MPs Grill Defra and Regulators on "Broken" Systems, Bureaucracy, and Risks to Food Production

KEY TAKEAWAY: MPs condemned Defra’s "broken" regulatory system, warning that excessive bureaucracy, shifting rules, and a lack of focus on food production are undermining the agricultural sector and blocking vital innovation.

On Monday, 2 February 2026, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) held an oral evidence session regarding Environmental Regulation. The Committee questioned senior figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Environment Agency (EA), and Natural England (NE) following a critical report by the National Audit Office (NAO).

The session saw MPs from across the political spectrum challenge the regulators on a wide range of issues, from the complexity of rules facing land managers to the balance between environmental goals and food security.

Below is a summary of the issues and challenges raised by the Committee members during the hearing. You can also download the full transcript.

A System "Not Fit for Purpose"

The session opened with robust questioning regarding the overall competence of Defra and its arm’s-length bodies. MPs cited findings from the NAO Report and recent independent reviews (such as the Corry and Cunliffe reviews) which suggested the regulatory system is currently struggling to support either nature recovery or economic growth.

Rupert Lowe MP offered a scathing assessment of the Department’s current standing among the rural community. Speaking from his experience as an active farmer, he told the witnesses:

"My experience of Defra is a very poor one. Most farmers would agree with me that Defra is not fit for purpose. Your rulebook mutates like a virus... How can an industry that is based on long-term planning respond when you do not know your own rulebook?"

Blake Stephenson MP echoed these concerns regarding the severity of the NAO’s findings. Drawing a comparison to the private sector, he noted:

"Had a financial services firm received such a report as this from its auditor... the firm would be dragged over the coals and more likely than not fined."

He pressed the witnesses on whether the regulators were "at risk of holding those that you regulate to higher standards than you yourself can achieve."

The Impact on Farming and Food Security

A significant portion of the hearing focused on the pressure regulation places on the agricultural sector. Committee members expressed concern that the pursuit of environmental targets was undermining the primary function of farming: food production.

Rupert Lowe MP challenged Defra Permanent Secretary Paul Kissack on the Department's priorities:

"I watch in horror as farms are rewilded. I watch grade 1 land being given over to beaver rehabilitation schemes and being flooded... I look at just about every bit of warmongering on farmers."

He added that he did not believe Defra prioritizes food production, stating: "You are more interested in the abstract of rewilding and nature."

The Chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, raised specific concerns about the intensity of the proposed regulatory regime. Noting that Defra is gearing up to conduct 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, he calculated that this equates to one in every 16 farmers facing inspection annually.

Sir Geoffrey pressed the witnesses three times on whether farmers would be given adequate time to adapt to new rules, reminding them:

"Farming is a long-term business; they cannot just change their farming systems overnight... Farmers cannot just switch on and off a light switch."

Regulatory Complexity and Confusion

The sheer volume of legislation was a recurring theme. The Chair noted the existence of 3,000 pieces of legislation, asking if the Department had ever considered withdrawing regulations that are not working.

MPs highlighted the administrative burden this complexity places on businesses and land managers. Sarah Olney MP questioned how easy it is for businesses to find the correct guidance, noting that it can be a "burden to be constantly seeking out guidance."

Clive Betts MP criticised the reactive nature of the regulators, stating that in his constituency, "people always have to come and get you" rather than the agencies having a proactive plan. He also highlighted the difficulty of getting regulators to engage with other agencies, such as the council or police, to deal with illegal activities.

Rupert Lowe MP described the rulebook as "homunculus-like," criticizing the constant changes to schemes. He specifically cited the closure of Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) windows as a breach of trust.

Water Quality and Enforcement Failures

The Environment Agency faced heavy scrutiny regarding its handling of water quality and pollution.

Rupert Lowe MP criticised the EA’s approach to water companies, stating:

"I think the Environment Agency is too soft. In my view, you are as soft as a boiled maggot with Thames Water."

He also cited a local example of a hydrochloric acid spill into a river which took the agency five years to deal with.

The Chair raised the issue of illegal waste sites, noting that "illegal sites are worse than the legal ones." He referenced a site in Kidlington where the agency was criticised for being too slow to act.

Philip Duffy, Chief Executive of the EA, admitted that while they took action once intelligence was confirmed, "the local community tells me that they had seen suspicious activity on that site for many weeks previously," indicating a gap in intelligence gathering.

Risk Aversion Blocking Innovation

MPs questioned whether an overly cautious culture within Defra and its agencies was hindering progress and blocking practical solutions.

Anna Dixon MP raised the example of a proposed £43 million upgrade to the Ilkley sewage treatment works. She noted that a "nature-based solution" was supported by Ofwat and the water company but was blocked by the Environment Agency due to a lack of evidence regarding phosphorus removal. She asked:

"Is this an example of where a risk-averse approach at the regulator is blocking innovation and nature-based solutions?"

Tristan Osborne MP queried the "precautionary approach" adopted by UK regulators compared to the cost-benefit approach seen in the US, suggesting that the current system essentially defaults to "no" unless proactively pursued.

IT Systems and Data Duplication

The inadequacy of the regulators' IT systems was identified as a major barrier to efficiency. Tristan Osborne MP pointed out that Defra has a series of "legacy IT platforms" and asked for updates on transformation programmes.

Rupert Lowe MP voiced the frustration of land managers regarding data collection:

"As a farmer, we fill in countless forms. We are asked for data all the time... it churns out the same questions every year, even though you already have arable area aid claims and loads of data elsewhere."

While the Environment Agency claimed to be making progress with 75% of systems now on a secure cloud, it was acknowledged that Natural England is "slightly behind the curve on digital."

Conclusion

The session concluded with the Chair, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, warning the witnesses that the Committee would be watching closely to ensure cooperation improves. While a merger between the Environment Agency and Natural England was discussed, Defra officials pushed back against structural change, arguing it would be a distraction.

However, the Chair made it clear that the current situation requires significant improvement:

"We will keep a very close eye on Defra to make sure they are co-operating better and living up to the very high expectations that you have given them this afternoon."

This blog is intended to explain the wider policy and parliamentary context. It does not comment on the merits of ongoing legal proceedings.

Stay Updated

📧 Keep updated on all moorland issues - sign up for our FREE weekly newsletter.