Veterinary Medicines (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Grand Committee

As has been mentioned previously, farmers and vets have moved a long way with regard to the use of antibiotics. Both parties do not want to use antibiotics unnecessarily, but there is a concern that, if a programme of regular use of antibiotics via medicated feed is required for welfare reasons, this may be interpretated as a breach of the regulations by the VMD. Although vets have been given reassurance in the current discussions with the VMD that these situations will not be seen as a breach of the regulations, there is concern that, as time moves on, personnel change and the interpretation of the policy changes. This may result in vets being accused of breaching the regulations, possibly to the detriment of animal health and welfare. Will the Minister raise these concerns with the VMD and his department to ensure that we continue to focus on the reduction of antibiotic use, while still maintaining animal welfare, and ensure that veterinary surgeons can continue to uphold their oath and comply with these regulations without the fear of breaching them?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this important statutory instrument. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing it to the attention of the Committee.

This important statutory instrument ensures the quality, safety and efficacy of veterinary medicines as regulated by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, the VMD. The Veterinary Medicines Regulations have not been updated since 2013, when the fee base was also set, so there is quite a lot of inflation to consider in terms of fees and costs, alongside scientific innovation. The main thrust of the SI is an attempt to reduce the risk of the development and spread of antibiotic resistance, which I welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, has raised this issue many times in the Chamber, as well as this afternoon.

Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I do not have extensive knowledge of the issues we are debating. Not being a vet or having anything to do with animals, whether domestic or destined for the food chain, my only contact with the veterinary profession is taking my dog to be stitched up after an overenthusiastic race through the woods or going to renew his regular preventive medication. I was, however, privileged to visit a veterinary hospital run by Anderson Moores last October. It was an extraordinary experience. The hospital is extremely modern and does very complex surgery on a range of animals. This particular hospital lent ventilators to the overstretched local NHS hospital during the Covid outbreak.

Although I fully support this SI, I have a number of questions for clarification. Most of them relate to paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 7.1 refers to making more than 200 amendments to the VMR, including fee changes. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked whether these changes would lead to higher prices for veterinary practices. The answer from Defra referred to the private nature of veterinary practices. I interpreted that as a “don’t know” in terms of whether Defra actually knew whether the changes would increase prices. I will return to this issue later.

Paragraph 7.2 makes it clear that vets are required

“to provide owners of food-producing animals with records as soon as reasonably practical after administering a medicine”

with a record of that medicine, when it should be taken and the lapse of time after taking the medicine before the animals can enter the food chain. This is clear and reassuring. However, I ask the Minister whether this is what currently happens or less stringent measures are currently in place. Will this change be an additional burden?

Many of the requirements under section 7 place added burdens on marketing, manufacturers, wholesalers and keepers of food-producing animals. These relate mostly to limiting the spread of antibiotic resistance. Paragraph 7.4 of the EM refers to an inspector seizing items that may breach regulations. Can the Minister give an example of where and at what point in the chain this might happen?

Paragraph 7.6 gives a lot of detail. Sub-paragraph (e) removes the need

“to renew a marketing authorisation after five years”.

That is excellent but sub-paragraph (h) requires marketing authorisation holders to submit an annual report. Is this a contradiction or have I misunderstood it?

Paragraph 7.7 deals with Schedule 2 to the VMR. Sub-paragraph (f) extends

“the authorisation and inspection requirements for equine stem cell centres to bring all stem cell centres for non-food-producing animal species under regulatory oversight”.

What happens in those stem cell centres now?

Paragraph 7.8 has a whole list of requirements and changes to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance. I fully support these but there is obviously going to be a cost element to this. Sub-paragraph (f) refers to a suitably qualified person being present when medicines are handed over. This appears to indicate that the veterinary profession is suffering from a lack of pharmacy specialists, similar to the experience of high street chemists.

Sub-paragraph (g) refers to

“restricting the prescription of antibiotic veterinary medicines”.

This has been referred to. Does it apply only to animals entering the food chain or to domestic pets as well? Is this restriction likely to lead to unnecessary suffering by some animals?

I fully support sub-paragraph (h), which prohibits

“the prescription of antibiotics for prophylactic purposes … except in exceptional circumstances”.

We have heard two cases of where there may not need to be exceptional circumstances.

Lastly, paragraph 7.12 refers to the VDM as a “cost-recovery agency”. Since it has been 11 years since the fees were set, there is quite a lot of inflation to consider when setting new fees and charges.

That brings me on to section 12, which has already been referred to. It indicates that, as the annual net cost to business is likely to be £2.5 million per year, no impact assessment has been produced. The limit for the production of an IA is £5 million per annum. With such a wholesale overhaul of the treatment of veterinary medicines and the new administrative burdens to be introduced, coupled with the increased cost of the medicines themselves, I would have thought that the cost could be much higher than £2.5 million. The effect on small businesses and large chains of veterinary practices is likely to be considerable. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raised this issue. I admit that I have not read the sections of the de minimis assessment that cover small and micro businesses and the impact on medium businesses—nor do I have somebody working for me who would do this—but I seek the Minister’s assurance that the true effect on businesses involved in veterinary medicines has been carefully and accurately calculated.

I turn now to section 10 on the public consultation, which ran for eight weeks up to 31 March last year and received 188 responses from a wide representation of stakeholders. Although I feel that 74 questions was a considerable number for consultees to complete, it indicates that the consultation was thorough. However, I fear that the areas where the VDM was proposing to be influenced by the consultation or otherwise were confusing. There is this phrase at 10.3:

“The main areas where we have decided to amend or not implement the proposed changes relate to”.


It is followed by a list, including in the first bullet point the phrase,

“we have decided to not implement”.

That is not quite the way I would have put it, but I get the general drift.

Lastly, I note that the guidance will be amended on the changes to the VMR and will be available to stakeholders shortly. I am sure that, given the considerable changes being made, this will be welcomed by those having regard to the implementation of this instrument.

I apologise to the Minister for the number of questions I have asked and points I have made but it would be helpful to have answers to these questions. I believe that this is a very important instrument; I support it, as it will make a real difference to the way in which animal medicines and feeds are administered for the benefit of food-producing and other animals.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming this statutory instrument. It makes more than 200 changes to the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013; there is a very long list of changes under quite a number of headings. I start by congratulating the Minister on his introduction, which was both clear and succinct. We all appreciated that, I think.

This week, I received an email from NOAH asking for our support in passing these new regulations because it considers them absolutely crucial. We have also heard that from noble Lords today. The reasons why it thinks they are crucial are, first, because the current regulatory framework is not fit for purpose; the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned that it had not been changed since 2013 so this is well overdue. Secondly, animal health businesses and the UK regulatory authority, the Veterinary Medicines Directorate—we heard about it from other Members—really need this legislation to progress in order to support confidence and investment in the sector. The third reason why it is very supportive is because, as it rightly says, the animal health industry is high-value, high-growth and a highly skilled sector that contributes significantly to the UK as a whole. However, until we get these new regulations, its full potential cannot be achieved. We will support this SI.

A number of issues were raised during our debate. The first that I would like to reference is the fight against antimicrobial resistance. This is clearly welcome; anything we can do to support that is really important. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the issues here; indeed, the noble Lord made an important point about practicalities, which the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned. There is no point in having legislation and regulations if, practically speaking, they are not going to work effectively and efficiently. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say in his response on those matters.

I was pleased to see that there was extensive consultation on this; it is clearly outlined in section 10 of the EM. When we have not had any updates for more than 10 years, it is important that there is serious consultation with the industry. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said, paragraph 10.3 of the EM details the areas where things have been amended and implemented.

I sometimes complain about the Government and consultation but it is important to give credit where it is due. Doing an extensive consultation then clearly laying out where changes have been made is best practice. I was very pleased to see in paragraph 10.3 that this has been done. That does not necessarily mean that everyone agrees with the decisions but it is important that consultation is done properly and that industry, when it is asked for its opinions, is listened to. That is very important.

Having said that, I am sure the Minister will have picked up that a few noble Lords who took part in the debate had a few suggestions about how things could still be improved. One that I am interested in was initially mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It concerns small practices and making sure that these extra burdens can be managed by them—as well as making sure that the Government are aware of the burdens and the extra costs—because it is important that they are supported. Vets have had a lot of pressures on them in recent years, so this is really important. I know that, during the cost of living crisis, it has often been difficult for vets to balance fees, for example, with providing care to animals; that is clearly more difficult for small practices.

Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Grand Committee

Finally, my understanding—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong about this—is that the rates in the SIs we are debating now cover only the points of entry at Eurotunnel and the Port of Dover. Other commercial entry points—about 30 of them—are setting their own rates. Can the Minister tell me anything about what those rates will be? Are they paralleling these rates, in essence, or are they higher? Of course, it is very difficult for companies to move from one supply chain to another so what is the situation there, particularly for small and medium enterprises? I stress that supermarkets and big commercial companies will be able to pass on these costs but that is often not the case for small and medium-sized enterprises. This is of great concern to many sectors in that small and medium-sized business area.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these two statutory instruments. On the face of it, they seem fairly straightforward and relate to the border target operating model. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has flagged that this is a matter of interest to the House.

The first instrument relates to sanitary and phytosanitary border controls—SPS. The second relates to SPS controls applying to imports of live animals, animal products, high-risk food and feed of non-animal origin, plants and plant products at the border. This second SI contains a large and potentially complex list of products; however, the instrument appears to deal only with plants and plant products. Also, the risk-based import checks on medium-risk goods applies to goods from some countries that are EU member states, as well as Liechtenstein and Switzerland. These countries’ goods that are not within scope include fruit and vegetables, which are currently treated as low risk.

I have some questions about these two instruments and wish to ask for some clarification. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the first instrument, on fees and charges, states:

“This instrument changes the duty to charge to a power to charge by extending the circumstances in which the CA”—


competent authority—

“may reduce charges or waive them altogether”.

The Minister has mentioned this already. I am concerned that, if the charge is waived, it could mean that the imported product would be cheaper than a homegrown or home-produced one, which would disadvantage our farmers and horticulturalists. Can the Minister provide reassurance on this issue?

The ability to waive charges also seems at odds with the second instrument, on official charges and frequency of checks. Paragraph 7.2 of its EM states:

“Changes are being made to the fees legislation to reflect the level of identity and physical checks determined in accordance with the 2022 Regulations … ensuring the full cost of services to conduct import checks are recovered from businesses using these services”.


Further on, the last sentence of paragraph 7.4 says:

“The existing fees legislation ensures that the cost of plant health services, including import inspections, is recovered via fees”.


Either the fees are to be charged on a cost-recovery basis or they can be reduced—or waived altogether. Perhaps one SI legislates for full cost recovery while the other allows for the waiving of fees and charges. Can the Minister give clarity on this issue?

Paragraph 7.4 of the first instrument’s EM states that

“not all consignments will … attend a BCP”—

a border control post. It also says that fees and charges can be levied digitally and away from the BCP. Some have raised concerns that this may not be safe and that consignments should be capable of being inspected at the BCP. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also raised concerns about the security of plants. Can the Minister comment?

Consultation through targeted stakeholders ran for 10 weeks. The second instrument’s EM indicates:

“The respondents were generally supportive”.


I have read the letter from Defra, dated 24 February, on the consultation responses; I have also looked at the responses online. There were three. Two were from Scottish businesses that raised no concerns. The third was from the NFU; it highlighted its concern about the flat rate fee for plants for planting, which should be extended to include bulbs for planting, and the definition of the final user. Defra’s response to the NFU was that its concerns are outside the scope of the consultation as the instrument is for medium-risk goods while bulbs are high-risk goods. On this basis, we are told that the consultation response was “generally supportive”, which just goes to show that, with a bit of ingenuity, you can make a consultation give whatever response you want it to.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about the common user charge, which is to be introduced later this year and does not require legislation. This means that there will be no parliamentary oversight of the charge, its impact and whether it will be draconian or not likely to actually cover the costs of implementation. Would the Minister care to comment on the introduction of this common user charge?

I am not opposed to these two SIs, but I am somewhat dismayed by the way in which they are being introduced and the lack of clarity over the implementation of the charges and fees. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, looking first at the Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations in front of us, previous speakers have clearly raised concerns about BTOM. I have also done so in the past; the Minister and I have discussed this in the Chamber previously. However, with this SI, we are particularly concerned about the potential impact on small businesses and the fact that the charges also need to be considered in the broader context of the increased charges, particularly for small businesses, since we left the EU. I am aware that the Government believe that there is not going to be any serious impact on small businesses but our concerns come from within that broader context, because we know that British importers have been paying further costs over the last few years since we moved to the new system of trade with the EU.

Around 30% of the food that we consume in the UK comes from the EU, so it is incredibly important that, when we bring in new systems, we avoid any confusion, chaos or delays. It would be useful to hear reassurances from the Minister on these issues because small businesses are particularly worried about this, as well as the increased costs. Once you start getting delays, as I am sure the Minister knows, they have a huge impact on perishable fresh produce. How confident is the Minister that this can go through smoothly?

The British Chambers of Commerce has complained to the Government about the lack of communication and information provided. How has the Minister’s department been working with businesses, particularly small businesses, on improving the communications and information that chambers of commerce have raised concerns about? What clarifications have been provided following the concerns raised?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the fact that this provides competent authorities with greater flexibility to determine fees and charges, and that this is now on a recovery basis. She asked some questions around that, but I just wondered if there are any precedents for recovery like this, with fees and charges being done on a cost-recovery basis. What are the precedents around that?

The other thing I was going to raise also applies, to a certain extent, to the plant health SI and is around the lack of consultation. I am aware that there is no statutory duty to consult on this issue but, considering the number of concerns that have been raised around BTOM and its rollout, including the very late announcement of the common user charge, I wonder whether the department might have followed a different process, with the benefit of hindsight. It could have done a bit more consultation with industry to avoid those concerns and late rollouts. In future, when looking at the different trade mechanisms that will need to come in, will it perhaps look more broadly at working with business at an earlier stage to avoid some of the, shall we say, glitches that have happened?

I agree with very much with what both noble Baronesses have said already on the draft plant health fees statutory instrument, so I will not go into great detail. The concerns of the Horticultural Trades Association have been clearly laid out: the impact of the volume of checks that will be required and whether that will lead to further delays. The importance of the horticultural sector to our economy needs greater recognition. It would be good if the Minister could give some indication to the Horticultural Trades Association on ornamental horticulture, plus vine horticulture, tomatoes, and others. We have seen gaps on our supermarkets shelves in recent years. It would be very good if our horticultural sector was better supported and encouraged.

Food Security

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and entirely agree with her on the issue of supporting our farmers and congratulating them on the work they do. I quite accept the premise that a significant change is going on in the agricultural sector. It was clearly signalled when we transitioned away from the common agricultural policy and focused farming on delivering both food production and environmental goals through ELMS. It is entirely understandable that farmers have concerns about this transition, as it requires them to reappraise how they use the entirety of their land. We are guiding and supporting farmers with new technology, new science and improved productivity to not only produce and maintain high quality food but to enrich our soil, reduce pollution and help reverse biodiversity loss.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My noble Lords, the food security report identifies climate change and biodiversity loss as the greatest threat to UK food security. Therefore, will the Government’s upcoming Farm to Fork summit include representatives from environmental organisations working on climate change and biodiversity?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. As she will know, the upcoming Farm to Fork summit is the second one we have held, and the National Farmers’ Union requested that we implement this as an annual event. I forget the exact statistics but at the last one, over 70 representatives from the wider industry, across the entire supply chain, were in attendance, along with food producers from across the whole UK. The intention is to grow that at our next summit, which is in the spring.

Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

While it is now four years since the Agriculture Act, there has been exhaustive consultations and discussions within the industry. I pay tribute to the NFU’s Dairy Board, under the leadership of Michael Oakes, for contacting every processor and producer organisation to secure agreement that this regulation must be embraced and made to work effectively by the whole industry. It is vital that long-term relationships are built up for the benefit of consumers.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing for this long-awaited statutory instrument. Other noble Lords have made positive comments on supporting dairy farmers, and the detail of this statutory instrument. I am grateful to the NFU for its briefing.

Since the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts was introduced in 2012, nearly 12 years ago, purchasers have been able to change contract terms and pricing mechanisms, even, in some instances, introducing retro-spective penalties and price cuts without negotiation. The Covid-19 crisis saw this happen many times: farmers were hit with price cuts at no notice, and there was a lack of transparency over pricing and delayed payments, resulting in significant pressures on producers. Farmers got a very poor deal.

This SI will introduce mandatory minimum terms for dairy contracts which must be adhered to. As the noble Lord has said, these contracts will cover price, cooling-off periods, notice periods, variations, exclusivity and farmer representation. All these should make a huge difference to how farmers are treated and ensure that they get a fair price for their milk, which is essential for the survival of the dairy-farming industry. It will also bring a level of transparency into milk contracts not previously present.

I fully support this SI and have a point to raise. The Government conducted a call for evidence at the end of 2016 on the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and whether it should cover all primary producers. This concluded that it would be better for primary producers in the dairy industry not to be covered by the GCA. That was eight years ago. Similarly, the consultation on the issue took place between June and September 2020, nearly four years ago. It would seem that the Government, although concerned about an unfair pricing system for farmers, were not in a hurry to do anything about it.

There are large parts of the instrument around termination of contracts, including where the business purchaser becomes insolvent and where there are disputes and enforcement. I welcome these sections, as they give farmers access to redress when things go wrong.

I understand that the debate on this SI in the other place was very short indeed, and I have no wish to prolong the debate here this evening. This legislation, while long in the making, is a positive step forward in addressing the imbalances that we have seen for too long in the dairy supply chain. I also hope that it will lead to support for farmers going forward, as they look to create the right structures to make the best use of the issues in this legislation.

Finally, I place on record my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many others—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to this—to Michael Oakes, who has been the chair of the NFU Dairy Board for eight years. Without his tenacious work over the past decade on this issue, I doubt that we would be debating it this evening. It seems that, without an advocate continually pushing, progress can be painfully slow. Let us hope that progress now speeds up considerably, and that this SI becomes law and is enacted without further delay.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his introduction and saying how impressed I was to watch him pouring a glass of water at the same time: he is clearly channelling his feminine side by doing two things at once.

These draft regulations, as we have heard, propose to introduce minimum standards for the contracts that businesses use when purchasing milk from dairy farmers. We fully support the aim to improve fairness and transparency in the UK dairy sector, which, according to Defra, is characterised by small, fragmented dairy producers. We have heard a lot about the unfair commercial terms on which farmers have had to go into contracts, so we very much support this SI. Like other noble Lords, I thank the NFU for its work on this issue. The NFU has made it clear that it strongly supports the regulations, as unfair milk contracts have unfortunately been an area of concern for many years. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford talked about the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts, which came in in 2012. This has clearly not been working, so we very much welcome the regulations in front of us today.

While I have said we very much support the regulations, I have a number of questions for the Minister. The proposed requirements include that all contracts should be made in writing and contain clear pricing terms, through either a fixed or variable price, setting out how the price to be paid is generated and establishing a means for producers to challenge variable price calculations. We are very pleased that unilateral changes to contract terms will be prohibited and that the Secretary of State is going to be able to impose fines. The Minister said in his introduction that this is only the first and that further legislation will cover other agricultural sectors. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned how long the regulations have taken. It has dragged on. Can the Minister say why it has taken so long? It is four years since the Agriculture Act was passed. Although he mentioned pigs in his introduction, does he have any idea when we are likely to see the SIs for the other areas we are expecting—pigs, eggs and fresh produce?

The agricultural supply chain adjudicator and the Groceries Code Adjudicator have been mentioned. Transform Trade sent an interesting briefing expressing its concerns around departmental fragmentation and the sectoral siloed approach that it feels the Government are taking by addressing the problems in only four sectors, and only at the farming stage. Its concerns include the fact that risks and costs will continue to be passed on to all supply chains; and that while the adjudicator may be able to address farmers’ experience of unfair trading practices, where the cause of that unfair trading practice originated with the food retailers, the retailers will continue to get away with passing unfair trading practices. I would be interested to have reassurances from the Minister on this concern.

Of course, not all farmers work in the four sectors that are covered. How does Defra intend to keep an eye on what is happening in the other sectors that are not protected? Will the adjudicator appointed to enforce the milk codes be able to share information relevant to the GCA’s ability to assess whether the 14 largest UK food retailers they cover have breached the Groceries Supply Code of Practice purchasing code? We need to be sure that this is working effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked about the scope of the GCA. This is a really important question. When I was in the other place, we did a lot of work on the GCA when it was established, and it really needs to be seen to be working effectively, including within this new regime.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester talked about food waste. He mentioned that there is little waste within the dairy sector, but the design of regulations under these powers is potentially a missed opportunity to implement the Government’s stated policy of using them to reduce farm-level food waste, as was said during the passage of the Agriculture Act. As we are expecting further SIs to come forward in a similar way, I would be interested to hear why the Government’s consultation on using the powers did not make explicit reference to, or explicitly invite evidence on, how the powers could be used to reduce food waste. Food waste prevention may well be on the Government’s radar, but it is not clear from the consultations that were carried out, so my final comment is that further elaboration and confirmation around that would be very welcome.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly support this amendment and I doubt whether any remarks by my noble friend the Minister will convince me otherwise. I suspect the main reason that it is not in the Bill is that they have taken so long to bring it forward that they are now worried about any changes to it which might prevent the whole thing going through, for reasons I need not dwell on. But it is a serious mistake. No one can foresee what might be wanted for the export trade in the future. Therefore, this seems a sensible proviso against future problems. For that reason, I warmly support it.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, set out clearly his reasons for this amendment. At Second Reading, many noble Lords taking part in the debate raised the issue of increasing the number of species covered by this short Bill. Many also made the case for ensuring that the Bill got on the statute as quickly as possible, and certainly before the end of this Parliament.

Increasing the number of species covered by the Bill should be done through affirmative secondary legislation, rather than specified species being added to the Bill. Many issues could come along which might make it wise to add a different species to the Bill. I support the view that, in future, the Secretary of State should be able to make adjustments to match the circumstances at the time, and I believe that this amendment would allow that to happen.

At Second Reading, it was suggested that deer were added, among other animals. I would be reluctant to see deer added to the list unless there were exceptional circumstances to support this. Our country is currently overrun with deer, which are doing immense damage to our trees and woodlands, and in some cases domestic gardens. If we have a surfeit of deer here, we should deal with the problem ourselves, internally. Exporting the problem for others to deal with does not seem sensible or humane. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, but I generally support the aim of these two amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for bringing forward Amendments 1 and 8. I was pleased to add my name to them. As he said, this was discussed at Second Reading and had a lot of support in the Chamber. We know that trends in the types and number of animals being exported can change quite a lot over time, so it is practical and sensible to ensure that the legislation can be kept up to date by revisiting the banned list in future. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, talked about the fact that changes can happen, and we need to be prepared for that.

It does not make any sense to me that if a future Government wanted to increase the list, they would have to go back to primary legislation. By putting it in the Bill, it can be done easily through affirmative secondary legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. These amendments would allow that to happen. Taken together, we believe that Amendments 1 and 8 are a sensible measure that allows for future flexibility, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider adding it into the Bill. I cannot see why it is an unacceptable request.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 4 but first I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her remarks. I very strongly support her amendment and the amendment that will be spoken to in a moment or two.

The only interest I have to declare is that I was born and reared on a small organic farm. It is so long ago that the word “organic” was not used and had not even been thought of, but it was an organic farm. I brought many little piglets into the world, being left to look after many sows in their own homes. They got out every day and had a lovely life, and I would very often accompany my favourite to the local abattoir —and it was local—so I am not speaking on this because I do not accept that animals have to be killed. In fact, I would not be here if my family had not been able to sell animals and so on, so I am very keen to see this from a real welfare point of view.

I tabled my amendment because I simply do not accept what is going to happen—we will talk about it later—with Northern Ireland being left out. That could be avoided, but if it cannot, then at the very least His Majesty’s Government need to look over a short period of time—I have said 12 months but it could be less—at the effects of the trade situation between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the European Union. It is really important to point out that the trade at the moment, as many Members said at Second Reading, is going from Northern Ireland. Yes, of course a lot of it is staying in the Republic of Ireland, but we really have no idea just where the 17,000 pigs, 3,500 cattle and 337,000 sheep that crossed the border ended up. We now know that that will continue.

I thank the Minister, because he has engaged with me and written a very interesting letter, which I got yesterday, which explains again in great detail why Northern Ireland cannot be included. However, although the reality is that the animals that go from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will have to stay for a period of time before they can be moved on, what is happening to the animals already being moved that are in Northern Ireland and are going to go over? There is no idea whatever in Defra or DAERA, whichever is responsible, about where those animals will end up. Very often, they will end up, as the noble Baroness said, going down to the south of Ireland—a long journey—and then across to France, another long journey. Many of them will probably then go on to even worse conditions in north Africa.

I want this amendment to be put in. I genuinely cannot understand why the Minister cannot accept all three amendments. They seem perfectly sensible and perfectly common sense about how we look to the future when the Bill becomes an Act. Then we can say, “We are going to look at this and see what is happening”.

I have one final question for the Minister: how are we going to monitor this? Does he personally care about what is happening to those animals leaving Northern Ireland? How will the department monitor it, and how can we ensure that the welfare of those animals will be protected when we are washing our hands of part of the United Kingdom in this law as we put it through?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 5, which aims to support the farming community. At Second Reading, Members recorded that the NFU was not overwhelmingly in favour of the Bill. There were several reasons for this. First, there was concern about the importation of animals that were not raised to the same animal welfare standards as those which pertain in the UK. This argument has been raised many times since Brexit, particularly in relation to the various trade agreements the Government have entered into and are entering into with countries outside Europe. This is an extremely valid issue and although various Ministers have given reassurances from the Dispatch Box, they have not satisfied the farming community.

Secondly, there is the financial impact. Although I fully support the Bill’s aims, we cannot get away from the fact that the export of live animals for fattening and slaughter was a considerable part of some farmers’ income. The NFU estimates that, in 2022, the UK exported a total value of £751 million-worth of live animals. Farmers are concerned that imports of New Zealand and Australian lamb during the British peak season will reduce the domestic demand and price for their animals.

--- Later in debate ---

In practice, the likelihood is that those animals would be given very good standards indeed because of the fear of damaging their monetary value, so I hope that there is no real practical concern about this. That said, there is a case for examining welfare standards within the country, particularly in transport, because the journeys can be very long indeed, if not as long as some of the ones to the continent. I hope that, although it goes beyond this Bill, my noble friend might be able to assure us that they are looking very carefully at the standards of transport and at the general condition of livestock within the country as opposed to those for export.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has raised the issue of the welfare of animals for export, which was raised at Second Reading. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, makes a very valid point about the welfare of expensive animals which are covered by this Bill.

The Bill allows, quite rightly, for animals to be exported for the purposes of showing, breeding and taking part in competitions. The owners of the animals will want their animals to arrive in tip-top condition. Some of the travel times which occurred for animals exported for fattening and slaughter, and their access to food and water, were completely unacceptable and shocking. I hope that that would not apply to the animals covered by the Bill as being permitted to be exported.

Although the owners of those animals going abroad for the purposes listed in the Bill are likely to ensure that their animals are well cared for, we cannot take this for granted and, occasionally, some exported animals may have a less than enjoyable experience once they have left our shores. For that reason, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, although I am not entirely sure that it fits within the remit of the Bill. A review of the welfare of exported animals for whatever purposes, permitted under the Bill, should be reviewed to ensure that everyone is complying with the regulations.

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for this amendment, which I would support. Concerns have been raised in the equine world that there is fear that horses will be exported under the guise of competition but will then immediately go to slaughter. Do port authorities currently track the movement of livestock for breeding or competition out of our ports?

I also support the point made by the noble Baroness about the veterinary situation. There is still a shortage of veterinary staff. It is getting better but it is still an area that we are concerned about—certainly, with veterinary staff at ports. Certainly, we would welcome European veterinary staff on the other side of the border, and an animal import area in the French ports would be welcomed, if we could pressurise the EU for that.

--- Later in debate ---

I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, as far as Defra is concerned, practically every day something comes on to his desk that is related to the fact that things cannot happen for the rest of the United Kingdom because of the situation in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, on this issue, the Government have not been prepared to fight it and do this. I accept that, even if the Minister or his department wanted to do it, there are people at much higher levels—let us say in the Cabinet Office—who take a great interest in anything to do with the protocol and the Windsor Framework, and that this will not be changed at this stage. However, it is important that it is let out, so that people understand and realise just why our Government do not feel that animals in Northern Ireland are entitled to the same animal welfare provisions as in the rest of our country.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is rightly concerned about what is happening in Northern Ireland. Previous amendments have made reference to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol has implications for animals. The number of animals moving through Ireland was listed in previous amendments.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for raising this so that we can have this short debate. I have listened to her and am concerned that the passage of some animals may lead to unacceptable journeys. The WTO rules must be adhered to but there are ways to inject flexibility. I await with interest the Minister’s comments especially in relation to bluetongue, which he wrote to me about; perhaps he could now share that with the rest of the Committee.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing her amendment. She made some important points on Northern Ireland and on the transport between Northern Ireland and the Republic and onwards. It is a really complicated area and we have to take the concerns around it very seriously. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response but there are probably more discussions to be had around this issue.

Land Use Framework

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, how are the Government approaching the design of financial and policy levers to encourage decision-makers at all spatial scales to reach decisions which are broadly in line with delivering national targets and policies?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

Sorry, I did not actually hear the question.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

How are the Government approaching the design of financial and policy levers to encourage decision-makers at all spatial scales to reach decisions which are broadly in line with delivering national targets and policies?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I caught most of it, but perhaps I might write to her in due course with the answer once I have caught the whole thing.

Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these regulations. I have two quick questions.

First, throughout the Explanatory Memorandum, a key theme is the link between the regulations before us and the extended producer responsibility regulations. When might we expect to see them? The two fit quite closely together. I do not know whether my noble friend can give us a date, but I understand that those regulations will contain guidance relating to the ones before us.

Secondly, I looked up the cost-benefit analysis and if I understand it correctly, the costs are about £1,200 million per year, presumably to producers of the packaging —I do not know whether that includes local authorities—and the benefits are zero. If so, is that beneficial going forward, on the basis of that cost-benefit impact assessment?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informative introduction to this long-awaited and much-heralded SI. He will be relieved to know that, unlike the previous SI, I am not outraged by this one.

These regulations come into effect on 1 April 2024. Large producers must collect the data from 1 January to 30 June this year but may not have to report it. However, all must collect and report the data from the commencement date of 1 April to 30 June, according to the Explanatory Memorandum. It is not clear what the large producers are expected to do. Can the Minister provide some clarification?

The Environment Agency will provide the necessary guidance for this SI. Why is it necessary for the EA to do so? Why is Defra not doing it? The EA is already under-resourced and under pressure, with a wealth of other duties. Surely Defra, which has increased its staff considerably in recent years, could have produced this guidance for what is, after all, a government policy objective.

These regulations relate to the extended producer responsibility scheme, as the Minister said, whereby producers will pay a tax for the amount of packaging they release on to the market. However, information about the cost will not be available until the producer responsibility, packaging and packaging waste regulations are produced. Smaller producers are particularly affected by not knowing the likely level of fees, and cash flow is a vital element of their businesses. I am sure the Minister is ready for the next question and will have a substantive answer. Exactly when will these regulations be published? Without them, the exercise we are going through today is somewhat meaningless.

I fully support these regulations, which should help considerably to eliminate plastic and other non-compostable waste from our environment. I have been contacted, as I am sure have others, by the Federation of Wholesale Distributors. It too is wholly supportive of the regulations but has a couple of reservations. usbIt feels that it is essential that the Government and the Environment Agency work with the sector on the types of products that will be classified as household waste. Can the Minister give a reassurance on this issue? The FWD is also keen to see continued collaboration between the Government and the wholesale sector to ensure that EPR remains a pragmatic and inclusive policy. I fully support the FWD in its aims and objectives. It is only by working together that a solution which suits all will be found and, therefore, be successful.

Waste Enforcement (Fixed Penalty Receipts) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward these regulations and, in particular, on ring-fencing the money raised through the fixed-penalty receipts. I will raise one issue with him. If I have understood it correctly, this still applies only to public land. If so, this is a missed opportunity. In incidents of fly-tipping on private land, as I am sure my noble friend may be all too aware from his home estate, we are increasingly seeing an element of criminality, with people taking construction waste and literally dumping it on private land.

I worked with the Environment Agency when I was an MP and a shadow Minister in the other place. It has a very good mechanism of cameras in strategic places—I know it does not always want it publicised—which can catch the perpetrators of this crime to very good effect. That makes it much easier for it to bring them to book. My concern is that there was a very powerful response from the NFU, among others, and I am sure that the CLA and the TFA would have responded in the same vein. In its response to the original consultation, which is the basis of these regulations, the NFU asked for

“greater consistency across how local authorities, the Environment Agency and the police engage with private land managers who are victims of fly-tipping. We believe it should not be the sole responsibility of the land managers to deal with this crime, when it is a community-wide issue”.

I would like to understand why, if that was in the consultation, the department chose not to apply the regulations or ASBOs to private land and what the basis was for that. The NFU concluded that

“it is imperative that these proposals are not limited to fly-tipping and littering incidents solely on public land”.

I am sure that my noble friend and others in the Committee will have seen the graphic images on television of people now taking matters into their own hands because the Environment Agency and the police do not always turn up. There was a very good example of how these criminals can be apprehended—although there are dangers attached to this—when four vehicles hemmed in one van that was dumping on to private land all the materials to which I have referred.

I accept that there is an inevitable cost to local authorities and the Environment Agency in finding the perpetrators and, for public land, removing this material, but we are missing the fact that most fly-tipping is increasingly on private land. I would like to understand why it was excluded from this. If we are to go down the path of people individually trying to apprehend perpetrators on private land when they are in the middle of a crime, that will bring inherent dangers and I am sure the Government do not wish to encourage it. In the instance to which I referred—I cannot remember which part of the country it was—they apprehended the perpetrator and he was brought to book. The police attended and criminal charges followed.

I applaud everything that the Government are doing to make these regulations, firm up government policy and make sure that the receipts are ring-fenced, but the weakness is that most fly-tipping is on private land and we seem to have left that out.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the details of this SI on the fees received from fixed-penalty receipts for fly-tipping. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

Fly-tipping is a scourge on our environment. During the passage of the Agriculture Bill there were several debates on the effect of fly-tipping on the farming community. Fly-tippers find it particularly easy to dump their spoils on droves, bridleways and open countryside, leaving the farmer to clean up the mess, often at considerable expense. The law is of no particular help to them. Local authorities issue fixed-penalty notices for littering and fly-tipping where they know who the culprit is, but this is often very difficult to ascertain. They are also able to issue notices for breaching the household waste duty of care. In this case it should be slightly easier to discover who the culprit is, but I wonder how often this power is used. Can the Minister say how many fixed-penalty notices were issued last year for breaching the household waste duty of care?

This SI is yet another example of central government adding to the burdens of local government. Subsection (5) of new Section 73ZA inserted by Regulation 2 of the SI is a good example of this:

“A waste collection authority must supply the Secretary of State with such information relating to its use of its fixed penalty receipts as the Secretary of State may require”.


Subsection (6) adds:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … about what a waste collection authority must do with its fixed penalty receipts pending the use of those receipts for the purposes referred to in subsection (2) or (3)”.


Subsection (7) of new Section 95A inserted by Regulation 3 inserts:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … about what an authority must do with its fixed penalty receipts pending the use of those receipts for the purposes referred to in subsection (3) or (4)”


Subsection (8) states:

“The provision that may be made under subsection (7)(c) includes (in particular) provision for the payment of sums to a person (including the Secretary of State) other than the authority”.


It is clear that central government does not trust local government to conduct its waste-collection functions effectively or to have the best interests of its communities at heart. As we have local elections coming up in part of the country in May, I wonder how many political leaflets will say, “If you vote in this election don’t be surprised if we are unable to carry out any of the usual services you expect of local councillors, as central government is continually putting extra duties and restrictions on the way we can operate”. This is nothing more than a tax to be collected by local authorities and paid to central government.

The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the SI will

“add a new list of qualifying functions for local authorities in England”.

This should, allegedly, mean that more enforcement will take place, resulting in more fixed-penalty receipts, which would reduce incidents of fly-tipping and function as a deterrent. The logic appears fine, but it takes no account of “first find your fly-tipper”. I will share with the Committee an example of the way in which illegal fly-tippers operate, although I am sure everyone is aware of this. Last autumn, as I went to the GP surgery for my Covid booster, I had to negotiate a huge pile of what looked like cedar tree prunings in the middle of a junction in the road. This was at 9 am in the morning. By the time I came back 40 minutes later, council employees were there with a truck clearing the mess away, and I stopped to speak to them. They confirmed it was likely to be fly-tipping by an operator who had persuaded a householder that they were a legitimate contractor who could do some work for them but who was, in fact, an operator without a licence. There was, of course, nothing on the pile of tree branches to indicate who the culprit was.

I am afraid that restricting what local authorities can spend their fixed-penalty revenue on is not going to prevent fly-tipping. A wholesale campaign to alert the public to the fact that everyone who removes waste from a property or business must have a licence to do so, and that they should ask to see it before parting with money, is really the only way to reduce fly-tipping.

Pollution in Rivers and Regulation of Private Water Companies

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

That this House takes note of (1) the state of pollution in rivers, and (2) the case for regulation of private water companies.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the House is sadly becoming used to Questions and debates on sewage overflows, the quality of waterways and water company CEOs’ pay. I do not apologise for raising the issue again.

Water companies continue to discharge sewage into rivers, lakes and coastlines. At the same time, the Government are watering down environmental protections and allowing sewage discharges to continue until 2050. Liberal Democrats are calling for this to end much sooner in order to improve the quality of the water in our rivers, lakes and beaches. England’s sewerage companies have been allowed to get away with discharging sewage into our waterways for far too long.

In England, over the last three years, 2020 to 2023, there have been 1,760,659 overflows, lasting for 7,523,601 hours. Over the summer, beaches across the south-west were closed because of sewage pollution, impacting holidaymakers and tourists alike, while national parks, such as the Lake District, have not been spared spills. Meanwhile, over the same period, water company executives have paid themselves £73 million in remuneration, including £41.2 million in bonuses. In 2022, the then head of the Environment Agency even suggested that executives might deserve to go to prison.

The Conservatives have done nothing to stop water companies dumping sewage into our rivers. They have consistently voted against tougher action to stop sewage overflows, while the water regulator Ofwat said that only three of the 11 sewerage companies were top performers and had met their sewage overflow targets.

The Conservatives’ plan to reduce these sewage discharges is a licence to carry on as normal. Under their plan, water companies will be permitted to continue discharging sewage until 2050 and bill payers will see hikes in their bills to pay for it. The Government are even watering down environmental regulations, such as nutrient neutrality rules, which is likely to make the sewage problem even worse. Liberal Democrats are calling for an end to sewage dumping. Water executives should be banned from paying themselves bonuses until illegal sewage overflows stop on a regular basis.

The Secretary of State is proposing to block payouts to executives of firms that commit criminal acts of water pollution with effect from the financial year beginning this April. Can the Minister say how this information will be collected and monitored? What will be the criteria for preventing payouts?

The Liberal Democrats are calling for four actions. First, England’s water companies should be transformed into public-benefit companies. Secondly, Ofwat should be abolished and replaced by a new regulator which has effective powers to intervene. Thirdly, a sewage tax should be introduced to fund the clean-up of the most polluted lakes, rivers and coastlines. Fourthly, compensation should be introduced for swimmers who fall sick after swimming in dirty waters.

In Wales, things are no better. There have been 287,836 overflows, lasting for 2,290,674 hours over the last three years. The bosses of Welsh Water have been paid £3.5 million, including £841,000 in bonuses, benefits and incentives. The top executives of Wales’s other water company, Severn Trent, paid themselves £15 million, including £11.2 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives. In Wales, Welsh Water is not-for-profit and is still responsible for vast amounts of illegal sewage discharges. The Labour Government in Cardiff Bay are responsible for the regulation of Welsh Water and sewage overflows within Wales. Labour has systematically underfunded Natural Resources Wales, which is responsible for monitoring water quality, and has provided nowhere near enough oversight of Welsh Water. Liberal Democrats are also calling for a ban on sewage bonuses for directors in Wales.

Up in Scotland, illegal sewage discharge is also a problem, but its sewerage company, Scottish Water, is publicly owned by the Scottish Government. Over the last three years, Scottish Water allowed sewage overflows 37,396 times into Scottish rivers, lakes and coastal areas, lasting 403,230 hours. However, of the 3,614 overflows in Scotland’s 31,000-mile sewerage network, only 4%—that is, 144—are currently monitored. The Ferret website made a freedom of information request and, on 22 September, revealed that more than half of Scotland’s bathing waters—49 out of 87—have been contaminated with sewage. Meanwhile, Scottish Water’s top executives took home £2.9 million in remuneration, including £1.13 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives over the last three years. This is unacceptable. However, the SNP and its Green Party partners have failed to tackle sewage discharges, despite being directly responsible for them. Due to their failure to monitor, we do not even know the full extent of the problem.

Liberal Democrats are calling for an end to sewage discharges and a ban on bonuses for Scottish Water bosses until the discharges end. Scottish Liberal Democrats have also called for targets to be set to reduce discharges. Renationalisation will not be effective and would make no difference to the issue. Scottish Water is publicly owned, and we simply do not know how many illegal sewage overflows are taking place. At least in England, according to the Government, 100% of sewage overflow outlets are monitored. However, it is unclear who is doing this monitoring. Can the Minister give information on this please?

We need strong action from the Government to regulate these water companies to stop illegal sewage overflows, coupled with a truly independent water regulator, to ensure that companies are held to account with transparent reporting, plus the acceleration of measures to upgrade sewerage systems and tackle overflows.

In the 2023 round of accelerated infrastructure delivery decisions, we sadly saw a number of nature-based solution project proposals rejected by Ofwat for not being able to reach technical specifications designed for concrete engineering. Ofwat needs to wake up and ensure that it is getting a lot more for its money than just carbon-creating concrete solutions.

Government communications are also not helping. Last July, the Secretary of State sent a communication to water companies through the EA, raising concern about the affordability of environmental investments and encouraging deferral of these investments to keep water bills low. I begin to wonder why the Government spent so much time getting the Environment Act through if they were going to undermine it from the start.

I am sure the Minister will tell the House that Ofwat is independent. However, a recent article in the Guardian of 1 February indicated that water company executives and the chairs of Ofwat and the Environment Agency went for dinner at an exclusive private members’ club to discuss how to quell public anger over rising bills and sewage spills—at an estimated cost of £1,200. It does not appear to me that either the Environment Agency or Ofwat are independent of the water companies—quite the opposite. A cosy chat over dinner about how to alter public opinion, without addressing the root cause of the problem, hardly seems likely to reassure the public.

On Tuesday this week, Southern Water was fined £330,000 over a raw sewage spill at a rural beauty spot. That killed more than 2,000 fish, with staff ignoring an alarm about the emergency for five hours. The YMCA Fairthorne Manor, an outdoor activity centre popular for school trips, had to stop water activities for 10 days after the incident and cancel more than 1,000 sessions. The health implications of sewage are why Liberal Democrats have previously called for sewage sickness victims to receive compensation, and we repeat that call today. It is not right that, as water companies make large profits, swimmers get sick. If someone is poisoned by sewage, they should be compensated for it.

A recent report by Surfers Against Sewage found that the number of people who fell ill after entering water between October 2022 and September 2023 was 1,924. This is three times the number reported in the previous year. The sewage spill that Southern Water was fined for on Tuesday, and many other spills like it, show the need for an effective Environment Agency.

Defra is heavily dependent on the monitoring and intervention of the Environment Agency. However, cutting the Environment Agency’s budget from £170 million in 2009-10 to £76 million in 2019-20 is not likely to assist this hard-pressed organisation to act effectively. A general rule of life is that you get what you pay for. It is essential that the Environment Agency is provided with adequate funding to conduct inspections and take remedial action.

According to a Guardian article on 13 February, the Levelling-Up Secretary, Michael Gove, proposed an amendment to the then Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill that would strike at the directive on preventing extra sewage going into waterways in sensitive areas by either updating infrastructure or buying biodiversity credits. The Secretary of State’s action would allow developers to ignore the rules that were so strenuously fought for in this Chamber by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and others. The Government are not taking this issue seriously. There is then the issue of axing the right of developers to connect to already overloaded sewerage systems, which is not currently anywhere on the horizon.

On Tuesday afternoon, as I sat in this Chamber waiting for the next business, a message came through to my private email from Southern Water, of which I am a customer. The heading was, “Tired of hearing about storm releases? Us too”. There then followed some excellent nature-based solutions that it is prioritising. Obviously, it was trying to head off criticism. However, when I got home and watched the local television news—delayed due to the football overrun—I saw the news of Southern Water’s fine, to which I referred earlier. This sewage discharge was in the next village to where I live. The worst aspect of this is that it took from 2019 until this week to come to court and be dealt with. No wonder water companies include the cost of possible fines in their business plans. To them, it appears to be all part of their operation.

The country cannot wait any longer. The countryside and our waterways are submerged by pollution. A radical overhaul is needed of the way in which water and sewage companies operate, and a more accountable replacement Ofwat needs to be delivered without delay. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate, especially the Minister for his response. I appreciate that he has inherited this problem, and I thank him for his very detailed response, which I shall study in Hansard. We have had a very varied debate; at the same time, there has been much agreement across the Chamber in condemning the overspills of sewage when there have been no unusual weather conditions requiring them. Until quite recently, water companies have discharged sewage and untreated water on hot, sunny days with impunity. We have heard how this has affected different people. I believe that we may possibly be on the cusp of a change.

I am grateful to my colleagues, who have spoken so passionately, knowledgeably and entertainingly on this subject. It is often overlooked that, at the point of privatisation, water companies were debt free. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond also raised this. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, makes a really excellent forensic accounting contribution—there is a role for him in another place if he should decide that this is enough. Although the water companies were debt free when they went private, that changed when the new private owners saw the glint of money for themselves and borrowed money to increase share dividends. Not all water companies followed that course, but many did. Some invested in the infrastructure, but this was often based on concrete solutions instead of the cheaper and more carbon-efficient nature-based solutions. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has been campaigning for nature-based solutions for a considerable time, as has the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who is not in his place.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising the issue of farmers and phosphate discharge. Farmers have a role to play in improving the quality of our waterways, at the same time as producing food. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, referred to the role of farmers.

I do not intend to return to the debate and run through every contribution, but I draw attention to one particular contribution. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer has referred to the SUAR sludge. Many of the chemicals that she listed are known as forever chemicals. We need to deal with this problem, because it is extremely worrying that these chemicals should be on the land for ever.

All sides of the House are concerned about sewage pollution of rivers and waterways. The Minister referred to the Victorian sewer infrastructure, as did my noble friend Lady Pinnock. However, surely it is time that we had a better solution than the Victorian sewers. The regulator is not fit for purpose and needs to be replaced. I am not sure that it is comforting to know that everyone in the House agrees on this issue, but the power in numbers is considerable. I hope that the Minister is listening and will act accordingly, although I know that he is doing as much as he possibly can. It is time to introduce more stringent measures to improve the quality of our water, which should be crystal clear and gurgling in the streams instead of brown, sluggish and smelly.

Motion agreed.

Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

When this statutory instrument comes into force, there will be no grandfather rights, so there is going to be excessive pressure on rescue centres. There is no guidance in the regulations as to how the current owners of these primates, or people who have been denied licences, should deal with them. I welcome these changes to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but they do not go far enough. I support the regret amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her very thorough introduction to this regret amendment. I am grateful to her for the chance to debate the issue in more detail. I refer to my interests as set out in the register.

The Government carried out consultations in 2020, when there were 4,516 responses, with 98% of respondents expressing support. Further consultations were carried out from 20 June to 18 July 2023, when there were 643 responses, mainly from those involved in looking after primates, animal welfare charities, individuals who were known to already keep primates as pets and members of the public. On this occasion, 97% of respondents were in favour. The regulations will come into force on 6 April 2026. Given the high level of support from the consultations for these measures, why are the Government not implementing them sooner than April 2026? Is this due to the guidance not being published until the spring of 2024, to which local authorities, as the EM says,

“will be required to have due regard”?

I would like some clarification from the Minister, please. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has referred to the lack of guidance.

The regulations are due to be administered by local authorities, which will inspect and grant licences, either by a veterinarian or by another suitably qualified and competent person. Nearly all Members have referred to this. Given that the Government do not really know just how many primates are being kept by private keepers, I am slightly alarmed at the impact on local authorities.

Paragraph 12.1 of the EM says that there will be

“no … impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.

However, it also says:

“There are between 1000 and 5000 primates being held as pets … and the majority of these are held by private keepers”.


For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that information is in the Explanatory Memorandum. There is a world of difference between 1,000 and 5,000. This is a huge number of very sensitive animals potentially being held in inappropriate circumstances, with the Government not having even an approximation of how many there are, let alone a precise number. Does the Minister believe that there are sufficient veterinary and other professionals capable of dealing with the numbers and complexities of the licensing regimes being proposed? The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, have referred to this.

Primates currently comprise 502 extant species, which are grouped into 81 genera. These range from gorillas, orang-utangs, chimpanzees and baboons down to aye-ayes, loris and lemurs. Each is very different, requiring different treatment, diets and housing. The actual instrument gives extremely detailed restrictions and conditions on how primates are to be kept. This makes it obvious that the keeping of a primate by a private individual is difficult, if not impossible—quite rightly so.

Most primates are very social animals and need the company of others of their species. If not allowed to roam free in the countries of their origin, they should be kept in licensed zoos, whether private or open to the public. Only in these circumstances can we be sure that the stringent provisions of this SI will be enacted and that primates will be able to enjoy a life as close as possible to that which they would have enjoyed in the wild. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has made reference to this.

The RSPCA is concerned that insufficient thought is being given to what will happen to the animals belonging to those primate keepers who do not receive a licence to continue to keep their pet. As has already been said, there are not innumerable spaces in animal welfare organisations or primate sanctuaries to manage the resulting flow of primates following the implementation of the SI. How are the Government going to ensure the welfare of these primates, which they have indicated should be kept in zoo-level standards?

I turn now to the issue of fees. Regulation 13 states that a local authority may

“(a) charge a fee in respect of any application relating to a primate licence under this Part; (b) charge a fee in respect of any inspection which it must or may arrange under this Part”.

This gives the impression that local authorities are free to set their own fees. That is good, but we could end up with dozens of different sets of fees up and down the country. There is also likely to be a different set of fees depending on the size and number of primates involved. While I welcome that local government itself will determine what the fee will be to cover its costs, some sort of yardstick would be useful. It is unlikely that local authorities will have veterinarians on their payroll, so they will have to buy in the services of the relevant qualified person both to inspect to grant the licence in the first place and to carry out routine inspections in the future to ensure that the terms of the licence are being adhered to. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to this. No one in this Chamber is under any illusion about the state of local government finance. With populations increasing and social care under pressure, to be asking local authorities to take on yet more duties without providing the finance to cover them is unacceptable.

The instrument also has a section on rectification notices, and allows two years for steps to be taken to comply with licence conditions. This is far too long for a primate to be kept in conditions that do not comply with the licence granted. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has referred to this. This might relate to poor diet or lack of space or stimulation, or it might relate to public safety. Does the Minister agree that the time for compliance for the rectification notice should be much shorter than two years?

I fear that I do not agree with others about a grandfather clause and allowing animals to stay with their keepers until the end of their life. This is a long time to be living in great misery.

Finally—others have referred to this point—paragraph 39 of Schedule 1, dealing with restraint, states:

“No primate may be handled or restrained except … insofar as … it is necessary for the purposes of an exhibition activity.”


Paragraph 42 says:

“No primate may be transported unless … it is necessary for the purposes of an exhibition activity”.


This gives the impression that a primate may be transported for the purposes of performing in front of others, and the public. Can the Minister say what is meant by

“for the purposes of an exhibition”

because, as written, it is extremely worrying? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, raised this, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.

I remain concerned that, unless these measures are implemented quickly, some primates will live in unsuitable conditions, without the company of their fellows, and be miserable as a result. Although it is not perfect, I support the general thrust of this SI.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in support of her amendment, and to other contributions in today’s debate, and I have been struck by our shared commitment to act to improve the welfare of privately kept primates. It is important that we do act.

We introduced this SI in response to a call for evidence and consultation exercises that confirmed the extensive mistreatment of privately kept primates. Some of this evidence was, frankly, horrible and highlighted primates being kept in poor conditions, in small enclosures or birdcages, and suffering from fractures or misshapen bones. It is absolutely right that the Government take action to address primate welfare in non-zoo settings.

It has been encouraging to note that the strong response to the consultation exercises has been to welcome the Government’s decision to put a licensing scheme in place for the keeping of primates to address their specialised needs. It has also been encouraging today to note support from across the House for our objective of improving primate welfare. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to state clearly the Government’s view. I recognise her and other noble Lords’ concerns and will seek to address them now.

The amendment suggests that the SI does not ban the keeping of primates as pets. I have explained in my opening remarks that that is essentially incorrect. The vast majority of animals kept as pets in this country do not need to comply with the kinds of licensing conditions contained in this SI. This is not semantics. Primates have particular welfare needs that cannot be met by keeping them as household pets, and this SI seeks to end that practice. Those currently keeping primates in birdcages and in other wholly inappropriate conditions will no longer be able to do so. Only those people keeping or wishing to keep primates who can demonstrate compliance with the licensing conditions and welfare standards to the satisfaction of enforcement authorities will be able to keep primates privately. These conditions are stringent and are the kinds of measures that would not apply to household pets.

The noble Baroness’s amendment also regrets the absence of a grandfather clause, as was raised by a number of other noble Lords, and advocates government policies to support rehoming. Given the evidence that we have about mistreatment of primates, the Government do not believe that continuing to allow private primate keepers to retain primates in poor conditions is the best thing for these animals. Future rehoming and surrender arrangements are very important concerns, of course, but the Government do not believe that the answer is to allow suffering animals to be kept as they are. Instead, this SI provides a two-year period before the requirements come into force to provide keepers time to comply with the requirements. Until we license, we will not know the scale of primate keeping, but I can assure the House that we will continue to work closely with rescue and rehoming charities to monitor the impact of the SI on rehoming activity, and to respond accordingly to evidence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked whether we might consider keeping a register of primate specialists. I shall certainly take that suggestion back to the department. I can confirm that this legislation applies only to England. If you have a criminal conviction for animal welfare issues, you will not be eligible for a primate licence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others asked about the licensing conditions that must be met. The primate licence will be issued only to those who can meet the welfare standards set out in the regulation. Those standards are akin to the standards that licensed zoos must meet and include requirements such as microchipping, local authority inspections and record-keeping. They also include minimum welfare requirements, such as emergency arrangements and requirements regarding care and maintenance, nutrition and feeding, physical health, environment, behaviour, handling and restraint, transport, and breeding.