexity and scale of the task. As I mentioned, there was a further extension in 2023 to address transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to business of acquiring the additional information. This Government wanted to reassess their broader chemicals policy, and it then became clear that we could not implement the ATRm in time for the original deadline. We want to get a robust and effective policy framework for the future, which is why we have extended the deadlines.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate in particular asked what guarantee we can give that we will not extend it again. Clearly, we really do not want to do that. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that businesses need certainty, and continually moving the goalposts and changing dates does not help, so we have absolutely no intention of extending the deadlines further.
We published our policy conclusions on the ATRm back in March, and that set a firm path forward for government. On the questions around timetables, we are looking to consult very quickly on the legislation in order to bring the model into force next year so that businesses have ample time to prepare for the new deadlines. As I said, we do not plan to bring in any further extensions.
As I said, in March we published the timetable for implementing the alternative transitional registration model. By consulting quickly and then bringing in the new regulations next year, we want to ensure that industry has sufficient time to prepare its registrations so that it is ready to comply with the first revised submission in an orderly way, which is what we want. Now that we have said this is what we will do, we want to consult as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the Swiss style and why we could not take that approach to chemicals registration rather than developing a separate UK model. One of the core principles of UK REACH is that it is industry’s primary responsibility to understand and manage the risks of its chemicals, and registration is how it demonstrates that it is doing this. That means submitting data on hazard conclusions and classifications and how it is using chemicals in this country. We need to assure the public and consumers that chemicals are managed safely.
This “no data, no market” approach remains a central part of UK REACH, and that is not embedded in Switzerland’s system in the same way. However, we are exploring whether elements of a Swiss-style approach could help improve the speed and efficiency of UK REACH restriction decision-making, particularly where many GB businesses already comply with EU restrictions and there is no compelling reason to diverge. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, as we are still looking at the options around that.
Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026
Lord Roborough Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this statutory instrument following the Government’s consultation on the application for the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor. The decision obviously confirms that the small modular reactor is justified in principle, and we support that. This is an encouraging step in the right direction to enable the UK’s first small modular reactors and ensure that new nuclear reactor technologies form part of our future energy system.
Our domestic nuclear reactor industry needs a supportive Government in order to be globally competitive. There are many rivals around the world that benefit from such a situation, and we must not handicap our own. This is a strategic industry where the research and manufacturing capabilities are critical, not just to our energy security but to our national security. That support is critical also to the export success for Rolls-Royce SMRs in Sweden and the Czech Republic and its current European leadership. Rolls-Royce itself describes the need for volume to drive industrialisation and reduce unit costs.
As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, have pointed out, this is just a first step. The construction or operation of a reactor still has to go through all the hurdles of environmental permits, a nuclear site licence and planning consent. The Government must be consistent in their backing, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out a timeline for the delivery of the first UK SMRs.
I have a few further questions related to the issues in this SI, which may well be outside the brief that the Minister and I usually inhabit so I will be completely happy with replies in writing. There is considerable evidence of the favourable carbon emissions intensity of SMRs, but what assessment have the Government made in coming to this decision about the cost of this electricity and how that will compare to other electricity generation sources? We appreciate the importance of this project but we would welcome the publication of more information on the impact of future electricity costs in the UK.
When making these calculations, can the Minister confirm whether they rely to a greater or lesser extent on the Government’s internal calculation of current carbon emissions, last published at a central cost of £273 per tonne? By contrast, the UK Woodland Carbon Code units trade at £30 to £40 and our own ETS price is £60 per tonne. I asked the noble Baroness’s colleague in the debate on the carbon orders two weeks ago whether this really was an appropriate cost and whether this leads to faulty decision-making about the appropriate energy investments in this country to create an affordable energy transition; I am yet to receive an answer. I should also, in that context, declare my interest as a developer of Woodland Carbon Code forests.
When we debated the creation of GB Energy in your Lordships’ House, we were assured that it would not crowd out private sector investment. Now, it has been selected as preferred bidder for the Wylfa SMRs. How can we be confident that it has not done that by using the UK’s low sovereign cost of borrowing to out-compete the private sector? How can we be confident that this government body has priced risk effectively when competing with the private sector?
Furthermore, this Government scrapped the previous Government’s plan for two SMR projects and have refused to honour the commitment for 24 gigawatts of electricity to be generated from nuclear by 2050. We are all aware of the need for energy infrastructure, as well as the economic opportunities it brings. Can the Minister give any indication of whether the incoming Prime Minister will be more ambitious and may at least match the ambitions of our previous Conservative Government? I look forward to hearing her response.
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Lord Roborough Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, for her excellent review on farming profitability, and my noble friend Lady Rock, who is in her place, for the Rock report, which also seems to have been carefully read by the Government. I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a farmer, forester, and landowner; as a commons owner and non-grazing grazier on Dartmoor; and as the owner of SSSIs.
This farming road map is intended to provide a long-term strategy for farming for the next 25 years, but often seems disconnected from this Government’s other actions and policies. The family farms inheritance tax directly threatens long-term business viability and the partial U-turn has not been enough to restore broken trust or confidence. The £15 million investment in genetic improvement networks until 2029 remains overshadowed by the threat of the SPS negotiations to precision breeding and gene editing. Can the Minister give us any assurance that these, or the development of bovine TB vaccinations, will not be impacted?
The road map promises to make trade easier with the EU through the SPS agreement, but the new regulations will also apply to our domestic produce without input from Parliament. Growers and breeders are making production decisions now for produce which will be sold beyond mid-2027, without any guarantee that this produce will still be compliant. We have highlighted the need for a sufficient transition period to mitigate these potential consequences, but the Government will not even publish an impact assessment until after the agreement has been signed. The road map also states that it wants to protect UK farmers from unfair competition, yet it lacks any mention of closing the flag loophole on food packaging.
The draft Carbon Budget Order that we debated just last week requires a reduction in livestock numbers, and in meat and dairy consumption. The road map is right to say that farming and the environment should not be positioned against each other, but that is exactly what is happening. We recently saw this confusion between farming and the environment on Dartmoor, where the latest ELMS agreements administered by Natural England require a 60% to 90% reduction in grazing pressure, in a one-size-fits-all policy for moorlands around England. Natural England disclaiming responsibility for any resulting pony cull is disingenuous, as the consequence will inevitably be sharp reductions in pony numbers.
The 2030 goal of 50% of SSSIs being on track to be in favourable condition is disappointing. How is this progress from the 62% that Natural England reported to be in favourable or improving status as recently as last year? What exactly has Natural England been doing all these years, with 2,800 staff and £300 million per annum of funding? These are our most important biodiversity sites, and that shows remarkably little progress. Imposing the same grazing policy across all the moorlands around England in order to improve SSSIs fails to reflect that every SSSI, moor, and every part of every moor, is different.
Can the Minister tell us whether she believes that Natural England is fit for purpose and delivers value for money for the taxpayers who fund it? We need an overhaul of arm’s-length bodies, of which there are over 34 in Defra alone. There is a clear lack of co-ordination, accountability and value for money.
Within the Statement, though, we welcome commitments such as increasing domestic timber production, and helping farmers and growers to access a greater share of the public sector food and catering market. However, there are a number of concerning commitments in this road map: doubling the number of Environment Agency farm inspections by 2029; turning sustainable farming incentives into unremunerated regulations; environmental permitting for dairy and beef farming; and a geospatial enabling programme to monitor land use. Does the Minister believe that this punishment and regulatory approach is really the right one? Would it not be more helpful to farmers to deregulate and allow them to focus on their businesses?
There are also encouraging comments throughout the road map on bringing in greater private investment to support environmental outcomes, which we on these Benches robustly support. However, the detail is lacking. Will the water Bill that we expect in this Session include support for nature-based solutions helping farmers diversify their income? Which other carbon and nature markets does the Minister expect to deliver meaningful revenue for the rural economy by 2030? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Waste Management Carriers: Regulation
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a really important point. I have met organisations such as Coca-Cola, which I know feels that the money that it has invested should be taken into account when we look at how these things are tackled. Producer responsibility is, again, something that the Government have been looking at. My colleague, Mary Creagh, who has responsibility for these areas, is taking this matter very seriously and, I am sure, will continue to talk to producers about what they need to be doing.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, these new powers for the EA have been described by the Government as “police-style powers”. Given that this is about enforcing the law and the EA has failed to do so, has the Minister considered that the police themselves would be more effective in enforcement if they were given that responsibility?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The key thing, as I mentioned earlier, is that the EA has made some arrests—since September last year, 22 arrests have been linked to waste crime. However, it is important to note that arrests have to be made by the police—the noble Lord made that point quite clearly—and that is done working very closely with the Environment Agency. One way to increase this is to make sure that the agencies work very well together. One issue is that police arrests are not tracked centrally, and we are continuing to work with the Home Office on how we can improve that joint working.
Hares: Close Season
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend has allowed me to express my deep disappointment that the PMB on this, which was Defra’s priority PMB for this Session, was not picked up. I thank noble Lords who were prepared to put it forward but did not come early enough in the ballot.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, hare populations vary dramatically around our country, and the breeding season can be for most of the year. Can the Minister clarify that she will ensure that hares can still be controlled where appropriate? I declare an interest as the owner of land where hare populations need encouragement rather than control.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely, I can confirm that. The idea is to bring in a close season in line with those of other countries, not to stop control of hares absolutely.
Legal Protections for Ancient Trees
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Forestry Commission reports to Defra, to my colleague Mary Creagh MP. I know that she has been working very hard to ensure that the kinds of issues my noble friend talks about are better taken into account, including how the commission manages its estates, the kind of trees that are planted and how to bring in proper enforcement where required.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, there is a greater problem in incentivising land managers to plant enough of the right trees to protect our watercourses, promote nature recovery, sequester carbon and increase our timber self-sufficiency from the current 27%. Properly planned planting that complies with UK forestry standards can meet all these objectives. What actions are the Minister’s Government taking to increase the percentage of productive tree species planted in England? I refer the House to my registered interest as a forest developer and owner.
Thames Water
Lord Roborough Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering on this Statement in your Lordships’ House. Thames Water has scandalised our country while asking its customers to pay more for less. For the sake of customers and taxpayers, we now need stability, not uncertainty. This Statement has not announced any change to the situation of Thames Water. There is a recapitalisation proposal and Ofwat must evaluate it. All that the Statement has announced is that the Secretary of State has sent a letter to Ofwat’s chair outlining her own views, but she has made it clear that it does not count as direction from the Government. What, then, does this letter hope to achieve exactly? What specific changes to the proposal does the Secretary of State want? When do we expect Ofwat’s decision, and how long will the public consultation on it take?
I want to correct the record on one point that was made in the other place. It was in 2006, under this governing party’s last Government, that Thames Water investors acquired and leveraged the company. Why was action not taken then to prevent this happening?
During the passage of the Water (Special Measures) Act, we proposed strong action against those responsible for failings. Can the Minister confirm that the penalty regime will not be watered down as reforms to the water sector continue to be rolled out? In those debates, we sought assurances from the Government and attempted to amend the Bill such that, in the event of a special administration regime, consumers would be protected from any liability in a bailout and the Secretary of State could impose leverage limits on water companies to prevent a recurrence of this appalling situation. The Government did not accept these amendments. Does the Minister have any regrets or a change of view on these points?
The Minister has herself stated:
“Investors would not have the confidence to invest money if the special administration regime could be triggered without allowing a company to rectify any performance issues”.—[Official Report, 4/11/24; col. 1373.]
Can the House have the same assurance again, and will it still stand after the Makerfield by-election result and any future leadership change?
A special administration of Thames Water risks making lenders to Thames Water whole. That could represent a 50% gain on the current traded value of Thames Water debt. Can the Minister clarify that, in the event there is a special administration, this would not be the case? It is important that this situation is clear so we can be confident that the creditors negotiating to recapitalise Thames Water do not stand to win if these negotiations are unsuccessful.
There are still reckless calls for nationalisation. That could cost the taxpayer £20 billion and would drive away investors. It is money that could and should be spent on our nation’s defence, the first duty of any Government. Further to that, would a nationalisation process increase the risk that lenders were made whole and generated a profit out of the failure of Thames Water?
We keenly await the upcoming water reform Bill to address the failings of regulators, not just companies. The Government hope to introduce a new single regulator, integrating the functions of Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. How can we be confident that Thames Water’s process will continue to operate smoothly with this organisational uncertainty? As we have seen this week in other areas of the Defra brief, we desperately need the Government to get a grip of arm’s-length bodies, and we will scrutinise the provisions in detail when the Bill comes to this House. In relation to this question, I declare an interest, as my daughter is an employee of one of the funds named in the press as a participant in the Thames Water recapitalisation.
I have asked quite a few questions of the Minister, and I hope she is in a position to answer them and elaborate on the purpose of this Statement. I very much look forward to her response.