Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023
Baroness Grender Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct. As he is aware, I strongly supported the then Bill when it went through Parliament, because I do not want to see the abuse of animals in any circumstances. However, having looked at the Act and how to take it forward, there are certain challenges to ensure that it is effective when it is brought in. There is no point having legislation that is not going to do what we want it to do. First, it has to be clear for advertisers and enforcement bodies which activities are in scope, so we are looking at which activities to prioritise and bring into scope. We need to determine whether an advertised activity meets the criteria for being low welfare, because we need to ensure that high-welfare activities are not inadvertently impacted. We also need to ensure that the party placing the advert can be identified. This is complex, because it is about banning advertising only in this country, whereas many advertised holidays are not from organisations based here and the activities are abroad. It is complex, but I am determined that we get this right.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of media reports suggesting that this appalling practice is on the increase? In the light of that, what urgent support and guidance can she provide for the UK tourism industry that could be used right now to reduce this immediately, particularly given the current delay that she described in the introduction and implementation of the Act?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One reason I talked about non-legislative options is that we want to stop people buying such holidays in the first place. One problem is that, when people book a holiday with an elephant ride, they simply do not understand what has happened to that elephant and how it has been treated so that it can be ridden—so there is an education piece. It is currently the case that ABTA, which represents around 90% of British travel agents, offers guidance, working with its own members, as to what kind of activities are considered to be unacceptable. That guidance is there and we have been working with ABTA to look at how we can encourage further uptake—90% is a high number, but it is not everybody.
Forest Risk Commodities
Baroness Grender Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that we are looking at the best way to bring this forward at the moment. I cannot commit to a timetable, but I can confirm that Defra is absolutely committed to bringing in this legislation and is working within government to ensure it is done in a timely fashion.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, she cannot point to a timetable, but after three years of delay, can the Minister point to any government analysis that quantifies the environmental cost of this inaction? Does she accept the estimates of Global Witness and the WWF that UK consumption has destroyed an area of forest larger than the New Forest? Do the Government have any analysis to refute that?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There are different things we can look at. Forests are a priority for the UK’s international climate finance spend—the ICF—and we are delivering ODA programmes to deliver improved forest governance, support sustainable trade and investment and mobilise finance for forest protections and restoration in developing countries. Since 2011, it is estimated that the UK ICF programmes have prevented 750,000 hectares of ecosystem loss, which is the equivalent of around 1 million football pitches. There is work taking place, but I absolutely understand why there is frustration that we have not brought in this legislation as yet.
Food Allergens
Baroness Grender Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness that we absolutely do not want to see a repeat of that. As she says, local authorities enforce allergen rules, typically via trading standards and environmental health officers. The number of trading standards officers has dropped, although staffing rose slightly in 2023, so we are looking at how we can improve that. The FSA has backed a level 6 trading standards apprenticeship, for example, and is training over 100 new officers in one year. The FSA will continue to monitor that, and will continue to support training guidance and the food law code of practice with local authorities.
Baroness Grender (LD)
If the FSA has pushed for compulsory written allergen information on menus, as it appears to have, is this not too long a wait for the Government to carry out an assessment? Also, will the Minister give us some sense of how it is possible to help smaller establishments in particular to access decent staff training in order to fulfil some of the requirements of having compulsory written information?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course, the law states that you have to state allergens. In the guidance, the preference is that that should be written first, verbal secondary. We will assess how that is working, as I just said. Regarding smaller businesses, the guidance has been designed with business to ensure that it is fit for purpose no matter what size your business is, because it is really important that every business can implement this effectively. The FSA has also created free tools, such as allergen icons, signage templates and a matrix, which are all available on its website. They are designed to be both flexible and low cost, because we need to ensure that all businesses, no matter their size, have proper access to the information and can ensure that customers and consumers understand what is being sold in that business.
Wild Camping
Baroness Grender Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I mentioned walking my dog at Ennerdale Water, where there are signs saying, “No fires”. Yet, I regularly walk along the lake and see clear evidence of people lighting fires and even chopping down saplings to try to light those fires. We need better understanding around responsibility in the countryside.
Local authorities currently have powers to ban the use of sky lanterns or disposable barbecues if they so wish. Existing powers in legislation can be used to regulate the lighting of fires in national parks and protected national landscapes. We also have the “respect, protect and enjoy” code around wild camping, which would include fires. With the dry summers we are seeing, it is becoming much more of an issue. The irresponsible use of disposable barbecues is particularly worrying; we know that we have had fires in the countryside because of them.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, first, and then from the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, given Labour’s manifesto commitments to improve responsible access to nature and enhance community rights to green space, can the Minister clarify what specific changes we can expect in the law and whether the rumours of a Green Paper are true? If they are not, can the Minister tell us why the opportunity of the Planning and Infra- structure Bill has not been used to deliver on those promises in order to overcome some of the persistent barriers for people in accessing the outdoors?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are extremely keen to increase access to nature; I am particularly keen to improve access for those who are the most disadvantaged in their ability to access it, whether that is through distance, culture or whatever. We are doing a lot of work. I have an excellent team working on the access policy at the moment. We are working extremely hard to come up with good access policies, including the national river walks, the new national forests and the other work that we are doing, in order to deliver on that promise.
Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Baroness Grender Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, from that point of view, I had not originally intended to speak, but I suspect I may be the last Back-Bench contributor. In the true spirit of equality, it may be useful if I can make a few comments in relation to that. I am sure that the Front Benchers do not really object to being detained too much by what I think is a matter of crucial constitutional significance.
As I said, I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, not least because I agree with the vast bulk of what has been said and contributed to this debate, but I want to touch on just three points that came up during the debate. First, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is correct that, while this is a highly technical issue, it is one that speaks to much greater constitutional significance. As has been mentioned, this is symptomatic of a wider problem, and that has been the overall approach that has been taken over the last number of years. There have been a number of failures: a failure of planning, negotiation, detail and implementation. Nationally, we need to learn those lessons, particularly for the future.
Secondly, while it will come as no great surprise that I and my unionist colleagues on this Bench, from at least two parties, are not the greatest fans of the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor Framework, what is particularly concerning about this regulation is that it is actually worse than the protocol and the framework. As has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, at the very least in Article 1, which is supposed to protect security and indeed national security on biosecurity, we are left with a situation where we have what I call “protocol plus”: we have a situation in which the requirements of the Government have been gold-plated. The supposed safeguards have been largely disregarded. If anything, what is in the protocol would provide greater protection than what is there today.
Thirdly and finally, as a number of speakers—relatively critically from noble Lord, Lord Frost, probably more benignly from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—have indicated, we can only really look at this debate in the context of the reset arrangements. There have been many promises made about that reset. Those of us in Northern Ireland will take a slight level of scepticism towards that. It is not what is promised that is important; it is what is delivered. It is not what is said; it is what is done.
To be fair to the Government, in terms of what they have promised, they have not suggested that the reset particularly solves some of the fundamental issues that are still there. We are still going to be left now. I await the Minister’s response in relation to this: that there will still be customs arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is clear that it will not deal with the democratic deficit of the 300 areas of law. Thirdly, whatever arrangements are there in SPS, as I think was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in one of his opening questions, it seems very apparent that that will not cover those goods outside of SPS on that basis.
In conclusion, let us for a moment take a much more rose-tinted approach to this and borrow from some of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that this will be greatly easing and improving the situation. If that is the case, it is because it would treat the United Kingdom, albeit in a situation in which it is largely subservient to dynamic alignment with the EU, as being one unit on that basis. That seems to be the direction of travel of the skeletal agreement that has been produced in respect of SPS.
If that is the case, and if that is something that is going to lead to a much more halcyon future for the country as a whole, I have to say that this regulation before us takes us in a diametrically opposed position, because it very explicitly brings about a situation that, from a biosecurity point of view, creates fortress Great Britain at the expense of dividing us off entirely from Northern Ireland. So I say in conclusion that, if you are a true believer in and advocate for the reset arrangements, actually you would find yourself in agreement with the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I do not want to detain the House any longer and I look forward to the response of the Front Benches.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we support these regulations as a sensible step to protect our biosecurity and reduce costly and deeply damaging barriers to trade, but we see this as just one stage of a much bigger journey. As my noble friend Lady Suttie has said in previous debates of this nature, these regulations are a stopgap. The real prize is a full sanitary and phytosanitary SPS veterinary agreement with the EU—something both sides committed to at last month’s summit. That would mean that one day our aim would be to do away with most border checks on plant and animal products altogether.
Indeed, we welcome the Government’s recent decision to delay new checks on medium-risk fruit and vegetables, an approach that a lot of industry rightly calls common sense. The extension until January 2027 gives businesses some breathing space, but everyone knows this is temporary and that the Government expect that a new SPS agreement will make these stopgap measures unnecessary.
The May summit made clear the aim: a common sanitary and phytosanitary area with no time limit. That would mean most goods, plants, animals and their products could move between Great Britain and the EU without the current certificates and controls. It would cut costs, ease pressure on food prices and end routine border checks. The benefits would also extend to Northern Ireland, thanks to the Windsor Framework. There is sometimes a myth that such an agreement would make Britain a rule taker. In reality, if we want to export, we always have to meet our trading partners’ standards. This deal would mean genuinely unfettered access to the EU market and therefore far less trade friction—friction that has been so damaging, for example, to our farmers in recent years.
Farming groups such as the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association have raised concerns about the role of European courts and the need for flexibility, especially around issues such as precision breeding and pesticides. The proposed agreement suggests dynamic alignment with the EU rules, but also promises a say for the UK and an independent arbitration panel. I am looking forward to a few more answers on this and the need to be sure that any dispute process is genuinely fair and respects our own parliamentary procedures.
This agreement could bring real benefits: lower prices, less red tape and more secure food supply. But I echo some of the requests in previous debates with questions to the Minister, especially from these Benches, about a clear timetable for finalising the implementation of the SPS agreement. So far, our understanding is that no date has been set. We would also like to know whether there is any risk to animal health or biosecurity while we wait for the new agreement to come. Ongoing surveillance in that period is obviously vital, but we do feel that reassurance is needed.
On another point, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions debt recovery and collection costs for unpaid fees. Can the Minister tell us the total cost of unpaid fees, the average fee charged, and whether non-payment is a widespread issue? If she is unable to answer that this evening, perhaps she could undertake to write; we would be very grateful. Finally, can the Minister confirm that there are robust checks to prevent goods deliberately avoiding control posts, now and in the future?
With regard to the Motion to Regret, I note at paragraph 17 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 15th report the submission from Jim Allister MP and the Defra response with reference to the use in the four nations of the UK plant health provisional common framework and that, for example, measures against Popillia japonica are already in place in Northern Ireland, and the rest of Great Britain has been catching up. I therefore have been a little confused by some of the contributions I have heard this evening.
Given the benefits so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the very detailed and useful explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, we will not be supporting the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We want to see these regulations and the wider agreement deliver what matters to people: less bureaucracy, lower costs and a stronger partnership with our closest trading neighbours, and we would prefer that sooner rather than later. That is what is best for our businesses, our farmers and ultimately our consumers.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and my noble friend Lord Frost for bringing it to the Chamber.
At face value, this instrument appears to be a routine update, technical in nature and laudable in intent. It introduces new and stricter import controls on certain plant pests, including Heterobasidion irregulare and Popillia japonica, which are already spreading rapidly in parts of Europe. These steps are necessary. We have seen all too often the devastating consequences of failing to act quickly and unilaterally if necessary, whether to Phytophthora ramorum, which devastates our larches and causes sudden oak death, ash dieback, or threats to our commercial crops from the great spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed European spruce bark beetle—for some reason, neither of those seem to have Latin names. I refer the House to my register of interests as a forest owner and a planter of new forests.
While these regulations seek to bolster biosecurity across Great Britain, they do not extend those same protections to Northern Ireland, and that is a shame. I know that the concerns of my noble friend are sincerely held and reflect the views of a great number of those in Northern Ireland in particular. As my noble friend Lord Caine has said on previous occasions, it is important that His Majesty’s Government and Opposition continue to listen to those concerns and seek to address them.
We are told that biosecurity is an essential state function. It is and it must be. But under the terms of the Windsor Framework, that essential function has been compromised. Biosecurity measures which apply robustly to England, Scotland and Wales are not being applied to Northern Ireland in the same way. In effect, plant health in Northern Ireland is now subject to the policy choices of the EU and not, as it should be, to the collective will of this sovereign Parliament. However, the Windsor Framework was the best deal available to us while in government, and we continue to support it, while urging this Government to try to improve on it. For that reason, we do not support my noble friend Lord Frost’s regret Motion.
My noble friend Lord Frost and others have already mentioned the new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, which is designed to ease trade by removing checks on food. To add to the many questions posed to the Minister, could she reassure us that this will not provide an easier entry for plant diseases and a repeat of the imported pests that I mentioned earlier as happened while we were in the EU? What checks will remain in place to protect our natural environment?
The EU deal appears to have betrayed our fishers in return for reduced checks. The farmed salmon industry seems to be the only fish and seafood group to have spoken in support of this deal. The damaging effects of this industry on the environment have been debated at length in this House during Committee and Report of the now Crown Estate Act. The farmed salmon industry is distinct from the UK fishing industry, which has greeted the deal with deep disappointment.
In answer to my Oral Question two months ago, the Minister gave encouraging answers, which I will briefly quote:
“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters, and vice versa, become a matter for annual renegotiation, as is typical between coastal states … as a Government, we will always push for the best opportunities for our fishers and the fishery industry”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]
The end of the trade and co-operation agreement in June 2026 represented the opportunity to increase the size of our fishing effort by 60%, with full zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone—a huge economic opportunity for deprived coastal communities. The deal was a betrayal of those communities and those who live and work in the fishing industry. We are now committed to a 12-year extension of the very disappointing status quo. Was this phytosanitary deal really worth that betrayal? The benefits of trade accrue to both sides of that trade, so why should any price be paid, let alone such a high price?
Thames Water
Baroness Grender Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the reasons that bills are going up—not just for Thames Water customers but for other consumers—is the lack of investment for years and years by the water companies in infrastructure, which is why we have so many problems with pollution, for example. While it is not something that the Government want to see continue—we do not want to see consumer bills going up unnecessarily—it is important that, with the PR24 settlement that was made, that money goes directly into investment, which is why we are stopping dividends and unnecessary bonuses being paid.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the creditors who have heaped billions in debt on to the company should now pay to sort this mess out, possibly through a well-planned administration process and a swift exit, after which the company should be mutually owned by the 16 million customers? Do the Government now have plans ready and in place for Thames Water to be brought into special administration? What plans do the Government have for a new operating model for water companies to work for the public benefit?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Any future operating model will be part of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review that is currently taking place—I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that the interim report is out. That will be part of the work being carried out by Sir Jon and others.
The big issue is that fundamentally this a private company. It for the company to solve the issues of financial resilience. It is not for us to tell a private company how to manage its finances. That is really important. But, having said that, we have to be prepared for all eventualities across regulated industries and Thames Water has clearly had some pretty serious problems. If it comes to a SAR, creditors cannot ask the debt to be repaid during that special administration regime. If it did come to that, there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR and that would take away the creditors’ ability to enforce any debt repayments.
Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination
Baroness Grender Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that we discuss these matters with the Home Office. As I said, much of what we need to do is across government—one thing that we have been trying hard to do in Defra and other departments since we came into government is to work better across government; that is an important point to make. The noble Lord asked an interesting question about police responses, which I am happy to mention next time I have a meeting with the Home Office to see whether I can get a better understanding about that.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, given Thames Water’s inability to secure private investment with its £20 billion debt burden, can the Minister confirm that, should it have to go into special administration, contingency plans include ring-fenced funding for critical security upgrades at its reservoirs? Specifically, will the Government commit to independent audits of cyber defences and physical protections during any transitional period, which has been highlighted as a period of vulnerability that might be exploited by hostile actors?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The main point is that our water supply absolutely has to be secure. We have to know that we are doing everything we can to protect it from hostile actors, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend mentioned. That is why the cross- departmental work is so important. On Thames Water, I assume the noble Baroness refers to the fact that the preferred bidder has now pulled out. Thames Water has assured us that there are other potential bidders. We need to look at the current situation and, clearly, any investment needs to include security. The PR24 investment that has been made includes a substantial sum for improving security as well as infrastructure. It is important to make the point that it is part of our ongoing discussions with water companies.
Farmers: Competitiveness
Baroness Grender Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend raises some interesting questions. It is clearly important that we target our resources and funding on those who are most in need. That is one of the reasons why the delinked payments are reduced the most for those who have the most and the least for those who need more time to make the changes.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, in that context can the Minister explain what assessment has been made of the main factors identified by Professor Julia Aglionby behind the cause of upland farmers’ incomes falling to half the minimum wage by 2027? They include the phasing out of the basic payment scheme, the recent negligible rise in HLS, insufficient financial reward from new environmental land management schemes and barriers to scheme transition, which is being done at a much slower pace in all the other devolved nations.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I should probably declare an interest here as I know Julia extremely well and meet her to discuss exactly these issues. Julia does an awful lot of work on uplands and common land, and it is important that we are able to support the farmers, particularly in uplands, who have a much more challenging environment to farm in. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at reforming the SFI to target those who need it most. Previous schemes have not always benefited those, such as in the uplands, who need the most support.
Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
Baroness Grender Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support these regulations but I have a few questions about them.
First, I give credit to the Government for bringing them forward. The gestation period of a sow is three months, three weeks and three days. This issue was first raised with me as an MP back in 2021 and the announcement was made in 2023, so heaven knows how many piglets have been born while we have been getting to this stage.
I want to get a sense of aspects of the contract and enforcement. So that noble Lords know, this came about during the Covid times, when we started seeing a shrinkage in the number of abattoirs. Farmers were starting to be constricted in which abattoirs were open. It was largely the large abattoirs, although not exclusively. As a consequence, farmers saw that, all of a sudden, prices changed, and it was take it or leave it.
There were further issues, and I will ask a question about size. Contracts were being written in a different way about the size of the pig that was being taken into the abattoir and whether it was slightly over in weight—obviously, while you are waiting for the pigs to go into the abattoir, they keep being fed. Farmers I knew were getting 10% of what they had expected, never mind the cuts that were being brought in.
I am conscious that it is very difficult to write the contract; we can see how long this one SI is in trying to reach the principle. On the review that is set out in the regulations, will the Minister perhaps share with the Farming Minister some thoughts on how the contracts are formed at the moment, to see how we start to accommodate for that? If we are getting into a particular situation, we might end up with the cancellation of the receipt of the pig in a way that forces a different way in which farmers are not properly compensated.
The first person who brought this up with me was the marvellous Jimmy Butler of Blythburgh Pork. I see my noble friend Lord Deben is here—we both know Jimmy well. Of course, there are other great pig farmers. On the Suffolk coast, there is Dingley Dell, with the Hayward brothers, and there are many more around the country, as we have already heard. The threat of blacklisting was very real, and it is why we went to Victoria Prentis—who will soon be introduced to this House—which brought about the July 2022 consultation.
Who will undertake enforcement of the regulations set out today? The powers are attributed to the Secretary of State, but, as the Minister will know, we have seen, sadly, breaches of animal welfare just in the last month in an abattoir the name of which I have forgotten, and in other abattoirs as well. Often, these abattoirs want help from the Government, who are not always listening when we go to them for help for farmers. Will it be the Food Standards Agency, which probably has more interaction with abattoirs than any other part of government, bearing in mind the regulations and the listening? It would be useful to understand who is lined up to do that.
I am also quite keen to understand this: at one point, there was consideration around referring the number of abattoirs that were there to the Competition and Markets Authority. I am sure that this will have been considered, bearing in the mind the regulations laid out today. I appreciate that the Minister is not formally responsible for farming but, if she has anything on that, I would be grateful to hear from her now or by letter.
I have a final point. The concentration of abattoirs has happened, as I say, for a variety of reasons, and I do not want to get into the animal welfare issues in that regard. It meant that the previous Administration set up a small abattoir fund. That came to an end in September last year. I would be grateful to have an understanding of that. Again, I appreciate that this is not directly in the regulations, but it could inform in due course the review that is under way on effectiveness of the provision of that funding. I am conscious that it was a difficult decision for the Farming Minister today, in an announcement made in a Written Ministerial Statement, to reopen SFI 24 for farmers who had started their application. I think that, in the review, it would be useful to consider whether the expansion of abattoirs has actually happened. It is vital that, whether mobile or small, we try to make sure that there is a healthy market in this country.
As I say, I applaud the Government for finally bringing these regulations forward. They will be much welcomed, but there are still a few details on which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, my thanks go to the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which we in the Liberal Democrats support. It represents a positive and necessary step towards addressing the deep-seated issues of fairness and transparency that have plagued our vital, world-leading pig sector. It is a welcome change in the wake of the painful crisis that gripped this industry from 2020 to the spring of 2023—a period marked by, as we have heard from other noble Lords, the Covid period, acute Brexit-induced labour shortages at processing plants, and soaring feed and Putin-induced energy costs outstripping farm gate prices and pushing producers to the brink. The statistics are stark, with losses exceeding £750 million collectively, as well as that awful period when more than 60,000 healthy animals were culled because they could not be processed.
Although the pig sector has a history of volatility, that particular crisis exposed a critical weakness at its heart: a risk/reward imbalance underpinned by commercially unclear and potentially harmful terms, especially for smaller producers, hindering their ability to budget, manage price fluctuation or invest for the future. These regulations are rightly designed to address this imbalance. They mandate written pig purchase contracts between buyers and sellers, setting out clear rules for pricing, contract duration and dealing with market fluctuations. This framework is crucial in rebuilding for them security, clarity and fairness.
The instrument makes necessary amendments to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, addressing the unintended consequence described by the Minister that impacts on businesses with an internal democratic structure—typically co-operatives—and allowing for volume-based or tiered pricing in that specific context. We urge Defra and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which will enforce these regulations, to monitor this amendment closely to ensure that it is applied in the true spirit of internal democratic structures. I thank the National Farmers’ Union’s dairy team and the National Pig Association for their valuable briefings on this issue, which have informed our understanding of it. They have asked for specific reassurances on this issue.
While these regulations are welcome and necessary for the pig sector, they highlight a broader need. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was introduced—we are very proud of this—by the coalition Government. It was taken directly from the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto, but we regret that its powers to enforce were not sufficiently established when we left Government in 2015, and it still comprises only a handful of people.
Given the clear and continuing power imbalance between producers, processors, supermarkets and the food service sector, does the Minister have any plans to enhance the enforcement powers and capacity of the GCA, given that it is the potential referee in the supply chain? Indeed, will she consider the need for the GCA to be able to intervene in deals between farmers and processers, not just those directly linking to retailers? Producers must be able to raise issues, and we believe that anonymity is vital, given the potential fear of repercussions. We believe that third parties such as the NFU should be empowered to raise concerns and truly hold the more powerful parts of the industry accountable, so the adjudicator therefore needs some more effective tools.
As ever, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these matters. It would be interesting to get some clarification from the Minister on an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Pack, which was also in the committee’s report. It said:
“Defra has used a specific definition of what constitutes an electronic signature, rather than using or cross-referencing to what we understand is the more standard definition under section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000”.
In other words, there is some kind of different use of electronic signature here. That is a technical query that it would be great to understand. The committee continued, saying that:
“The Department was unable to explain … the rationale”.
I am having a second go at that question, and I thank the Minister in advance for even struggling to find the answer.
Finally, we must avoid simply passing this SI and then moving on. Regulations such as these need to be subject to regular review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The flexibility within this SI must not be abused, and the Government must ensure that these regulations genuinely work for an industry of which we can rightly be proud.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, made under Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 2020, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests, in particular as a dairy farmer and landowner. This is the second use of these powers following last year’s regulations in the dairy sector, and I am most grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI today.
These regulations represent a step towards rebalancing commercial relationships in the pig sector. For too long, small and independent producers have operated under contracts that lack clarity, fairness or enforceability. Many have found themselves at the mercy of buyers wielding considerable market power and facing reductions in volume, unilateral contract changes and dishonoured pricing agreements. These practices have created uncertainty and risk at the farm gate, and undermined confidence across the supply chain.
As the Minister outlined, the instrument requires that all contracts between qualifying sellers and business purchasers be in writing and include transparent pricing terms. It prohibits unilateral changes to contracts, mandates dispute resolution mechanisms and sets clearer parameters around termination clauses. These provisions will enable producers to request a written explanation of how prices are determined if not based on objective and accessible criteria. The Minister also highlighted the usefulness of the notice to disapply in agreed circumstances.
The need for such reforms has been well evidenced. Our previous Government’s 2022 consultation received 374 responses, of which 89% supported mandatory written contracts and 64% said existing agreements were not consistently honoured. These regulations reflect this feedback and follow a constructive sector-specific approach.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025
Baroness Grender Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I will make just a brief contribution. It is nice to be able to enter a debate where we are not confusing genetically modified organisms with gene editing; that has been the problem in the past.
I think the Government have got it right. We have been around the labelling track and seen how practically impossible that is. They have got it right because there is a balance to be struck, but if we are not careful, the perfect will be the enemy of the good, and we know this is good for so many different reasons—some of which were outlined by the previous speakers.
I welcome the Government’s approach. It is right, it is evidence-based and it is designed to take us on a path which will improve food security in this country and throughout the world.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the aims of this statutory instrument but welcome the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her regret amendment.
The Liberal Democrats have always made it clear from these Benches that we are not anti-science and support the idea of encouraging a science-based approach to technologies such as gene editing for precision breeding. We believe that such methods can be helpful in addressing challenges such as climate change, reducing the need for pesticides and fertilisers, and in mitigation against disease and pest issues for food and food crops.
We recognise, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the scientific consensus from bodies such as ACRE and the European Food Safety Authority—which has not been mentioned—that these organisms pose no greater risk to health or the environment than traditionally bred counterparts.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for their fascinating historical context and insight, and especially for the important information about when not to eat potatoes, which I will take with me.
However, the point of a regulatory process is to manage both the benefits and risks in an appropriate way. While the existing legislation carries a significant burden, these draft regulations raise some questions. They appear to take away some of the safeguards that apply to other genetically modified organisms, such as mandatory risk assessments, public notice, traceability, and environmental monitoring.