Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on bringing this instrument forward, which I wholeheartedly support. I want to press her on a number of issues arising from it.

In the last Parliament, the Minister had the grace and good sense to support an amendment of mine to what is now the levelling-up Act. It stated that there should be no homes at all built on functional flood plains after 2009. As the Minister will be aware, and as this instrument states, there is no insurance cover for homes built on functional flood plains after 2009.

At the time, I was delighted that Flood Re was set up, with the support of the present Government, by the then Conservative Government. However, the mapping is not as tight as it might be. As we discussed during the passage of the levelling-up Bill, we are dependent on local authorities to home in on the crucial area of zone 3b. If the Minister and her Government are committed, as they seem to be, to continuing to build on functional flood plains, which we recognise are not covered by Flood Re, can she tell the Grand Committee the average cost of insurance for those home owners to insure themselves, particularly where they may have been flooded on one or more occasion since they moved into a home which was built after 2009?

I believe that we should look at this in the context of Flood Re and the housebuilding programme. I know the Minister will probably tell me that I must be patient and wait for the planning and infrastructure Bill to come out—perhaps she could give us a date for when to expect it. That is my first and key point: what insurance cover there is, the cost for individual households and to what extent they might benefit.

Has the department done an impact assessment on the instrument as it stands? Is the Minister able to say what plans the Government have to extend the scheme in a number of ways—first, to cover homes built on flood plains after 2009 going forward, but also to extend it to cover businesses in particular? I am not entirely sure what the position is as regards farms, which are partly a business and partly a residence, but there are other businesses as well—many owner properties—where the business and the home are shared.

When will the Government have a view on what the future of Flood Re should look like when it reaches the end of its natural life? When this instrument was discussed in the other place, my honourable friend Dr Neil Hudson, who speaks for the party there, asked about the frequently flooded allowance, which was introduced by the last Government as a ring-fenced fund of £100 million to protect areas that had been affected by repeated flooding. Is the Minister able to say whether the Government are minded to continue that programme going forward?

I am sure that, when responding, the Minister will say that the Government have improved the resilience of properties and therefore are quite entitled to encourage local authorities to build on functional flood plains. She was, sadly, unable to attend the launch of the report by Westminster Sustainable Business Forum—Policy Connect—in which we looked at flood and coastal erosion risk management policy for the new Government. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to look at this, but will her department especially consider our recommendations to ensure the uptake of property flood-resilience measures, some of which come under Build Back Better, to which she referred—but they also go beyond that? Will the Government be minded to allow for the installation of both resistance and resilience measures as part of property flood-resilience schemes funded by the Environment Agency? Will she also review the eligibility criteria and distribution process for the property flood-resilience repair grant scheme to make it more widely accessible and streamlined? Further, will the Government align all property flood-resilience funding resources—including those from the Environment Agency’s property flood-resilience framework, Flood Re’s Build Back Better and Defra’s flood-resilience repair grant—to the same amount, so that all the funding resources would be aligned at £15,000, possibly as part of the forthcoming multiyear spending review? I realise that these are very technical recommendations and that the Minister may not have the answers, but they relate to the instrument and the forthcoming spending review.

Finally, the recommendation that I press to the Minister today would be to normalise the use of property flood resilience in both new and existing properties. Part C of building regulations should be updated to require the installation of basic property flood-resilience measures for properties at risk of flooding and the installation of very basic no-regret measures for all new homes, irrespective of risk.

These recommendations go to the heart of my belief that, if we continue to build properties that are not covered by Flood Re, we owe this to the people who will buy those properties. I find myself not needing a mortgage: I had sold a property, and I was in a position to have bought, and I almost did buy, a property without a mortgage—this is going back to the 2000s. No one would have told me that I could not be insured. I know the Minister will say that they can be insured, but I would be interested to know how affordable it is for these properties not covered by Flood Re and built after 2009 on flood plains. How expensive is that insurance? If the Government are going down this path, we must have more resilient houses built in those areas. That said, I welcome the opportunity to debate the instrument today. I hope it will have a fair wind and be approved.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this short but important statutory instrument. I was assisting on the Water Bill in 2014-15 when Flood Re was first debated to provide insurance to properties that were uninsurable due to constant flooding, the main insurance companies not being willing to take any of the risks on those homes and dwellings.

This SI is quite simple: it raises the levy that insurance companies can indirectly pass on to their customers from £135 million to £160 million. The £135 million level was set in 2022, when the levy was reduced from £180 million. The Explanatory Memorandum quite rightly states the importance of not having a levy that is higher than it needs to be, but I stress that there is a danger in setting it too low.

Beaver: Reintroduction in England

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

A 2020 evidence review by Natural England found that beaver reintroductions can bring benefits through the restoration of lost natural ecosystems, including boosting biodiversity and increasing other species. I am sure noble Lords listen to “The Archers”, as I do, on which there was a story around beavers this week. What we will have learned from that regarding species is that where you see beavers you will also find tits.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

On Tuesday, I visited the South Downs National Park, which has introduced a pair of beavers. Their introduction can have benefits for other animals. They are large animals that are not aggressive to other species such as the mink, but they appear to act as a deterrent for the mink. Where water voles have been reintroduced alongside beavers, volunteers have noticed the benefit that the number of mink has reduced and thus the water voles thrive. Are the Government considering the reintroduction of both species in areas where they used to be abundant?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government’s approach to reintroductions more widely needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. We are committed to providing opportunities for the reintroduction of formerly native species where the benefits for the environment, such as the noble Baroness has demonstrated, are clear, but any reintroductions of any species must follow the published Reintroductions and conservation translocations: code and guidance for England.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to speak at this stage of the Bill, which is ping-pong, not Report. I was satisfied with the progress we made on the Bill while it was completing its passage in this Chamber before going off to the other place. I am naturally disappointed that the amendments we voted on were removed. However, I understand the rationale for this. I am grateful to the Minister for her time, and that of her officials, in providing a briefing ahead of ping-pong. This helped to set the scene for moving forward.

From the outset, the Government made it clear that the Water (Special Measures) Bill was the first step in a series of changes that the Government were considering to improve the water industry generally. Yesterday morning, I attended a briefing with Sir Jon Cunliffe, who is chairing the water commission, which is looking into a wide range of aspects of the water industry on behalf of the Government. The water commission will call for evidence towards the end of this month, and a period when submissions will be made and received will follow. At the right time, Sir Jon will publish his report. At that stage, there will no doubt be a series of debates and discussions around the recommendations contained in that report.

Given that the Government’s stated aim is to look at the water industry in its entirety, I believe that there is wisdom in waiting for the water commission to report, so that we can see where the Water (Special Measures) Bill fits into that scenario. We could then understand how the pieces of the jigsaw fit together and have a more complete picture of how the water industry is to be taken forward for the benefit of both the consumer and the water companies as a whole.

Turning to Motions 1A and Amendment 1B, in lieu of government Amendment 1, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to have transparency and clarity over the issue of water company debt. He is looking for this to be in the Bill. It is not acceptable for water companies to hide their level of debt in the depths of their financial reports, where it is unlikely that many water bill payers will be able to find it. Transparency is essential for consumers to grasp the level of debt that water companies are carrying. If the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is not satisfied with the Minister’s response this evening and decides to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support him.

Motion 2A, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, which seeks to amend the government Motion on Amendment 2, would require the Secretary of State to bring in regulations relating to Ofwat via statutory instrument. The use of statutory instruments to bring in legislation is a slow, cumbersome and not very transparent way of moving forward; perhaps that is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. These Benches did not support the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, when he moved his original amendment on Report. We welcome the Minister’s commitment that Ofwat will hold drop-in sessions, and we will not support the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, today.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their further contributions to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Blencathra, for providing further detail around their concerns. I would like to make it clear that the Government have carefully considered all non-government amendments tabled throughout the passage of the Bill, and that, where we agree with the intent behind a given amendment, we have worked hard to find an appropriate way forward.

It is in that spirit that I reviewed Motion 1A and Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As previously explained, the Government agree that it is of utmost importance to ensure that members of the public can easily access and understand information on water company finances. However, I do not agree that the approach proposed by Motion 1 A and Amendment 1B is the most effective way of achieving this outcome. I am disappointed that, after considerable engagement on the Government’s alternative approach, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is still dissatisfied with the suggested way forward.

The noble Lord has previously spoken to me about the need to specify how data is presented. I want to be clear that the specific metrics that he wants to see in reports are already required to be included through licence conditions. Indeed, he has pointed that out himself; the information appears in the annual Water Company Performance Report. What is missing, and what we agree with him on, is better formatting and clearer presentation with this information readily available right at the front of these reports, which is exactly what we propose can be achieved through regulatory accounting guidelines.

The noble Lord’s amendments require only that the data is presented in a format that can be “readily accessed and understood”, which is arguably open to interpretation by water companies. Having listened closely to him, we agree that data should be presented in this way, but the approach proposed by government would be more specific and could include, as I mentioned before, a summary table of financial information right at the front of the annual Water Company Performance Report. As such, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, I maintain the view that primary legislation is not the most effective means by which to achieve the intended outcome. I therefore urge Members of the House to support Commons Amendment 1 and the non-legislative proposal put forward by government and Ofwat.

I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, for continuing to raise the need for sufficient parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules. These rules will be central in driving improvements in the culture of water companies, which of course we all want to see. As such, it is right that we, as parliamentarians, do what we can to ensure the rules are robust, without compromising the regulatory independence of Ofwat. That is why I was pleased to receive Ofwat’s offer of a drop-in session, which would give noble Lords and MPs an opportunity to further understand and raise concerns on the rules before they are finalised. I therefore urge all members of the House to support Commons Amendment 2 and enable Ofwat to move forward with arrangements for that session.

To finish, I reiterate that the Government strongly agree with the need to ensure increased transparency and accessibility of water company data and ensure sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules on remuneration and governance. I believe that the approaches that I have outlined today demonstrate the commitment of government and Ofwat to effectively and comprehensively address the concerns raised by noble Lords on these topics. I therefore ask that all noble Lords support Commons Amendments 1 and 2 and, in conjunction, the non-legislative proposals put forward by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments, which were inserted by the Government in the other place. Amendments 4 and 8 introduce the requirement for all water companies to have a social tariff for those consumers who are unable to pay their water bills due to their circumstances. Some water companies already have a social tariff in place but others do not. I welcome this measure to ensure that all water companies will be required to assist those vulnerable customers who are unable to pay the full water rate.

These amendments are almost identical to those tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, prior to them subsequently tabling their own social tariff amendment—the ones we have before us today. Although it would have been preferable for the Government to have accepted the original Liberal Democrat amendments, it would be exceedingly churlish of these Benches to reject the amendments before us this evening, which achieve the same outcomes. We are therefore happy to fully support this group of government amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in the nicest possible way, that I feel she did me a disservice in her remarks in the previous debate when she suggested that our support for a statutory instrument was to slow things down. Our support for the statutory instrument was to get better parliamentary scrutiny. As a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I am well aware of the speed at which the Government can go at times, and making statutory instruments is not a slowing down measure.

However, I officially rose to speak to the government amendments in this group which were made in the other place. The principal, substantive amendment relates to the special provision in water company charging schemes and will help the Government to ensure that water companies take a consistent approach when supporting vulnerable customers. We are firmly in favour of protecting consumers from unaffordable increases in their bills, and we are disappointed that the Government rejected our amendment to protect consumers from higher water bills at Report.

The other government amendments largely relate to the commencement of the Bill, and we will not oppose those changes at this stage.

Avian Influenza

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, avian flu is becoming a yearly occurrence. In the run-up to Christmas 2022, special measures had to be taken to ensure that the supply of turkeys was secured. Currently, free range chickens are kept in barns. What reassurances can the Minister provide that, following her department’s call for free range birds to be required to be kept indoors, their welfare will be protected in these confined conditions? What plans do the Government have to support farmers to train staff to prepare for future outbreaks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that we recently brought in a statutory instrument in order that owners of poultry that are free range do not lose that designation while there is an outbreak going forward. Clearly, it is really important that farmers and poultry and egg producers have support during influenza outbreaks. We have compensation in, and we are looking at labelling changes; we do not want to put extra costs on to farmers and egg producers during an outbreak, and we are working very hard to ensure that that does not happen.

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

The Minister and I knew each other for quite a while in the other place, although she has been at this end a lot longer than I have. Overall, I absolutely support the motive to increase recycling rates and have simpler recycling. As I said, I put a lot of my time and effort into making this happen. However, I encourage her to take back to the department that it should have steps looking ahead—to watch out, make some guidelines and be prepared to revisit this issue if necessary.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly support. The Environment Act 2021 made provision for household waste to be collected for recycling as one of the main planks of its purpose. We are four years on from that Act. The collection of separated waste on a countrywide basis was moving slowly towards completion at the time of the general election. I congratulate the Government on moving this issue forward and not leaving it on the back burner. I have received a brief from the Green Alliance and seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The instrument explains very well what will happen. English waste collection authorities and other waste collectors are to collect plastic, glass and metal recyclable waste streams together in all circumstances and not just where an exception applies. Paper and card will be collected separately from other recyclables to avoid cross-contamination. Food waste will be collected with garden waste; again, not just where an exception applies. This decision is not in line with international best practice nor government evidence. There will be provision for an exception to be applied to card and paper. This will be done by a written assessment. This is not robust enough and is not likely to lead to increased recycling rates generally, as paper and card will be contaminated when mixed with plastic, glass and metal, some of which will have food residues still present. The Minister has already referred to this.

The Government have decided that it is acceptable to collect glass, plastic and metal together and that this will not have a significant impact on the ability of the materials to be recycled. No evidence is provided that this is the case. However, there is evidence that 16.6% of materials at recovery facilities are rejected due to contamination. While the contamination rate for fully separated collected recycling is much lower, the co-collected material contamination rate is 13.5%, compared with just 4% for collections of recyclables kept separate. WRAP suggests this could be as low as 1.6%.

The Environment Act 2021 was clear that recyclable waste was to be collected separately so that recycling rates could increase. Recycling rates have not increased from 44%-45% since 2015, as the Minister referred to. The country therefore missed its target of 50% recycling by 2020 and the target of 65% by 2035 looks extremely unlikely. The public care deeply about the hazard that waste causes to wildlife, domestic animals, biodiversity and our general enjoyment of our environment.

Plastic pollution in particular is damaging our bird and animal species, with reports of plastic in birds’ nests and hedgehogs getting discarded strimmer thread caught around their legs. If recycling rates are not increased, our reputation in the light of more efficient schemes in neighbouring countries will be damaged and the confidence of the public will be further dented. If the public believe that, although they are keen to assist with recycling, a proportion of this is still going to landfill, they will be disheartened and stop bothering to separate their waste.

According to the Green Alliance, the cost of contamination to UK recyclers is more than £50 million a year. I lived in a council area that for many years collected weekly food waste and recycling and separated paper and card, cans and metal, glass and plastic, some in bins and some in bags. The residual used to be collected at two weeks and then moved to three weeks; there was no problem. The system should not get bogged down in the number of bins that people may have to have. If recycling is carried out correctly, the residual waste should automatically reduce.

I return to my comments about evidence. Is the Minister able to say what evidence there is that contamination will not occur if the waste streams for recycling are collected together? The original impact assessment noted that mixing food and garden waste together affects quantity and quality, which leads to

“lower amounts of food waste being collected and less efficient treatment through in-vessel composting compared to anaerobic digestion, which produces energy and organic soil improver or fertiliser”.

According to WRAP research in the Government’s impact assessment,

“separate weekly collections of food waste can capture twice as much material per year compared to mixed food and garden waste”.

Food waste makes up nearly a third of residual waste. Providing separate collection options is the best way in which to achieve the legally binding target in the Environment Act on waste minimisation. The Environment Act’s legally binding targets are not to be discarded without serious consideration of the implications for our wildlife and biodiversity.

Is the Minister able to share the Government’s evidence on what led to the exemption for separate waste collections and to what extent the Government expect local authorities to make use of the exemption? Cost alone should not be the overriding consideration. There has been extensive consultation with the industry on this matter, and with the English waste collection and disposal authorities and the Environment Agency. Some 76% of respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances.

Agreement by the industry does not automatically mean that recycling rates will increase. I note that Ipsos has been commissioned to do an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period from February 2022. We are three years into this evaluation. Is there any mid-term update on how it is going?

While I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking recycling collections forward, I am disappointed that we had static recycling rates at 44%-45% for 10 years under the previous Administration. I am not convinced that the scheme now being introduced will move us forward to the 65% needed by 2035. I appreciate that local authorities and the industries will have to amend the way that they collect and deal with various waste streams, but they had since 2021 to think about this and get ready. I fear that the proposals in this SI are not stringent enough to make the difference that is needed for the sake of our country, its people and its wildlife.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, if it is Monday in Grand Committee, it must be recycling day. Generally, I am very supportive of these regulations, if they bring about some standardisation in our bin collections around the country, but they raise several important questions about how the changes will be implemented and the potential long-term impact. Permitting English waste authorities to co-collect dry recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass and metal—in a single container is eminently sensible; so, too, is keeping paper and card separate. I have concerns about amalgamating garden and food waste, and I shall come to that later.

The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers: one for residual, non-recyclable waste; one for food waste mixed with garden waste; one for paper and card; and one for all other dry recyclable materials, including plastic, metal and glass. Although these exemptions are a sensible and pragmatic solution to logistical challenges, they raise a crucial question: how will the quality of recyclable materials be affected by the co-collection of plastic, glass and metal? Co-collecting different materials might cause contamination, making it harder to separate and process them effectively later in the recycling process. I hope that the Government will make it clear to local authorities that we expect co-collection to increase recycling for each of the co-collected products and that they must avoid contamination.

Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

It is important to small businesses and, because we are talking about companies that operate worldwide, both producers and retailers. How closely will our system meet that of the other countries that the Minister identified? I am aware that there are negotiations in other parts of Europe on some form of return system; it would clearly be better for all concerned if there is either a common or a virtually common system. That is particularly the case for Northern Ireland versus Eire, as many of the products will move from one side of the border to the other.

My concerns are about why glass is excluded, the international basis of the operation and its similarity with others, and small businesses that will carry a burden in one form or another. Given the experiences that I witnessed in my previous role for many years—I should add that I later went on to become head of the British Soft Drinks Association, and therefore saw operations not only from Coca-Cola’s side but for waters and fruit juices—it is important that this works across the whole country. I recognise and expect that the returns will operate much better in some places than in others.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument. It is vital to ensure that, as a country, we reduce our waste and engage the consumer fully in the process. As the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states, the power to introduce a DRS was enshrined in the Environment Act 2021, nearly four years ago, but the issue was being debated as early as 2019, with Defra running two public consultations. The first gave 84% support from those participating; the second, 83%, so why has it taken so long to get to this position? I do not wish to be impolite to the Minister, as she has been in post for only a short time, but it has to be said that there was a lot of pratting about by the previous Government. This is, of course, a technical term.

The scheme is to be run by a direct management organisation—a DMO—and this will take another two and a half years to get up and running, so will not start until October 2027. They say that Rome was not built in a day, but I despair at the leisurely timeframe. Meanwhile, the country is knee-deep in waste.

I welcome the application of civil penalties to drinks producers that do not comply, but it would make a big difference if civil penalties were applied to individual consumers who carelessly discard their drinks containers around the countryside. I am not convinced that the carrot of a returned deposit will alone change behaviour; there needs to be a stick element as well.

Despite a not-for-profit DMO being set up to administer the scheme, local authority trading standards departments will be involved in monitoring and enforcement, along with the Environment Agency. As the Minister knows, local authorities are underfunded, with social care swallowing their budgets at an alarming rate. Do the Government intend to produce additional funding for local authorities trading standards to carry out this not inconsiderable extra work?

Despite the Explanatory Memorandum referring to the instrument enacting the “polluter pays” principle from the Environment Act, I can hardly be excited about the fact that it has taken so long to reach this point, as 2021 has disappeared over the horizon. The first Defra consultation was in February 2019, six years ago. That first consultation response was published within four months. The next consultation in March 2021 was not published until January 2023, nearly 18 months after it closed. The responses showed that 83% of respondents were in favour of a DRS. Was Defra waiting for a 100% response before it acted?

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right when he says that the mounds of burning carcasses tormented our country. I do not think any of us who were around at the time will ever forget that. He asks about lessons learned. In addition to regularly exercising our disease response capabilities, lessons identified reviews are undertaken at the end of any outbreak in order to identify and evaluate where improvements to disease response capability processes and organisational structures for managing an outbreak of exotic notifiable disease can be made. This is something we always do.

Following both the 2001 and 2007 foot and mouth outbreaks, extensive inquiries and reviews were undertaken. That led to some critical changes coming in, including, for example, the introduction of a ban on swill feeding, standstill periods for cattle, sheep and goats of six days and 20 days for pigs, and improvements in livestock traceability. These were all implemented in response to the recommendations of those lessons identified reviews and they are critical in order to prevent infection—in the case of swill feeding bans, for example—because we need to minimise any implications of the disease coming to this country again.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the last time we had a countrywide outbreak of foot and mouth, it was devastating to both the farming community and the rural economy, as tourism-dependent businesses were badly hit. I commend the Government for their swift action to prevent German meat products entering the country. Biosecurity is vital for the protection of farmers and to maintain public health standards. A veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU is essential. Do the Government have a timetable for signing such an agreement?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I cannot provide the noble Baroness with any specific dates on those agreements at present. All I can say to her at this stage is that it is very much a government priority and we are working closely with the EU to make progress as best we can.

Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 21 November 2024. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing egg marketing standards to enable free-range eggs to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures, which restrict the access of laying hens to open-air runs.

Currently, when free-range hens are placed under mandatory housing measures due to disease outbreaks such as avian influenza, the egg marketing regulations allow their eggs to continue to be labelled as free-range for 16 weeks only; this is known as the 16-week derogation period. If the mandatory housing measure lasts for longer than 16 weeks, eggs from those hens must be labelled and sold as barn eggs. The requirement for egg producers and packers to relabel free-range eggs as barn eggs once the 16-week derogation period is exceeded is difficult to implement in modern automated packhouses. This adds significant logistical and packing costs to the industry.

This SI aims to remove the 16-week derogation period so that free-range egg producers and packers can label and market eggs as free-range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. During mandatory housing measures, egg producers still have the higher operating costs of maintaining their free-range egg system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that hens are also temporarily housed indoors. The normal laying period of a productive free-range laying hen in the UK is around 90 weeks. This SI will remove the derogation, which affects only a small part of a laying hen’s productive life, with all the other free-range criteria still needing to be met—except access to open-air runs.

In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes with the Scottish Government. Some 70% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. The removal of the 16-week derogation period has already come into force in Scotland. Following their own consultation exercise, the Welsh Government have also announced that they will introduce legislation to remove the derogation.

In 2023, the EU amended its egg marketing standards regulations to remove the 16-week derogation period, which, through the Windsor Framework, applies also to free-range eggs produced in Northern Ireland. Without this SI, the introduction of any mandatory housing measures that last longer than 16 weeks—during, for example, an avian influenza outbreak—could be detrimental for English free-range egg producers and result in an increase in free-range eggs being imported from the EU and Northern Ireland. This could have a significant negative long-term impact on the English free-range egg industry. This SI restores alignment with the EU and Northern Ireland.

It will also ensure that free-range egg producers and packers do not incur additional costs for adhering to government-imposed housing requirements. Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months—as was the case in 2021-22 and 2022-23, resulting in the introduction of housing measures for poultry that, in both cases, lasted longer than the 16-week labelling derogation period: for an additional six weeks in 2021-22, and for an additional seven weeks in 2022-23. So it is imperative that this SI is in place for the rest of the winter period and beyond.

We continue to uphold the high standards expected by UK consumers and businesses. The change contained in this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British egg industry. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this fairly straightforward SI, which allows, during an outbreak of avian flu, for poultry that are normally free-range with access to open-air runs to be kept in barns for an additional period of time. The current derogation’s continuous limit of time during which birds can be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range is 16 weeks, as the Minister said. During the avian flu outbreak in 2021-22, the period was extended from 16 weeks to 22 weeks. During the 2022-23 outbreak, it was again extended—on this occasion, to 23 weeks.

The UK is 90% self-sufficient in egg production. As markets for eggs need to be strictly in alignment with the EU’s for the purposes of trade, it is important that UK regulations closely match those in operation in the EU. As 94% of UK egg exports go to the EU, it is important that our egg producers are not at a disadvantage during outbreaks of avian flu. Removing the 16-week derogation limit will ensure that UK producers have parity with the EU; I fully support this move.

However, as the UK seems to be affected by avian flu on a fairly regular basis during the winter months, I wonder whether there is likely to be a maximum number of weeks when birds need to be kept in barns and still be labelled as free-range. Six or seven weeks is a short period by which to extend the derogation but the effect of increasing the derogation, as happened in 2022 and 2023, meant that it was for nearly 50% of the year. Can the Minister give reassurance that this derogation will not be extended any further? I note that she said that the Government will extend it for “however long” is necessary. It is difficult to see how the consumer is likely to be persuaded that eggs that have been barn raised for30 weeks of the year, say, can still be labelled as free-range. As we all know, free-range eggs attract a premium on the price the consumer pays.

I turn briefly to the subject of the consultation that took place between 9 January and 5 March 2024. Eighty egg producers, 20 egg packers and 49 members of the public responded. The response from the public is amazingly small, which raises questions. How was the consultation conducted? Where was it advertised? Given that consumers are very exercised about the conditions in which poultry are kept, and that many choose free-range eggs over barn eggs because they believe the birds have a better quality of life in the open air, I am surprised that more did not respond to the consultation. Perhaps the Minister can give details of how engagement with the public on the consultation was conducted.

Despite that query and concern about the derogation limit being extended to beyond 50% of the year, I support the SI but feel that avian flu is not going away, and egg producers need a way of dealing with the effects that it has on their business, as well as consumers needing reassurance that they are getting what they pay for in buying free-range eggs.

Water Bills

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some extremely important points. Citizens Advice does an important service in supporting vulnerable people. Water companies should work with all charities, such as Citizens Advice, in order to support vulnerable consumers. It is important that we simplify the processes so that customers who need extra assistance can get it. Citizens Advice is an important part of that and helps customers get advice on benefits and managing debt, particularly customers who have not been in financial difficulty before. My noble friend makes some very good points.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the expected rise in water bills to ensure future investment in infrastructure, so deliberately disregarded in the past by water companies, will fall heavily upon small businesses that use water and farmers, for whom water is essential for rearing livestock and growing crops. Is the Minister talking to her Treasury colleagues about how to help this vital element of our economy with this burden, which will affect small businesses’ and farmers’ profitability?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that Defra is regularly in contact with the Treasury about all issues such as this, particularly about how to support people going forward. Many of the challenges farmers in particular face—my colleague is at the Oxford Farming Conference today talking to farmers—are to do with long-term security and the ability to bring in long-term investment. Water affordability is an important part of that.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, we are keen to encourage all small poultry keepers to register. The system is now working well—I have actually done it myself, because I am a small poultry keeper—so I absolutely encourage anyone to do it. It is very simple: it probably took me about a minute and a half. It is very straightforward so, if you have not registered, please do.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, although this outbreak is very small, the noble Baroness will remember that, in the previous serious outbreak in the run-up to Christmas, uninfected turkeys were slaughtered early and kept in large chiller facilities until needed for Christmas. Should this outbreak get more serious, are there plans to repeat that process?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, 85% of turkeys that are expected for the Christmas dinner table have already been slaughtered and are available either fresh or frozen, so I do not see that that will be an issue for this year.