Rural Economy

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

I start by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing what has been an excellent debate. In the short time I have allocated, I shall do my very best to respond to the various questions and issues that have been raised—and there have been a lot, so I shall follow up any outstanding questions in a letter and write to anybody whose questions I have not answered.

First, I would like to say that the Government have been clear: sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and people’s living standards, and this is equally true for those living and working in rural areas. Rural England makes up over 85% of the land mass and is home to 9.7 million people, equal to the number that live in the nation’s capital. We recognise that rural areas offer significant potential for growth and are absolutely central to our economy. The right reverend Prelate referred to untapped potential: over half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, with the rural economy contributing over £315 billion a year—and that is just in England.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned the wide range of industries that work and support our rural communities. There is a good example in west Cumbria with Sellafield, a major industry that supports a much larger rural economy. I note that the Lord Bishop is the president of the Rural Coalition, which I have met with in the past, and I know that the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner MP, is going to attend a meeting in January. It is important that we work with organisations, and we are keen to do so in government. As we have heard, overall productivity in rural areas is just over 80% of the average for England. As noble Lords have said throughout this debate, there is significant potential to improve this.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked how we could do this, working with devolved Governments. That is a very good point. I assure him that I meet regularly with devolved Ministers, and this is one of the issues that we pick up and discuss. We are committed to improving the quality of life for all people living and working in rural areas, because we need to reach the full potential of rural business and our communities. While farming, forestry and other traditional land sectors are essential for delivering so much of what we value in our countryside, we know that businesses found in rural areas are just as diverse as those found in urban areas, with 86% operating outside agriculture and related sectors. In fact, the largest contributing sectors to the rural economy include education and health, distribution and hospitality, tourism, real estate, manufacturing and administrative services—and there is so much more. The Government are taking steps to support businesses right across every sector of the rural economy. To achieve this, we are ensuring that the needs of people and businesses are at the heart of our policymaking. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we need to be strategic about this, if we are to succeed.

Noble Lords are clearly aware of our growth mission, which includes announcing a series of planning reforms to get Britain building; removing the de facto ban on onshore wind; establishing the National Wealth Fund; announcing a pensions review to unlock growth, boost investment and deliver savings for pensioners; launching Skills England; announcing the Get Britain Working White Paper; and taking the first steps to create Great British Energy.

The industrial strategy will be a significant driver of national renewal and a central pillar of this growth mission. While the industrial strategy’s focus will be on growth-driving sectors and places, it will include addressing cross-cutting challenges and supporting a pro-business environment. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made some really good points on that, on innovation in farming and rural businesses and on how that can be used within the industrial strategy; I will feed back those suggestions. All sectors can shape, and will benefit from, wider policy reform through the broader growth mission. We believe that it will create the conditions for businesses to invest and employ and for consumers to spend with confidence.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, mentioned the importance of natural capital, which is absolutely central to this. I am not sure if he has seen the recent report on that; it is quite big and I am slowly working my way through it. There is a lot of good information out there that we can refer to and use.

The Government have also recognised the specific challenges and opportunities that make rural economies distinctive, acknowledging the importance of direct support to the rural economy through programmes such as the rural England prosperity fund, which provides targeted support to rural businesses and communities. To those who mentioned co-operatives, I strongly support the benefits that can be brought through co-operatives; they have an important role to play in rural communities.

Small businesses are essential to our economic success; that is true not only for our urban centres but for every community up and down the country. In fact, more people are employed in micro-businesses in rural areas than in urban areas, as we have heard in today’s debate. Our plan for small business will hardwire the voice of small businesses into everything we do in government. We will use the levers at our disposal to boost small business growth and productivity. This includes addressing barriers through prompt payment and regulatory reform to improve the business environment; creating opportunities for UK business to compete on our strengths, break into new markets through exporting and attract investment; and helping small business to access the skills and support that they need to grow. Community-owned businesses also play a vital role in rural areas, providing opportunities for communities to come together and access services. We recognise, however, that there are significant challenges facing rural community businesses, and that the Government can play their part in overcoming them.

Although the rural economy extends beyond agriculture—as many noble Lords have said—this Government recognise the vital role that farmers and growers play in national economic growth. Farmers are the backbone of Britain, and we recognise the strength of feeling expressed recently by farming and rural communities. We are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry, which is why we have announced that we are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years. I remind noble Lords that this is the largest amount ever directed towards sustainable food production, rural economic growth and nature’s recovery in our country’s history.

We have already started to deliver on this commitment to restore stability for farmers by continuing the rollout of the Sustainable Farming Incentive. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the slow rollout. I am pleased to say that the uptake has increased in the last year. More than half of farmers now have an agreement, and we will continue to promote it. We need go further by optimising our schemes and grants, ensuring that they produce the right outcomes for all farmers— including small, grassland, upland and tenanted farms—while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about the Countryside Stewardship higher-tier scheme, which, I am sure he is aware, is going to open next year—we recently made that announcement. The reason for that is that since the Government came in, in the summer, we have been prioritising the rolling out of the SFI and confirming the budget through the spending review, because these obviously affect the largest number of farmers and the largest-scale outcomes in the short term. Also, those with expiring agreements will be offered an extension to give them time to apply for the expanded scheme. Beyond this, the Government have also recently confirmed the intention to produce a long-term road map, Farming 2050: Growing England’s Future, which is to provide a vision for our farming sector into the future. It will outline how the farming system will boost food security, deliver on our environmental objectives and drive innovation, unlocking delivery across our government priorities.

Rural transport is also key. The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, opened the discussion on this and many noble Lords mentioned it. We know that, for a prosperous rural economy, we need to improve rural transport as well as our digital infrastructure and the availability of affordable housing and energy, all of which came up in the debate. We know that people living and working in rural areas often travel further to access work, education and training and other essential services and that this can be not just more costly but more time consuming. We are determined to deliver better bus services and we have set out a plan to achieve this in the Bus Services (No.2) Bill. This is based on the idea of giving local leaders the tools they need to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities they serve. I recognise the challenge in many areas and the need for innovation in this area.

A number of noble Lords mentioned digitisation. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about Project Gigabit. That is designed to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to premises that will not be built by the market without subsidy, with the aim of ensuring nationwide gigabit connectivity by 2030. Most premises deemed uncommercial by the market are of course in rural areas, but there are also commercial not-spots in urban areas. The point is that we recognise that these areas will need government subsidy if we are to get the kind of broadband gigabit coverage that we need. We are also determined to ensure that businesses that are still reliant on 3G are not left behind as a result of the 2G/3G switch-off. 4G coverage is increasing, thanks to the Shared Rural Network, which the Government will continue to invest in.

Genuinely affordable homes were also mentioned and are essential to sustain our vibrant rural economy. We know that the housing shortage has been driving high rents and leaves some of the most vulnerable without access to a safe and secure home, so we are reforming our planning laws to build the homes that our rural communities desperately need. At the same time, we must protect our green spaces and our natural environment. As part of this, the Government recently ran a consultation to reform the National Planning Policy Framework. We need to look at how best to build more homes. How we get more growth-focused interventions that will help us build the homes that people need in the places that they are needed is key.

Housing was mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, and the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord de Clifford. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to funding the rural housing enabler programme until the end of March next year. Funding allocations for individual programmes for the next financial year will be determined in the coming months through the department’s business planning exercise and we will announce these in due course.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, asked about affordable housing. We know that there are real issues with unmet demand for affordable housing in rural communities. The Government’s aspiration is to ensure that in the first full financial year of this Parliament, 2025-26, the number of social rented homes is rising rather than falling. We have also asked Homes England to maximise the number of social rented homes in allocating the remaining affordable homes programme funding.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, mentioned the huge challenge of second homes and their impact on places such as where he and I live, in the Lake District.

Permitted development rights were also mentioned, and we recognise the importance of improving and streamlining the planning system to underpin the growth of rural businesses. We are working with MHCLG as it reviews the planning system, to ensure that it supports farm diversification and the provision of affordable rural housing through mechanisms such as permitted development rights.

On energy, it is clear that rising energy costs present a challenge to rural businesses and communities, many of which, like mine, are off-grid—which has its own challenge when we are moving to a low-carbon energy system. We are clear that we want to lower bills, boost energy security and protect our environment, and are looking to do this through Great British Energy, which we are setting up. It is also designed to support local and combined authorities and community energy groups, which are an important part of rural communities, to roll out small- and medium-scale renewable energy projects. The idea is that we will increase local generation across the whole country by eight gigawatts of capacity by 2030.

Another significant requirement for a prosperous rural economy is a skilled workforce. We are planning to extend our childcare and early years system to drive up standards and modernise the school curriculum, and to boost rural and agricultural skills by reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy, to give businesses the freedom and flexibility to upskill their workforce. We also plan to open new specialist technical excellence colleges, to give rural communities the chance to fit the skills they need to their local economies and empower their local businesses to play a bigger role in this skills revolution.

The delivery of health services, such as GPs, dentistry and women’s health services, faces particular challenges in rural areas. It takes longer to access services due to longer travel times, but also rural communities increasingly tend to have living in them people who are going to need the services the most. We have ageing populations in many of our rural areas, so that is a challenge. Integrated care systems will have a key role to play in designing these services.

The issue of community assets was raised. Village halls, pubs, post offices, local shops and banks are all incredibly important, but we have been losing too many of them in recent years. Where they do remain, they often need repair or modernisation, so we are taking this very seriously and looking at how we can best tackle it.

The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked about cross-departmental working. I can confirm that Defra is committed to this. One example is the Child Poverty Taskforce, which the right reverend Prelate asked about. I am proud that I am part of that, and we want to ensure that our efforts cover all communities in all areas, because you do not tackle child poverty only in urban areas, but right across the countryside.

The right reverend Prelate asked about the index of multiple deprivation. We are working very closely with the MHCLG, which is responsible for the IMD, to ensure that it works more effectively in rural areas. Work has been commissioned which will specifically feed into the planned review. I also recognise the point concerning hidden deprivation in rural areas, which was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Noble Lords may not know this, but I used to work in rural Devon, doing outreach into particularly deprived communities in areas where people were very poor, although it was not obvious. I totally understand that point and am always very keen to ensure that colleagues appreciate it as well.

Crime was mentioned, and the National Rural Crime Unit helps people across the country tackle organised theft and disrupt organised crime groups. The neighbourhood policing guarantee is going to deliver thousands of additional neighbourhood police and community support officers.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said that the Government do not understand farming in Northern Ireland. I am sure he would be pleased to know that two weeks ago I visited a dairy farm in County Armagh with the Ulster Farmers Union, which I have been meeting regularly so I can fully understand their specific concerns.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned seasonal agricultural workers. To underline the Government’s commitment to the horticulture and poultry sectors, on 21 October the seasonal workers’ visitor rate was confirmed for 2025, with a total of 43,000 seasonal worker visas available for horticulture, and 2,000 for poultry.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked about local government. Yesterday, we launched a consultation on the principles of any reforms to local government funding, which will inform the development of a new local government funding assessment. The recovery grant is not an assessment of relative need and resource in itself. We are proposing this because we must act quickly, given the state of local authority finances, and start to fix the distribution of funding.

I am almost out of time, but the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked about access to visits. I recently went to the Yorkshire Dales and met children from a deprived area of Liverpool who had come to stay at the youth hostel there as part of Generation Green, a Defra-funded project which is absolutely fabulous. I recommend that everyone get to know about it.

I have to give a plug for the Cockermouth Show, as everyone else has mentioned their show.

I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to talk to the Treasury from Defra, and I will always stand up for the countryside and our rural communities. We recognise the importance of the rural economy and wider rural communities. I will continue to do everything in my power, through Defra, to ensure a prosperous future for them. I end by thanking everyone once again and wishing everyone a very happy Christmas.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my interest as a patron of International Cat Care.

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his new job. The Government will end puppy smuggling, address puppy farming by tackling low-welfare dog breeding practices and consider whether more should be done to protect the welfare of companion animals. We are supporting some key measures in Private Members’ Bills and have already met with key companion animal stakeholders as the first steps in delivering on our commitments and developing an overarching approach to animal welfare.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer and for her passion for and enduring commitment to animal welfare. Does she agree that too many cats are being bred commercially without adequate safeguards to protect their welfare? Increasingly, unregulated, unlicensed, unscrupulous owners are raising cats with extreme, exaggerated features to sell as fashion accessories without any concern for the terrible harm to the animal. So-called bully cats, for example, are bred without fur, which predisposes them to painful skin disease, and their genetically shortened legs can result in joint abnormalities and agonising arthritis. Will the Minister join me in condemning the practice of breeding for deformity, which causes unacceptable suffering and distress? Will she commit as a matter of urgency to regulating cat breeding in order to ban such activity?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the licensing of activities involving animal regulations requires anyone in the business of breeding and selling cats to have a licence, and they must meet statutory minimum welfare standards. The noble Lord makes some very good points about recent practices that are not acceptable. Defra has been working on a post-implementation review of the regulations, which will be published shortly. We are also carefully considering the recommendations in EFRA’s report on pet welfare and abuse, and the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on feline breeding, which will also be published soon.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government will find time during this Session to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is already 60 years old and rather showing its age? A fundamental improvement to the welfare of domestic animals would be to bring up to date the legislation regulating veterinary medicine and particularly veterinary medical practices, which are currently not formally regulated. That would enable the public—and indeed the animals—to be assured that veterinary medicine, and veterinary practices in particular, will provide modern, high standards of care. The Competition and Markets Authority is looking at this issue, and an update is long overdue. Can the Minister assure me that she will provide time for that legislation?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We will of course continue to support the vital work of the veterinary profession, and I acknowledge the veterinary workforce’s commitment and dedication to animal health and welfare. My noble friend makes a good point, and we are very aware of calls to reform the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, which is now very old. Defra is talking to key stakeholders and different veterinary groups to explore the best way to support the profession, and we are looking at the legislation.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, we are undoubtedly a nation of animal lovers, but some of the UK’s major animal welfare issues are in plain sight and affect some of our most popular pets. I refer to the extreme conformations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, but particularly the problem of flat-nosed dogs—so-called brachycephalic breeds—which suffer or are highly predisposed to ill health virtually all their life, with breathing, whelping, ocular and skin difficulties, and reduced lifespan. Legislation exists to deter the breeding of such animals, should that lead to a detriment to the health and welfare of the bitch or her offspring. Why has there not been a single prosecution under the legislation, given that this is a serious welfare issue?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, our animal activities licensing regulations have been developed to prevent poor dog breeding practices rather than penalise them. Local authorities can refuse, vary or revoke a licence to breed where they are concerned about the dog’s fitness. We believe the impact of having a licence revoked provides a significant deterrent. However, the noble Lord makes a very good point in that, currently, prosecutions are perhaps not happening as frequently as we would expect. This is clearly a matter for the Home Office, and I am very happy to take it up with my colleagues.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, now that all cats and dogs have to be compulsorily microchipped, the number of microchipping databases has shot up to 23 but none of them talk to each other, so it is really hard for rescue centres and local authorities to rehouse the animals or find the owners. What plans do the Government have to introduce a portal to link up these databases, so that cats and dogs can be rehomed quickly?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We are aware that there are some digital challenges within the department, and we are looking at that very carefully.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that not enough is being done about puppy smuggling? How many prosecutions for puppy smuggling and for boiler-house productions have there been following the Animal Welfare Act? Boiler-house puppies could be relieved if the mother—the bitch—was present at the sale of the puppies. Will the Government enforce that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. On puppy smuggling, we have made a clear commitment to end puppy farming. We are also supporting a Private Member’s Bill in the other place on puppy smuggling, because we are determined to do our best to stop these abhorrent practices.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my register of interests. The public rightly benefit from fantastic access to the countryside through our network of public and permissive footpaths, as well as open access land. However, this brings pets into frequent proximity with farmed animals. Earlier this year, we supported legislation to update and strengthen police powers to deal with livestock worrying; it was not enacted. What plans do the Government have to increase protection for farmed animals?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have committed to support a Private Member’s Bill, introduced by the Conservative Member of Parliament, Aphra Brandreth, which looks to introduce new measures to tackle the serious issue of livestock worrying. The Bill is going to focus on three areas which we support: modernising the definitions in scope, strengthening police powers, as suggested by the noble Lord, and increasing the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine in order to act as a deterrent.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Can the Minister tell the House when the regulations to ban the use of cruel, remote-controlled electronic shock collars for cats and dogs, which inexplicably failed to gain Commons approval before the election, will be introduced? Will she give a clear commitment to put them into effect as fast as possible?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Defra’s code of practice for the welfare of dogs supports positive reward training techniques for dogs, but electronic shock collars should be avoided. Furthermore, the code advises people to seek out professional advice for behaviour problems, and the best training options that are available. The Government are currently considering the available evidence on the use of hand-controlled e-collars and their effects on the welfare of animals.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

What measures are Government thinking of taking to try to eradicate dog fighting?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, dog fighting should not be taking place in this country. We are extremely keen to root it out where it is happening, and it is matter for Defra and the Home Office to work on together to ensure that, where it is found, it is properly cracked down on.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

People remain in danger from and are occasionally killed by dangerous animals. Are the Government satisfied that the current law is sufficient?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Ongoing attacks show that we need to do more to protect the public from dangerous dogs. There has of course been a ban on XL bullies, which has been updated recently. That is there to protect public safety, and we expect owners to comply with all the conditions in that legislation. More broadly, we are working with enforcement agencies and animal welfare groups to help prevent further attacks by encouraging responsible dog ownership, addressing dog control issues before they escalate and using the full force of the law where needed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we have heard this afternoon the Government’s announcement on plans for substantial changes to local government. Of course, much of the enforcement of animal welfare regulations happens at local government level. Can the Minister assure me that Defra is fully involved in making sure that, whenever the changes happen, the animal welfare elements are maintained as a strong force in whatever new arrangements come in?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can completely reassure the noble Baroness that we are working very closely on a cross-departmental basis on any issues that cover more than one department’s interests. I am sure she is aware that I have a very strong interest in animal welfare and will be doing all I can to ensure that it is considered at every level.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, following the detection of avian influenza in England, Defra has stood up its well-established response to control and eradicate disease. This has included humane culling of affected birds and establishing disease control zones to help prevent onward spread. The latest information is that there have been six cases in England—three in Norfolk, with two that affect turkeys. Defra will continue to monitor the situation and will consider a regional avian influenza protection zone if risk warrants this.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply—that sounds like good news for Christmas, because there are no more outbreaks in turkeys at present. As someone who once raised turkeys for my local WI market for Christmas, I can empathise with the free-range turkey producers. Can the Minister say how affected poultry farmers, who have the rest of the winter and of the 2025 avian flu season to survive, are compensated should they need to cull? Have the Government changed any aspects of the compensation scheme since they became the Government? Finally, given that insurance against avian flu is virtually impossible to get now, will the Government consider bringing in their own insurance scheme?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, the compensation scheme that we are looking at is the same as previously, in that poultry owners will be compensated for the value of the birds if they were healthy at the time of the cull. We have no plans to change that. Secondly, I am extremely aware of the complications around insurance. When we had the previous outbreak, I met a number of poultry owners who were having real problems with insurance. We are very concerned about this, and we will work with insurance companies to monitor the situation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on their swift response to this outbreak. Will the noble Baroness agree with me about the importance of monitoring potential outbreaks from our neighbouring countries in the European Union? Where are we on a potential sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with EU countries, which is so important in this regard?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is really important that we work closely with our European neighbours. The incidences of avian flu are currently not what we have seen in previous years, but we must not be complacent. Working with our European neighbours to monitor outbreaks is absolutely critical, because wild birds fly very long distances so this is an international problem. Regarding the SPS agreements, all I can say is that we are making progress and continuing discussions with the EU.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, my former Norfolk constituency contains a large number of poultry farms that invariably set the highest standards of animal health and biosecurity. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked a question on insurance. Many farmers obviously find it difficult to get this insurance. The key thing is for the Government to work with the insurance industry to try to find a way forward, so can the Minister elaborate a bit more on her earlier reply on that point?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, insurance is a difficult issue. It becomes difficult in many areas—I am sure noble Lords are aware of the difficulties for businesses during flooding as well. Getting insurance in certain business cases is complex. All I can say is that we are extremely aware of the problems that occurred last time for poultry farmers in getting insurance. The outbreak this time is very low compared with previous years, but we are being proactive and doing our best to prevent further outbreaks. We are working with insurance companies to make sure that we have the best outcomes that we can, should this outbreak get worse.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, with the outbreak of avian influenza, the challenge of bluetongue virus in ruminants and the ongoing battle to reduce bovine TB incidence—to say nothing of the biosecurity threats to, for example, our pig population from African swine fever—is the Minister confident that her department and APHA have the necessary resources to cope?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an important question. I met APHA yesterday to discuss exactly this issue because, when there are outbreaks of more than one disease, it has to look at how it will manage all the different aspects. It has assured me that it is confident that it has the resources to manage the response currently, and I am pleased that the Government have awarded funding to Weybridge to ensure that our future capability will be there.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on her wonderful work with the devolved Administrations, in meeting the various Ministers and organisations in the agricultural field. Whenever she next meets the Minister in Northern Ireland, will she ask him what joint work can be done to address disease in not only poultry flocks but animals such as TB reactors? That is a major problem for our farming industry.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I actually met with the Minister in Northern Ireland only yesterday, and we have very regular meetings. Biosecurity is incredibly important, and it is important that we work right across all our devolved Administrations as well as with our European colleagues. I am more than happy to discuss this—I have discussed it when I have gone over to Northern Ireland. I have met farming communities over there and looked at the biosecurity measures at ports for things such as African swine fever. We are being very proactive about this.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

Our Government amended the avian flu compensation scheme to allow compensation to be paid from the outset of planned culling to allow swifter payments. Can the Minister confirm whether such payments have been made in this case, and inform the House how many avian flu-related compensation claims have been accepted in the current year, compared to last year? Can she perhaps also reassure the House that there will be enough turkeys for Christmas?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, this outbreak is very low compared to previous years, and we have brought in preventive measures to ensure that it does not become a major problem, as we had a few years ago. As I mentioned in responding to the previous question from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, compensation will be paid in the same way as it was previously. I have absolutely no expectation that there will be any problem with turkeys being provided for Christmas, particularly as 85% of the turkeys that will be eaten at Christmas have already been slaughtered and are either fresh or frozen, as it is quite late in the year.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

This disease can be spread from the smallest of flocks. Is the Minister confident that we now have the registration of all people who are keeping birds? Without that, we are not able to enforce the necessary protections, should this particular event increase. We are bound to have such events in the future as well.

[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.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I refer to my interests in the register. My noble friend Lord Trees mentioned the bluetongue virus outbreak, which has been somewhat underreported. The restricted zone for that virus outbreak now runs to 26 counties in England, so it is spreading quite quickly. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on farmers who cannot move their animals easily within that restricted zone? What are the Government doing to help them?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are very aware of the impacts on farmers and the issues around restricted zones. With the weather changing and us now moving into winter, and with this being a midge-transported disease, cases are coming down. We are now looking at the issue of midges that can overwinter and therefore spread the disease next year, without it having to be blown over from the continent. Whether that means we want to keep the restricted zones in place is something we are currently looking at and considering carefully.

Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 October be approved.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument forms part of the Government’s commitment to implementing the border target operating model by ensuring that sanitary and phytosanitary controls are applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These controls are essential to maintaining the United Kingdom’s biosecurity and food safety, as well as focusing the benefits of unfettered access arrangements on qualifying Northern Ireland goods.

The instrument uses powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It has two main purposes. First, it applies pre-notification and sanitary and phytosanitary certification requirements to goods that are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland. These requirements are consistent with those already applied to certain European Economic Area goods and those entering Great Britain from Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Faroe Islands and Greenland under the transitional staging period. This means that European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland are treated the same as such goods entering Great Britain through Ireland.

Secondly, the regulations make consequential amendments to various pieces of sanitary and phytosanitary legislation. The qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition was amended earlier this year for food and feed goods. The consequential amendments in the legislation that I am presenting today ensure that the updated definition is reflected consistently across the regulatory framework.

I emphasise from the outset that the Government remain fully committed to ensuring unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the rest of the UK market. The Windsor Framework Command Paper, published by the previous Government in February 2023, and the Border Target Operating Model, published in August 2023, clearly state that Northern Ireland businesses will have unfettered access when moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. The Border Target Operating Model also states that European Union and rest-of-world goods will be subject to sanitary and phytosanitary controls when moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. The approach adopted in this legislation is consistent with those commitments.

The instrument does not make any changes to the arrangements for moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are not required to undergo any of the controls implemented by this legislation and will continue to move freely within the UK internal market. Indeed, by applying controls to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland, these measures more closely focus the benefits of unfettered market access on Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods. This will sharpen their competitive advantage.

The sanitary and phytosanitary controls applied to European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain through Northern Ireland under this instrument are temporary. We will revoke this instrument when the transitional staging period, which allows for easements in the performance of official controls, ends. That is currently set at 1 July 2025.

A long-term approach for further controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland is yet to be implemented. The temporary nature of the instrument allows for biosecurity controls to be in place for these goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland ahead of that, although that is of course without prejudice to unfettered access protections granted to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. I must also highlight that this instrument extends to England, Wales and Scotland.

I reaffirm the Government’s steadfast commitment to supporting the businesses and communities of Northern Ireland while safeguarding the integrity of the UK internal market. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for bringing this regret amendment to the House. I listened to some very powerful speeches by him and his noble friends on both sides of the House.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about these regulations, given the impact they may have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, but we will not oppose them. We welcome that some goods will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain, but we are concerned about the non-qualifying goods and the effect this will have on businesses that trade across the Irish Sea.

While the Windsor Framework was a significant improvement on the original protocol, that is not to say that improvements cannot be made wherever necessary. The Opposition will continue to scrutinise the secondary legislation and assess its impact. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Government will keep these regulations under review and take any action necessary to lighten the burden on businesses trading across the Irish Sea where possible?

The businesses affected by these regulations may need extra support. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to give businesses in Northern Ireland the support they need? Indeed, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these changes on businesses in Great Britain trading with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade?

Goods from Northern Ireland must be traded as freely as possible, and they should not be at an unfair disadvantage. That was at the core of our work when we were in government. We all know that the Windsor Framework was the result of a painstaking negotiation with the EU, but the Government should do everything they can to ensure Northern Ireland’s smooth and unfettered access to the UK internal market. As my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said in the other place:

“The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. ‘Safeguarding the Union’ is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/24; col. 627.]


Does the Minister agree with that assessment?

We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland policy further, and to the Minister addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity—biosecurity not just in GB but Northern Ireland for goods that stop there. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea so that we all benefit across the whole of our United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his very thorough and clear introduction outlining his concerns and why he has tabled a regret amendment. Many thoughtful and constructive points have been raised, which reflects the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds but also the concerns. This Government take very seriously maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring our commitments under the Windsor Framework. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her extremely kind comments and her recognition that I have been working very hard to understand fully the challenges and concerns that a very complex area of legislation entails.

This instrument is looking to deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld and safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. At the same time, it reaffirms and strengthens the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy their unique position in the UK internal market.

Turning to the points that were raised in this debate, I will focus specifically on the questions regarding the legislation and do my best to address them. I have been listening very carefully—I can assure noble Lords of that—but a meeting has also been arranged between me and noble Lords from Northern Ireland in January, and I am sure that we will be picking up many of these issues at that meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, asked about consultation engagement. A period of engagement on the border target operating model, which contained an overview of controls that are introduced in this instrument, ran from 5 April 2023 for six weeks. There has not been specific consultation on this SI because it is delivering the approach that was set out in the BTOM, which was consulted on extensively.

As noble Lords have pointed out, the instrument is temporary and does not set out the approach for the long-term treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Any future long-term approach will be developed with input from stakeholder engagement. Noble Lords have asked about that long-term approach, and I can come back to that.

The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, asked about the response from stakeholders on this legislation and other legislation coming forward. The feedback from the six-week BTOM consultation was published on 29 August 2023. As we did not specifically consult on this SI, the feedback did not specifically relate to it, but there were calls from Northern Ireland agri-food businesses that there was a desire to focus the benefits of unfettered access more closely on Northern Ireland traders, which is what this SI seeks to address. We will provide a further update on the timeline for implementation by next summer.

Collaboration with devolved Administrations was also raised in the debate. We will continue collaborating with the devolved Governments and all border stake- holders to support implementation readiness across the vital points of entry, to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance so that traders have the time that they need to prepare. The Government will also work closely with devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of the long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-the-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. Noble Lords might be interested to know that only this morning I met with devolved Ministers and officials to discuss issues around BTOM, so that work is ongoing and very hands-on at a ministerial level. I wanted to reassure noble Lords of that. This was from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so there is a lot of work going on. I have implemented those meetings to ensure that we all work together and understand each other and what we need to get out of any decisions that are taken. The important thing is to preserve that unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister but she has not really answered the question. If goods coming from the Republic through Northern Ireland into Great Britain have to be security-checked for phytosanitary and all the other reasons, why are people in Northern Ireland then left with nothing? How does the Minister know that we are not going to be poisoned or threatened by some kind of problem that she feels will come through to Great Britain?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I completely get the point that the noble Baroness is making. Our international commitments, and the trade and co-operation agreement, require us to treat EU goods equally, regardless of the entry point. As she is aware, there is a lot of legislation already in place. There are issues within the Windsor Framework. There are matters that we need to discuss with the EU as we go forward with the EU reset that has been discussed. These more complex issues are where we need to dig into the detail in our meetings outside of the legislation, and the whole point of me wanting to meet noble Lords is so we can do that. We can dig into those details and I can better understand the concerns, and we can look at whether there are things that we can do to manage this better. I hope the noble Baroness is happy that I am not trying to dodge it; I just need to understand it better, so that we can discuss it properly.

The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, asked about electronic systems for paperwork. We have been looking at this; it is quite complicated, but we are exploring whether it might be possible, to answer that specific question.

The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the potential SPS and veterinary agreements with the EU. I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her work as part of the veterinary medicines working group. This is a critical part of taking that work forward, and a way that we are working in collaboration and consultation to ensure that we get the best deal we can. It is quite difficult because it is early stages, and we want to get this right, so I cannot say anything formally at present. I assure noble Lords that a lot of work is going on behind the scenes on looking to get the best outcomes that we can for both SPS and veterinary agreements.

I conclude by summarising what we consider to be the benefits of these regulations. They strengthen Great Britain’s biosecurity by delivering alignment in the treatment of European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. We believe it is right that goods from the European Union and the rest of the world are treated differently from goods moving within the UK’s internal market. Additionally, the consequential amendments to the qualifying Northern Ireland goods definition in existing legislation ensures that the updated definition, which focuses the benefits of unfettered access more squarely on Northern Ireland traders, applies to the direct and indirect movement of these goods into Great Britain. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that there will be further statutory instruments to come on very similar areas—the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, assured us that this will be the case.

I am aware that the noble Lord, Lords Dodds, may well be minded to divide the House on these regulations. As I mentioned at the start of my response, I have invited noble Lords from Northern Ireland to come, in January, to another meeting, as a follow-up to our previous one, and I very much hope that they will accept. I reassure noble Lords, who clearly have very real concerns about statutory instruments regarding the Windsor Framework and the implementation of the new BTOM, that I am listening. I want to have the opportunity to consider wider concerns in more depth, so that I can properly understand them and see if there are ways that we can move forward together on this. I do not pretend to have all the answers or a magic wand to resolve what is, in many areas, a pretty impossible position, but I am genuine in wanting to work with noble Lords on this. With that having been said, I once again thank everyone for their contributions. I commend the regulations to the House.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the points raised by a number of noble Lords this evening. I thank her also not just for the substance of what she said but for the tone in which she has approached these issues this evening and on other occasions, as well as for her willingness and dedication to work with us on some of the issues that affect so many people who we are speaking for in this House—both unionist and nationalist, because the Ulster Farmers Union, which she mentioned visiting, is made up of many people of different backgrounds and they all have common concerns.

When we speak about wanting to give a voice, a vote and a say in making laws and legislation for Northern Ireland, we want those rights to be for nationalists, unionists, and those who have no party at all. That is why it is staggering that tonight in the Northern Ireland Assembly there will be members of parties—the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance—who will vote to deny themselves the right to make, develop and amend laws over 300 areas affecting vast swathes of our economy, including one of our most important industries, the agrifood industry, which is massive in Northern Ireland. They will vote to hand over the powers to develop those laws to a foreign political entity, which may on some occasions vote and decide laws beneficially but may on other occasions decide to vote and make laws in their own interests, which is perfectly understandable. Why would you want to hand that away? This is not a unionist argument; it is an argument for Northern Ireland and for the Assembly.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, talked about working together. That is why we in the DUP voted to go into the Executive with Sinn Féin, despite its support for murder and mayhem, targeting many of us in political life and the security forces. We want to move Northern Ireland forward, but you cannot move it forward on the basis of a majority vote that excludes every single unionist. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, referred to the fact that there are different views. Well, there is a nationalist view, supported by the Alliance Party, and there is a unionist view. That is why we have a cross-community voting mechanism in the Assembly. There has not been a majority vote on any matter of substance affecting Northern Ireland for 50 years—yet, tonight, there is. That is not acceptable in the long term. It will not endure.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 October be approved.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 28 November.

Motion agreed.

Food Security

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve food security.

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

My Lords, the Labour Government have committed £5 billion to the agricultural budget over the next two years, which is the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature’s recovery in our history. The uplift to £1.8 billion, in 2025-26, for environmental land management schemes will boost food security and accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector. We are also investing £60 million to support farmers who were affected by the unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. As an agricultural adviser in a previous life, I observed at first hand the vital contribution of both research and investment to agricultural productivity, which is fundamental to domestic food production and food security. Yet both the NFU and CLA estimate that the recent changes to APR and BPR will lead to a substantial reduction in investment. Were the impacts of these tax changes on investment and productivity modelled with Defra before their introduction? If not, can His Majesty’s Government undertake such an impact assessment and make it available to Members of the House?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure noble Lords are aware, we are reforming APR and looking to do it in a way that protects small family farms and protects food security and resilience. The right reverend Prelate made some good points around this and the potential impacts of it. I will take his comments back to my honourable friend the Farming Minister, who is currently in discussions on those matters.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I asked a question some weeks ago about whether Defra had been consulted only the day before the Budget and that no impact assessment was given. The Minister promised to write to me—I still await a reply—but I read in the newspapers that that is the case. How can the Minister say that she is improving food security when the impact of APR will be to force small farms to sell their farms? They will be bought by corporates, as part of their ESG and greenwashing, which will further reduce the supply of land for food production, along with the madness of creating solar farms on good agricultural land. This Government are destroying food security, not enhancing it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I will answer a number of the noble Lord’s questions. We had a Question on solar farms last week; we are not building solar farms on grade 1 and 2—good-quality—agricultural land. On APR, Defra was in discussions with the Treasury to consider all the different changes for the spending review and is now in discussions on the next SR. The money that we are investing in farming is designed to support long-term food security in this country.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, under the last Government, just 4% of the ODA budget was devoted to agricultural assistance. Given the global growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change and the increasing propensity for food security to be weaponised in conflict, can my noble friend the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether His Majesty’s Government plan to increase the percentage of ODA being spent on agro-ecological measures?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there has been a growth in acute food insecurity linked to climate change. I confirm that the FCDO’s ODA budget, which will be published in due course, will be £9.24 billion in 2025-26, and Ministers will consider the ODA allocations for 2025-26 over the coming months. We are committed to this; the Prime Minister committed to deliver practical support to communities facing hunger. This is backed by a £70 million package, including a new resilience and adaptation fund that channels climate finance to ensure that food-insecure households, in places such as Ethiopia, Chad and Bangladesh, can withstand extreme weather and other shocks.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, 40% of all food is now imported, which raises a serious security issue. However, can I specifically ask the Minister about BBC World reports this morning that some pureed tomatoes being imported into this country are made by Uighur slave labour? The report included examples of punishment beatings and electric shock punishments for those who fail to reach their quotas. What more can we do to at least prevent goods coming into the UK that are wrongly labelled—in this case “Produced in Italy”—and give consumers the right to choose what they buy and do not buy?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have seen the same reports as the noble Lord and they are extremely concerning. My understanding is that the supermarkets have said that they have not been purchasing tomatoes from these particular places, but clearly that needs to be robustly checked. We are looking at labelling as a way to better inform consumers and ensure that our food is from the kinds of sources we would all want to see and can trust.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests as set out in the register. The NFU estimates that as much as 75% of British farming output comes from family farms that will now have to pay the family farm inheritance tax. Farmers already have to deal with increasing weather volatility and increasing input and output price volatility, leading to lower and less predictable farming incomes. Does the family farming tax undermine the Government’s own manifesto commitments to increase food security and champion British farmers and expose hard-pressed family budgets to the risk of higher food prices?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned previously, the APR changes are not designed to undermine small family farms and I know that both Defra and the Treasury have been meeting with stakeholders to discuss this matter further.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, families whose food security relies heavily on food banks may suffer nutritional deficiencies because so much of the produce is ultra-processed rather than fresh. Some 800,000 children are reported to use food banks on a regular basis. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on child health and development of sustained dependency on food banks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, clearly it is important that we have good nutrition for our children, which is why we have worked with schools around breakfast clubs, for example, because it is very important that children receive nutrition, especially at a young age. This is something we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care on. One of the important things this Government are doing is working much more across departmental policy areas in order to ensure that we get the kinds of results that support the policy areas the noble Baroness referred to.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has talked about food security and we have heard a number of issues raised about different challenges to it—there are in fact a huge number. My noble friend Lord Browne talked about the weaponisation of food supplies. We know about disruptions to transport and about climate interruptions. Is not strange, therefore, that the national risk register put forward by the previous Government barely mentions food security, except in the context of contamination. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether this will be looked at, so the potential threats to food security in this country are looked at in the round, to coin a phrase?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely; my noble friend makes an important point. We look at overall household food security. In the financial year ending 2022, some 7% of households in the UK were considered to be food insecure. The Family Resources Survey 2022-23 found that the proportion of food-secure households decreased from 92% in 2019-20 to 90% in 2022-23. So this is something we do look at in the round.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, tenant farmers do not own their land but they do produce food. Can the Minister tell me what conversations she has had with her colleague the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government on solar planning applications that have been called in that relate specifically to solar applications on tenanted land where the landlord is looking to evict the tenant farmer?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Regarding the solar panels, we have discussed this with Defra, DESNZ and the Ministry for Housing, which the noble Baroness asked about, because it is important, again, that we get this policy right as we develop our policy on housing and on energy. Clearly, this will be part of the land use framework. Regarding tenants, I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that we have committed to appoint England’s first commissioner for the tenant farming sector to promote the standards outlined in the agricultural landlord and tenant code of practice. We hope that the commissioner will play an important role in this area.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 24 October 2024. They introduce extended producer responsibility for packaging, which I will refer to as pEPR, in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

PEPR is one of the three core pillars of the Government’s ambitious packaging reforms, alongside the forthcoming deposit return scheme and the simpler recycling programme in England. These will overhaul the packaging waste system, introducing the biggest change to policy in a generation. Collectively, the packaging reforms are estimated to deliver carbon savings of more than 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefits.

The new system established under these regulations will modernise the producer responsibility system for packaging in the United Kingdom by shifting the costs of managing discarded household packaging from taxpayers to those businesses that supply packaging and by applying the “polluter pays” principle. These regulations also implement international best practice, exemplified by the mature systems of our European neighbours, including Belgium and Germany, where comprehensive EPR schemes have been in place for some time.

I am sure that Members will note that this SI was drawn to the special attention of the House of Lords by the SLSC. I assure Members that this was on the grounds of it being politically or legally important and it giving rise to issues of public policy that are likely to be of interest to the House.

I turn to the benefits of the scheme. The revenue raised by this new system will generate more than £1 billion annually to support local authority collection, recycling and waste disposal services. This will benefit every household in the UK and stimulate much-needed investment in our recycling infrastructure. This will make a substantial contribution to the benefits of the packaging reforms, which together are estimated to support 21,000 jobs in our nations and regions, and will help to stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. Revenue from pEPR will create a much-needed injection of resources into local authorities to improve the household kerbside collection system across the UK. In England, this revenue will fund the simpler recycling reforms that will enable consistent collection of all dry packaging materials, ending the postcode lottery for recycling.

Taken together, these reforms will support this mission-driven Government’s ambition to kick-start economic growth and create the foundations required to transition to a circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that resources are kept in use for longer. It is a critical first step in meeting the commitment in our manifesto to transition to a resource-resilient, productive, circular economy that delivers long-term, sustainable growth.

I will now look at the new obligations that the legislation will bring in. First, these regulations introduce an obligation on businesses that supply household packaging, referred to as “producers”, to pay the costs incurred by local authorities in managing that packaging once it has been discarded. Producers will also be obligated for the cost of providing public information about the correct disposal of packaging. Producers will start incurring fees from April 2025, and invoices will be issued from October 2025 for the 2025-26 scheme year.

Additionally, from the second year of the scheme, producer fees will be adjusted to incentivise producers to make more sustainable decisions at the production/design stage, including decisions that make it easier for products to be reused or recycled at the end of life. This will mean that a producer who uses packaging that is not environmentally sustainable, such as packaging that is not widely recycled, will incur higher fees. Conversely, those using packaging that is sustainable and readily recyclable will incur lower fees.

It is right that businesses bear the costs of managing the packaging that they place on the market, but we must also protect the small businesses that are the life and soul of our high streets and the backbone of our economy. That is why only businesses with a turnover of more than £2 million and which supply more than 50 tonnes of packaging per year will have to pay disposal fees under this new system.

To administer this system, the regulations require the appointment of a scheme administrator jointly by the four nations. This body will be responsible for the implementation of pEPR. This will include the setting of producer fees and the apportionment and payment of those fees to local authorities in order to fund their waste management services. This scheme administrator will initially be hosted within Defra.

I turn to the detail of the obligations that have been retained from the current producer responsibility system. This instrument revokes and replaces the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023, along with the equivalent regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The requirement for packaging producers to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging that they supply is carried over from these regulations, as amended. This data is used to calculate producers’ recycling and fee obligations.

This instrument also revokes and replaces the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 and the equivalent regulations in Northern Ireland. As was the case under these regulations, this instrument places obligations on producers to ensure that a proportion of the amount of packaging that they supply is recycled; it also requires them to provide evidence of this to the regulator. These requirements apply to all packaging, not just packaging likely to be disposed of in local authority household collections. To meet this obligation, producers must demonstrate compliance by obtaining packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes from recycling facilities or those who export packaging waste for recycling.

I turn to compliance and enforcement. This instrument provides the four national regulators with enforcement powers and a duty to monitor compliance. It contains strong enforcement measures, including criminal offences and powers for regulators to impose civil sanctions in cases of non-compliance. As is currently the case, the monitoring and enforcement activity for the producer responsibility regime will be funded by the associated charges in these regulations, such as those for registration and accreditation. These charges operate on a cost-recovery basis; as such, they have been increased from the 2007 regulations to reflect the new duties placed on the regulators and the increased level of monitoring and audit activities.

In conclusion, there is no such place as “away”. It is therefore critical that we create the foundations required to transition to a circular economy for packaging, in order to ensure that resources are kept in use for longer and to secure vital carbon savings. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on and thank her for bringing forward these regulations, which I wholeheartedly support; I also thank her for her clear exposition of what they contain. I have a couple of questions.

The Minister set out the responsibilities, particularly around informing households of what they are required to do. I understand that a lot of the waste that is contaminated cannot be effectively disposed of and recycled. Does the Minister know what percentage of household waste that constitutes, including whether it has gone up or down in, say, the last five or 10 years?

I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Green Alliance for the joint briefing that they have produced for our use. I am also grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which gave a very helpful background.

My understanding is that the regulations relate only to recycling. I wonder why the department has focused on recycling and not reuse. I have asked on a number of occasions both the Minister and her noble friend the Minister for Energy, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, what the Government’s policy on energy from waste is. It is a good way of using household waste that has been contaminated and cannot be reused. It also prevents it going to landfill, which I understand is where most of the waste that is not recycled will go. So it not only reduces household waste and disposes of it in an energy-efficient way; it also provides an energy stream that other countries in Europe use to great effect. My late aunt and uncle in Denmark had their household heating provided by energy from waste at a reduced rate, so there was a community interest in taking it up. I have not heard anything from the Government—either this department or the department for energy—as to their views on energy from waste.

The Minister referred to kerbside collections, the cost of which is obviously quite high. I have now lost the page but one of the figures relates to the substantial cost of kerbside collections. Is it the idea that household collections will be performed by local councils, which will be reimbursed under the regulations by the funds raised? I think that the Minister alluded to this; that would seem very sensible indeed.

With those few remarks and questions, I commend the regulations, but I am interested to know how much will go to landfill; why the Government have not looked at reuse; what the percentages are for contaminated materials that cannot be recycled; and what the Government’s views are on any residual household waste going to energy from waste plants.

--- Later in debate ---

Does the Minister agree that instruments of this size present a challenge to the House in that we are limited in the amount of scrutiny we are able to undertake on secondary legislation, and that, with the best will in the world and even with brilliant all-seeing Defra civil servants and clever parliamentary drafters, not to mention a caring and able Minister, there will inevitably be many errors and unforeseen circumstances in these regulations? Will she promise not just to keep the regulations under review but to come back to the House as soon as possible when glitches have been discovered? I will not criticise her or Defra if she says, “This bit or that bit ain’t working the way we thought”, or “We need to change something”. There is no shame in that for something this complex and innovative. The shame would be in discovering flaws and not correcting them.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. There has been an enormous amount of questions, which I will do my best to cover but I may well end up writing in response to some of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, it is a large document, although, having worked on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I needed a wheelbarrow to get around the House, nothing ever seems large to me again. I will try to cover as many questions as I can but, if noble Lords will bear with me, I will go through Hansard and pick up anything that I miss.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked a number of questions about household waste. The UK household recycling rate was 45% in 2021, with no substantial change since 2015. However, there is a lack of robust data on contamination rates, so I cannot provide any detail on that. We have used assumed contamination rates, which have been informed by data from sector experts, for the impact assessments for collection and packaging reforms.

The noble Baroness also asked about incentives or targets for reuse as well as recycling. Under pEPR, there are already incentives to support the adoption of reusable packaging. Producers are obligated only once for a piece of packaging, not for each time it is collected and reused. Additionally, where reusable items are collected for recycling by businesses, these can be offset against their overall pEPR obligations. We think that this exemption, in combination with the offsetting provisions, incentivises a move to reuse and drives a move away from single-use packaging, but we will continue to review the effectiveness of these measures to ensure that they are sufficient to meet the UK’s ambitions to increase the reuse of packaging.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about enforcement and compliance. The pEPR regulations set effective and proportionate enforcement powers to achieve high levels of compliance. We have worked closely with the environmental regulators to ensure that the fees payable to them are adequate to fund the full regulatory service. One such power is the ability to issue variable monetary penalties in respect of certain offences, including the failure to register and the failure to report data. These new variable monetary penalties will enable the environmental regulators to issue financial penalties that are commensurate with the nature of the offence and the size of the business, meaning that larger businesses may face significant financial consequences for failing to comply with the regulations.

Additionally, the scheme administrator that will be created by the SI will be granted the use of civil sanctions, including variable monetary penalties, to address the non-payment of disposal fees. Where a producer fails to pay its disposal fees in the prescribed time, the scheme administrator may issue a variable monetary penalty, the amount of which will be equal to 20% of the unpaid disposal fees or up to 5% of the business’s annual turnover, whichever amount is higher. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked for more detail around the fees that would be charged.

The noble Baroness also asked about the appointment of the scheme administrator. The scheme administrator will be hosted in Defra and will report to the four Ministers of the four nations. There will be a governance structure that will include representatives from the value chain—in other words, producers and local authorities.

On the deposit return scheme, which was mentioned by a number of noble Lords, we are completely committed to launching DRS in October 2027 in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland; we laid the regulations for England and Northern Ireland on Monday. The Scottish Government are making the necessary amendments to legislation in Scotland, thereby enabling us to progress the appointment of the deposit management organisations in April next year.

Materials, the glass sector and plastics were all mentioned. I am sure noble Lords have read that in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, glass will not be part of the DRS scheme. The Government’s position is that glass would add considerable upfront cost and create complex challenges to the delivery of DRS, particularly for the hospitality and retail sectors—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—as well as disproportionately impacting small breweries and being inconvenient for customers.

Glass drinks bottles will instead be part of pEPR. We have been engaging with industry as part of the development of our illustrative base fees, and further engagement is planned over the coming months. To ensure that heavier materials such as glass are not disadvantaged in our model, where weight is not a limiting factor, costs are apportioned according to the volume of collected material rather than the weight. PEPR provides a strong incentive to move towards reuse, to which the glass sector is well placed to respond. Given the carbon intensity of glass recycling and its durable nature, reuse is the goal. PEPR will incentivise the reuse of glass, as fees will be charged only the first time a product is placed on the market and producers will be able to offset what they recycle.

Regarding the Welsh aspect of this, the UK Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—DAERA—in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government are not including glass, as I said, but the timing and the scope of the Welsh DRS scheme have not yet been confirmed. While this remains the case, there is no justification for extending the temporary pEPR disposal fee exemption on plastic and aluminium drinks containers to include glass. We will continue to work closely with the Welsh Government; once we have finally confirmed the details of their scheme, we will consider whether any amendments to the EPR regulations are needed.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who asked whether material switching would happen because of this. Decisions on the use of packaging materials are complex and driven by a range of individual, business and market factors. At the moment, we have no robust evidence that switching would occur. As part of our illustrative base fees webinar on 3 October, we requested that the industry provide detailed evidence to support its claim; we also talked to other government departments. We have not yet received any substantial evidence. Having said that, we are planning further engagement with different sectors in December to discuss any findings and their implications. As part of this continuous engagement, we will aim to share as much detail as possible relating to pEPR fee calculations at these sector-specific round tables.

I was asked about the evidence that will be required from producers to show that packaging waste they have collected has been recycled. The regulator would not usually stipulate specific documents in relation to this requirement but would provide examples and principles acknowledging that every producer is different and may therefore have access to different evidence. A producer could obtain written confirmation from their reprocessor outlining what percentage of the materials that were collected and sent for recycling was actually recycled, but this would need to outline the reprocessing method to determine this value and the EA could expect the producer to have a documented process in place to validate this data. So it is quite complex.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about single-use cups, including whether we are still committed to introducing the mandatory cup take-back scheme; I think she referred to that. We very much welcome the efforts of UK producers to lead the way on the take-back of single-use cups through voluntary initiatives, such as the National Cup Recycling Scheme. The collection and recycling of fibre-based composite cups is eligible for offsetting against pEPR fees. The Government recognise the urgent need to limit the environmental impact of single-use packaging, including fibre-based composite cups, and are considering the most effective ways to meet this challenge. I am more than happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this further, if she wishes.

The noble Baroness also asked about targets, PERNs and what is happening to deal with fraud in the system. The new regulations will increase the volume and frequency of data reported by packaging reprocessors and exporters to enable greater transparency right through the system. The regulations include new conditions of accreditation, and regulator fees will also increase to fund additional compliance monitoring of operators. As I mentioned earlier, there are also new civil sanctions to address non-compliance, including the ability to issue uncapped penalties.

Local authorities were mentioned by a number of noble Lords. In November, local authority chief executives were sent indicative estimates of their year 1 extended producer responsibility for packaging payment. Those estimates will cover the April 2025 to March 2026 financial year, so they will have some idea of the costs. The first payments for EPR packaging will be made by November 2025. I hope that that is helpful.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raised a number of issues around business and costs. The figures that were widely quoted in the press that it would cost industry £2 billion a year are inaccurate. Our estimate shows that the reforms will cost around £1.4 billion a year. This amount will cover local authority costs to manage household packaging waste, as well as scheme administrator costs. Individual producers will be able to reduce their bill by placing less packaging on the market—that is what the legislation is designed to do. Further, any smaller businesses are likely to be excluded due to the de minimis threshold, although it is assumed that the majority of producers will be liable. Hence, the fees will largely represent an industry-wide cost increase, with all firms facing a small increase in cost. For the average producer, cost increases due to pEPR are less than 1% of total revenue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I had one quick question about the policy on energy from waste. Obviously, if the Minister needs to write to me on it, I would be very grateful. Also, the regulations clearly state that aims should be achieved around reduction and reuse, but at the moment, the regulations address recycling only. Any thoughts on that in writing would be very helpful.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The fact that there are incentives for producers to reuse is part of the purpose. It is about not just about recycling, but about changing behaviour to encourage producers to have packaging that can be reused. I hope that is the answer to that. I will write to the noble Baroness on energy from waste.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Will the Minister write to me on the technical points made by the Confederation of Paper Industries? I think we would all like to see that response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. As I say, we have had quite a long debate with a lot of questions, so I assure noble Lords that we will go through Hansard and write with detailed responses on any outstanding questions.

This legislation is necessary to initiate the circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for this instrument; I very much welcome their broad support.

Motion agreed.

Storm Bert: National Preparedness

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer to my interests as co-chairman of the All-Party Water Group and as honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.

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

I am very impressed. Protecting communities from flooding is a priority for this Government. The Government continuously assess preparedness for flooding at local and national levels in England. The Met Office, Environment Agency and Flood Forecasting Centre provide multiple flood forecasting and warning services, work with local resilience forums and partners to inform actions, and will consider the effectiveness of the flood response.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful for that response. Our hearts go out to those who lost their lives in the recent floods. Should we be doing more maintenance and dredging between floods? Also, does the Minister share my concern that there should be a one-stop shop for flood warnings? We are to go to the Environment Agency for all flood warnings apart from surface water, for which we have to go to local councils. Obviously, in a time of deep distress, such as a forthcoming flood, it would be much better if there was just one place to go for both preparedness and the issuing of sandbags and such.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the dredging question, the Environment Agency undertakes dredging to manage flood risk where it is technically effective, does not significantly increase flood risk for others down stream and is environmentally acceptable. Some locations will benefit from this and others will not, so it is looked at case by case. On flood warnings, my feeling is that most of the time they work very well. I am signed up for them: we get them by email and text, and we get a phone call. I urge anyone who has not signed up for flood warnings and who lives in a flood area to do so, because they are effective. Regarding having a single place, that is something I can take back to the department to review.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, for every one degree rise in temperature, the air can hold up to 7% more moisture. In the UK, rapid climate change is having an ever more devastating impact on our local citizens and property. We are particularly seeing a rise in very localised extreme weather surface water flooding events. What action are the Government taking to help improve the forecasting models for these hyper-localised devastating flooding events?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The answer is twofold. First, what do we need to do to reduce the likelihood of surface flooding? A lot of the nature-based solutions that we have been bringing in and discussing in the water Bill will help towards that. Climate change is having a serious impact, so we need to review the effectiveness of how we are working and have a long-term model. We have set up the new flood resilience forum, which will look across the board to consider floods that have taken place and how we can react better in future.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Given the need to mitigate surface water problems in all sorts of areas, what consideration is being given to tightening up the planning guidelines, which at the moment make it very easy for people to pave over what would otherwise be grassed areas or areas where there could be natural drainage?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This is a really important question. We have a planning Bill coming up, during the passage of which, as I understand it, we can look at this issue. As a Government, we have committed to ensuring that when we build, we build more high-quality, better-designed, sustainable homes, because we need to ensure that our built areas increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. We have the National Planning Policy Framework, which has been consulted on, and that will inform better planning and sustainable growth for our built environment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Storm Bert was a tragedy for home owners who were flooded out and whose homes and businesses were destroyed; they have our sympathy and support. It was also a disaster for farmers, who are already worried about increased cost and tax burdens as a result of the Budget. The Conservative Government introduced the farming recovery fund to support farmers in these exact circumstances. Can the Minister tell the House exactly how much financial support has been given to farmers through the fund in response to Storm Bert, since she confirmed that the scheme has already been opened?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, we recently announced £60 million to be distributed through the farming recovery fund for the previous floods. It is very important that we support farmers. It is a very difficult time when your land is flooded; it can take a long time to recover and be very expensive. We are currently looking at this.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

On that point, will the Minister look carefully at the criteria that are set? Farmland that is more than a mile from a river has been flooded, and yet the owners are told that they are not eligible for this funding. It all comes back to surface water and building on flood plains. Will the Minister look closely at that criterion?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At the moment we are reviewing the whole criteria around flood funding, because it is not fit for purpose and certain areas that require funding are not necessarily eligible to get it. We are looking at it in the whole.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister confident that the Government are prepared and ready to handle red warnings?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are confident that they are working extremely hard to learn from previous events to improve responses as they go forward. That is why we have set up the Floods Resilience Taskforce; we want to ensure that we do the best job we can.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, on that point, flooding is just one aspect of the wider issue of national resilience. What action are the Government taking to ensure that we have proper command and control mechanisms that can identify need at times of national stress, can identify the resources that are required to meet those needs and can co-ordinate the activity of various services, including the emergency services and the military, in the most efficient manner in a time of considerable crisis?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a very important point. I give credit to the different organisations in Cumbria, where we do national resilience extremely well. In Penrith, people come together because we have had a number of similar events, not just flooding, and we have learned from them. Good work is taking place at the moment, and it is very effective.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, will Flood Re, which the Minister knows all about, be included in the review? Quite a lot of claims must have been made to Flood Re following recent events, and certainly some risks were not covered by Flood Re because of its rules. Considering the Flood Re rules again in the light of this disaster may well be a good thing.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Flood Re has been running for a number of years, and I am sure the noble Earl and other noble Lords are aware of the exceptions to what can be put forward to it—for example, multiple-occupation buildings. My understanding is that it is being reviewed, because it is available only up to a certain date and we have reached the stage where it will be looked at. The other issue is that businesses are not covered either. It is important that we continue to monitor and review its effectiveness, while also looking at how we support the people who are not supported by what is a very important insurance back-up.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I will take my noble friend the Minister back to the question from our noble friend Lord Harris on paving in built-up areas. I hope I did not mishear her; I think she did not specifically say whether the new planning arrangements will address that issue, which is a very serious problem in high-density urban areas. It is usually to do with people wanting to park cars. Will the Government promote the use of porous materials, which will support the weight of vehicles but are much less damaging to the environment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not want to pre-empt the outcomes of the National Planning Policy Framework, but some excellent porous materials are now available, and it is important that the Government encourage their usage where they are appropriate.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I will follow up on the planning issue. One of the places that flooded was the Billing Aquadrome, which was built as a leisure resort and temporary accommodation for people to spend riverside holidays. One of the problems with temporary caravan homes is that they are often built on flood plains. They are used not just for holidays but for permanent residences, because of the housing shortage. Many people there suffered considerable problems. What does the Minister think can be done about these matters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is an important point. I am aware that, when you have serious floods, often caravan parks—I do not know whether that is the right terminology—and the people who live in them get flooded over and over again. There is one near where I live, so I completely understand the noble Lord’s point. I am unsure whether their management will be included in any future planning framework, but I am sure that we will come back to this question as the National Planning Policy Framework moves forward.

Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 October be approved.

Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, the instrument before you provides for the introduction of the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme. The purpose of the instrument is to implement arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework which were announced in February last year. The framework represents an important step forward for the people of Northern Ireland by significantly improving on the arrangements that existed under the original Northern Ireland protocol. This Government have been very clear in their intention to secure new, better arrangements for sanitary and phytosanitary matters with the EU. We are clear that we want to continue to simplify this process as far as possible in order to support those across the United Kingdom, whilst protecting our internal market.

Turning to the SI itself, this scheme will simplify the requirements associated with moving pet dogs, cats and ferrets from Great Britain to Northern Ireland significantly. It replaces single-use animal health certificates with a free-of-charge lifelong travel document and removes the need for costly pet health treatments. Pet owners who travel frequently with their pets, or those who rely on the services of an assistance dog to travel independently, will benefit substantially from this change in approach. I am pleased to say that this benefit has been recognised by Guide Dogs UK specifically, which has noted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dogs travelling to Northern Ireland.

Movement of pets for other reasons, such as young assistance dogs being moved to Northern Ireland for training or the movement of police or military working dogs from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, will also benefit. This SI also reaffirms the Government’s commitment to unfettered access, in that those from Northern Ireland have no requirements whatever beyond the need for a microchip, as is good practice already and in line with this Government’s approach to high animal welfare standards. Finally, the SI empowers relevant competent authorities to carry out their respective responsibilities as part of the scheme in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the scheme is sufficiently robust and ensure that those travelling with their pets have the best experience possible.

To summarise, the Windsor Framework is already successfully restoring the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the burdens that have disrupted east-west trade, as well as safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union. This instrument is essential in implementing those benefits: an international treaty negotiated by the last Government that this Government have committed to delivering in good faith. I hope noble Lords will agree that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme delivers significant benefits for pet owners and for assistance dog users across the UK, and I urge all to support its implementation. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

We are not dealing with a perfect situation or a perfect set of solutions. We are still finding our way in this post-Brexit world. None the less, I believe that the regulations before us represent a small step in the right direction.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the many contributions we have had this evening and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As a number of noble Lords have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, it is important to have opportunities to debate these issues in some depth, because they are complex issues. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for appreciating that I am doing my best to work through these complex issues and understand all the different perspectives and points of view, so that I can do my job as effectively, efficiently and transparently as possible as we move forward on some quite complicated—and, in some quarters, controversial—regulations.

Regarding the Windsor Framework, there has been a lot of discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made some very pertinent points and referenced some things that have been previously mentioned by my noble friend Lady Anderson. I have got a lot of questions to answer and I do not want to get bogged down in wider discussions about the Windsor Framework at this point—I will come back to them. However, one thing I do want to say, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie mentioned this, is that we are trying to work more constructively with the European Union; we are trying to reset that relationship. I have heard a number of criticisms of the European Union’s attitude towards discussions and negotiations and I am hoping that, with a more constructive approach to working with the EU, we may be able to make some progress in how we manage things going forward.

A number of questions were asked around checks. To be completely clear, Northern Ireland pet owners will not face any checks and there will be no checks for pets travelling from Northern Ireland into Great Britain. I will go on to a few other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about unfettered trade and whether the Government were still committed to it. I can confirm that the Government have long-standing commitments to ensuring that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, which is of course Great Britain. That was legislated for in the UK Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model, which this Government are continuing.

The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, asked whether there had been an impact assessment. I can confirm that a de minimis assessment was completed for this statutory instrument, which is in line with standard practices and thresholds for the evaluation of impacts where these are expected to fall under the de minimis threshold. The assessment is that the Northern Ireland pet travel scheme will deliver large net benefits, particularly to UK pet owners.

Consultation, and the lack of it, was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. While there may not have been a formal consultation, the Government engaged comprehensively with interested stakeholders—including pet owners, ferry and airline companies that operate the travel routes between GB and Northern Ireland, and commercially owned pet microchip database operators—when the regulations were drafted.

Assistance dogs were mentioned. Guide Dogs UK has specifically highlighted the positive impact of removing single-use EU certificates on assistance dog owners who are travelling to Northern Ireland. The British Veterinary Association outlined that the arrangement will reduce paperwork and health treatments for vets.

My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked about the information being provided. I can confirm to her that there will be a public communications campaign; it is currently being planned. Officials are working with stakeholders, including vets, on that communications plan.

I turn to the SI’s requirement that pet owners apply for pet travel documents, because a number of questions were asked about that. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, dog owners in Great Britain would have to go to the vet and be checked for EU animal health certificates, rabies vaccinations or tapeworm treatments. That would cost the pet owner a considerable amount of money every time they wanted to travel into Northern Ireland. In practice, there are currently no routine checks on pets travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but of course this was only a temporary arrangement while the Windsor Framework pet travel scheme was being agreed. Officials have always reserved the right to undertake checks, should there be any suspicion of illegal activity or any welfare concerns.

The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme is designed to greatly simplify pet movements to Northern Ireland. There are no health treatment requirements; instead, the pet travel document requires more basic information. It is free. It can be applied for very easily and quickly online, and you do not need to visit a vet to do that. I also want to confirm that Northern Ireland-based pet owners will not need any pet travel documentation or be subject to any process when they return home with their pets. The scheme needs to ensure that GB pet owners have a valid pet travel document, because we need to mitigate against any abuse of the scheme. We believe that the new arrangement will involve a smoother experience than the current legal requirements.

Microchipping was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I confirm that microchipping is already a legal requirement in England, Scotland and Wales for all dogs. It is now a requirement for cats in England—that came into force in June of this year. Microchipping is considered good practice, and it is also part of the Government’s commitment to world-leading standards in companion animal welfare. We believe that this approach to microchipping reflects existing requirements and practice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether there would be exemption certificates for microchipping on the basis that a dog might not be able to be microchipped if a vet said that that was the case. I have been assured that if the pet cannot be microchipped with a UK chip, the pet owner can still travel with the pet animal from GB to Northern Ireland under the existing pet passport scheme.

There were mentions about how burdensome the scheme could be; the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to burdens. Clearly, the scheme needs to be adhered to, but the new arrangements will create a cheaper and smoother experience for those travelling with their pet from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, because it removes the need for pet health treatments, as I mentioned. This is because the scheme recognises, for example, the rabies-free status of the UK. As other noble Lords have said, the benefit is that it also lasts for the entire lifetime of the pet.

I turn to some other questions. How will things be enforced? One thing that is important to say is that I am sure the vast majority of people will comply with the scheme and the rules. The Government intend to provide comprehensive support to those travelling with their pets to ensure that they can do so. I cannot remember now who asked about pets being taken to facilities. We need something in place, because you cannot have something that is open to abuse. You have to have some kinds of checks in place and something that happens if people do not comply. But we do expect this to be very rare. If any pet is taken to a facility, we expect that to be extremely rare—but, clearly, it is a new scheme that will be monitored and we will check progress.

Another question that the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked was why the scheme covers only cats, dogs and ferrets. It is for the very simple reason that these pets make up the vast majority of movements and it is about keeping things simple and manageable. It is in line with relevant applicable regulations that have grouped these animals together. Also, they are those most susceptible to rabies. That is that is the other reason for having that in place.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked whether everyone travelling with pets would have to be checked to identify whether people are not resident in the UK: are they travelling to Northern Ireland via GB in transit from another country? Onward travel to the EU was mentioned. There are no new requirements applied by the Windsor Framework concerning movements into Ireland, the EU or for those who are not resident in the UK, or otherwise not covered by the pet travel scheme. What is required in these circumstances is unchanged by the Windsor Framework. If pet owners wish to travel with their pet on to Ireland, provided the same rules that have applied throughout Ireland’s membership of the EU are adhered to, that option remains available to them.

I will conclude. It has been a long debate, so if I have not answered anything, I will go through Hansard carefully and write to noble Lords. I just want to summarise. The Northern Ireland pet travel scheme certainly has benefits. It is new, sustainable, durable and will support non-commercial pet travel between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and secure the smooth movement of pets within the UK. It will also remove costs, pet health treatments and red tape.

I want to make one point before I conclude. I am very aware of the concerns that have been raised during the debate on this SI. I am aware that similar concerns were raised on previous SIs and I am sure that, as further SIs come forward, we will return to these discussions and debates. I want to reassure noble Lords who have expressed concerns that I am continuing to engage constructively with DAERA and relevant organisations in Northern Ireland. It is important that we start to rebuild trust in these areas. In fact, I am going to Belfast next week for a couple of days and intend to do that regularly as part of my portfolio. I know that a number of broader issues that have been discussed. I very much appreciated the meeting I had with noble Lords representing Northern Ireland some weeks ago and look forward to continuing that ongoing engagement, where we can get more into the depth of these broader concerns. Having said that, I thank once again all noble Lords for their contributions.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

Can the Minister discuss with her ministerial colleagues, looking towards the review in 2026 of the trade and co-operation agreement, work which can be undertaken to find a way out of this as best as possible? It would at least be reassuring to Members. I hope that work has already started but, if it has not, it ought to.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I apologise; I know that the noble Lord raised this in his speech. I am more than happy to speak to ministerial colleagues on those matters.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this evening. I want to say, as usual when this kind of statutory instrument is being discussed, that it goes much wider than the actual SI. I kept my remarks specifically to pets, and a number of questions were asked which it was very difficult for the Minister to answer. I very much appreciate her genuine sympathy and concern. We will go through Hansard to see what more needs to be answered, because one of the things that has come out of tonight’s debate is that there is genuine confusion, much more within the departments than even with the Minister. That has to be sorted.

I thank those noble Lords who supported my regret amendment. The two noble Lords who opposed it did not say anything specific about what was wrong with the issues that I raised; they tended to go wider than that. I am sorry if I pre-empted the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. I always know that she will say that it is all Brexit’s fault. However, I thank her very much for asking some questions that were very relevant to the debate.

Scrutiny is the reason that we are here tonight and why these SIs always take a long time; I know that there are many frustrated colleagues here tonight wishing that this had gone through in a quick hour. It is because there is no real scrutiny in Northern Ireland. As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said, many MLAs now say that quite a lot of what is going on there is a farce in terms of scrutiny. The scrutiny for this part of the United Kingdom is more and more having to come in this Chamber, which is why we have these debates.

I am still not at all satisfied and feel very strongly that all those animal lovers out there watching this tonight—many knew that it was happening, particularly the Kennel Club, which I mentioned earlier—will not feel satisfied about any of the answers and will not understand why our Governments have allowed this to happen. I keep tabling regret amendments. I am getting fed up with regret. I would like to press this amendment to a vote.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

My Lords, the Deputy First Minister for Wales and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs has recommended that the provisions of the Bill extend to Wales. An initial legislative consent memorandum was laid in the Senedd on the Bill’s introduction. Supplementary legislative consent memorandums will be laid in parallel with any further Bill amendments. The Senedd will hold a vote on legislative consent before the end of the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

Bill read a third time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to say that it has been a great privilege to be responsible for the passage of the Bill through this House. I thank all noble Lords for their careful scrutiny of its provisions and the constructive suggestions and contributions made at each stage. While we may not have ended up agreeing on everything, I know we agree on the importance of the Bill and the need to drive meaningful improvement in the performance of the water industry as an urgent priority.

The public expect and deserve transformative change across the water sector, and the Bill is a crucial first step towards meaningful reform. The new provisions brought forward by the Bill will strengthen the regulation of water and sewerage companies while giving our regulators the most significant increase in enforcement powers in a decade.

The Bill will ensure that water company executives are held to high standards, reflecting the importance of their role in overseeing the operation of vital water and sewerage services. Crucially, the Bill will increase transparency around water company operations and pollution incidents, ensuring that the public, as well as the regulators, are well equipped to hold water companies to account.

With the passage of the Bill in this House, we have made inroads into turning around the performance of the water industry, and made clear our expectations for water companies in advance of the most ambitious investment period that the water industry has seen.

This Government are committed to working closely with counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to address the shared challenges facing our water environment. Our waterways and some of our water companies cross our shared borders, so the importance of working together to improve the water environment cannot be underestimated.

Of particular relevance to the Bill are the challenges faced across the privatised water sector in England and Wales. In line with this, my officials have worked constructively with Welsh counterparts throughout the passage of the Bill through this House, so I am also delighted that the UK Government and Welsh Government have together launched the independent commission to fundamentally transform how our water system works. The independent commission will provide the lasting change that England and Wales need to deliver much-needed reforms in the water sector, which I know all Members of this House are eager to see. We look forward to continued and long-term collaboration with the Welsh Government on the Bill and the independent commission.

In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who have offered their expertise to enhance and strengthen the Bill in this House. The discussions have been truly collaborative. The Government carefully considered the important points raised during the Bill’s passage and, in consequence, tabled the amendments that we discussed on Report. I believe that the provisions of the Bill leave this House even stronger as a result.

Many of the wider points raised by noble Lords will be addressed by the independent commission, which, as we have discussed, will review the entire water sector regulatory system. I look forward to further collaboration with noble Lords during the course of the independent commission, and on future legislation, as we continue to work towards the shared goal of restoring and protecting our precious water environment.

Just before I finish, I record my special thanks to officials, particularly the wonderful Bill team, who worked so hard and gave me exemplary support throughout the passage of the Bill in this House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Russell, Lady Parminter and Lady Pinnock for standing in for me when I was off with Covid. I am very grateful to them.

The Bill is essential, and it was essential that it began its journey in this Chamber. It is only one piece of the jigsaw that the Government will bring forward to deal with the problems of the water industry, but it is a vital one.

I thank the Minister and her officials for their time in listening to those of us across the Chamber who were concerned about some aspects of the Bill. She was extremely patient and receptive to the arguments we put forward, and we are grateful for the movement that the Government were able to make on the pollution incident reduction plans and the performance-related pay issues. Ofwat has been strengthened by measures in the Bill and it is to be hoped that, overall, the discharges of sewage will reduce quickly and the quality of water in our streams, rivers and lakes will improve as a consequence.

It is now up to the other place to take on the Bill, which has been much improved by the debates and changes made in this Chamber. For our part, we welcome the review of the water industry as a whole and look forward to seeing how the Bill will fit into the overall picture. It has been a pleasure to work with the Minister and her Bill team on this essential piece of legislation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister on securing her first Bill in this new Parliament, and through her I pass on my thanks to the Bill team for their solicitations throughout the procedure. I would like to tease her on one item if I may. We did not manage to carry the amendment on mandatory requirements for sustainable drains, nor the end to the automatic right to connect, but will she consider voluntarily bringing forward a report in six months’ time on where we are in introducing mandatory requirements for sustainable drains for major new developments?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to take that back to the department and to discuss whether that is possible.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.