Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 10 September.

Motion agreed.

Plastic Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the environment in the United Kingdom of the failure to reach agreement on a Global Plastics Treaty, and what immediate steps they are taking to tackle plastic pollution in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, the UK supports an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and I am very disappointed that no agreement has been reached. Plastic pollution is an urgent issue, with amounts of plastic entering the ocean set to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. The Government therefore remain committed to reaching an agreement on global action. Domestically, we have taken significant steps towards a circular economy for plastics and will publish the circular economy strategy for England this autumn.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I take this opportunity to congratulate successive Governments on their efforts to reach agreement for a global plastic pollution treaty. What are this Government doing to reduce the use of plastics in the economy, mindful of the fact that the Government set up a Circular Economy Taskforce in March, one of the top five priorities of which was reducing the use of plastics? How often has the task force met and what progress has it made to reduce the use of plastics, so that we can at least control our own use in the absence of a global treaty?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are taking a number of steps domestically to tackle plastic pollution. First, we have banned the supply of single-use vapes which, when littered, can introduce plastic, among other substances, into the environment. We are also working with the devolved Governments to bring forward a ban across the UK on wet wipes that contain plastic. The collection of packaging reforms that we have brought in is the first step in the transition to the circular economy for all materials, including plastic. For example, the deposit return scheme includes plastic drinks containers. We have also extended producer responsibility for packaging, so that producers are incentivised to consider reducing the packaging that they use. Increasing the circularity of the plastic sector will reduce the need to produce virgin materials, which will reduce the plastic pollution associated with that. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the number of times that the task force has met.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, beyond health deception, cigarette filters are the single most-littered item on the planet. They are an environmental disaster: they do not biodegrade but break down into microplastics, polluting our rivers and oceans. Banning them would remove the illusion of safety from filtered cigarettes, at the same time preventing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste. If we can ban plastic straws, surely we can ban cigarette filters.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks an interesting question. According to Defra’s work, we know that cigarette butts are the most-littered item. People do not tend to notice them, because they are very small, but they cause enormous damage through pollution, particularly because of the chemicals that get into water systems. I congratulate Keep Britain Tidy, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has brought it into public perception more that you should not just chuck cigarette butts away; they can cause huge damage. We are going to monitor this further, working with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, but clearly the best thing is for people to give up smoking in the first place.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with retailers and manufacturers about stopping the use of plastic in chocolate selection boxes for Christmas? It will not be long before they are stacked up in supermarkets again, demonstrating the mountains of unnecessary single-use plastic being used.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We talk regularly to supermarkets and other retailers, plus organisations that actually package the goods in the first place. We need to reduce the amount of damaging packaging that goes into our environment because, as I have said before, recycling is great—we encourage it—but it is better if do not need it in the first place or if we can reduce the need for recycling. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: Christmas chocolate boxes are a good example of overpackaging, but Easter eggs are another. We need to work with the industry to reduce this packaging in the first place.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, when countries fail to reach a global agreement, often you find a coalition of the willing who will sign a plurilateral agreement and perhaps allow other countries to join later. Have the Government thought about signing a plurilateral treaty or agreement on the use of plastics, which other countries can join later?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Our ambition at the moment is to try to get the global treaty that we have been pressing for. We believe that the more countries that we can bring into that treaty, including those that produce the plastics and the materials for them, the more likely we are to have a larger global impact. But we are considering all options, because we need to move forward in this space.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the pros and cons of requiring road builders to replace some of the fossil fuel-based bitumen with plastic pellets?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At the moment, I am not aware of Defra having had such conversations. It may be that the Department for Transport has, so I will go back to my department, ask for more information on this subject and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, what efforts are the Government making to promote more switching to cost-effective, reusable or non-plastic, biodegradable packaging products to reduce the cost burden on industry and consumers of waste recycling and reduction?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The UK works very much with other authorities, the devolved Administrations and other countries on how we can do exactly that. As I said, it is all very well to recycle, but we need to reduce the amount of plastic in the first place because, even when things are recycled, that plastic is still in the system. So, we will continue with our efforts to do just that.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the failure of the negotiations was a great disappointment. Is it now the view of the Government that that is the end of the main story, that opposition is so entrenched that there is no serious prospect of progress on the main issue and that, therefore, we will have to have minor, lesser or subsidiary agreements between different parties?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are still working towards getting the treaty that we want. We think it will have the biggest impact, which is why we want to try to achieve that. The UK has played a leading role throughout the negotiations. We are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, and we want to continue with that high ambition. We have worked with other countries. We are supporting developing countries and are trying to bring other countries on board to gain the really big prize that we need.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, when the Minister was at the Dispatch Box answering Questions on plastics last week, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew attention to the extraordinarily high levels of plastics involved in home deliveries from supermarkets. The Minister said that they met regularly with supermarkets to discuss this matter. Can she please press the supermarkets far harder? You can stand at any supermarket vegetable section and see that the vast majority of vegetables and fruit are wrapped unnecessarily in plastics. There are weighing machines at every checkout and they should be the way to restrain the use of plastics by supermarkets.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm to the noble Lord that I have had exactly those sorts of conversations with some supermarkets. There are certain items that they say they need to wrap in plastic—cucumbers, for example. I am waiting to be convinced as to the need for everything to be wrapped, but I am happy to work with and listen to supermarkets. I was very frustrated the other week when I found a swede wrapped in plastic, which I thought was completely and utterly unnecessary.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as someone who campaigned on the need to reduce the use of plastics, I was devastated by the collapse of the treaty negotiations. When does the Minister think they will start again? What are the milestones for that? How can we get this international action finished? That is what is necessary, because this is a pollution problem right around the world.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her support and for continuing to press for this. As she said, it is the thing that will make the biggest difference. As she is aware, the session was adjourned. It was agreed that it would reconvene, but the place and time are yet to be confirmed.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s approach of seeking international agreement. There seems to me no point in us pursuing something on our own and showing leadership if no one is following.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that comment. If we are genuinely to make real progress in reducing the amount of plastic pollution, including the tiny microplastics that we are finding everywhere, we have to work globally and with countries such as Saudi Arabia that we need to bring on board if we are to make a real difference.

Global Plastic Pollution Treaty

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they are supporting progress on the global plastic pollution treaty.

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

My Lords, the UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution and a strong proponent for an ambitious global treaty. At the negotiations in August, the UK worked closely with our partners to push for strong global measures, effective measures of implementation and the ability for the treaty to develop over time. We are therefore very disappointed that no agreement was reached, but the UK remains committed to reaching an agreement when negotiations resume.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. As she says, in light of the rejection of any limits on plastic production by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the United States at the recent intergovernmental negotiating committee, will the Government, along with other high-ambition countries, consider moving from the current consensus decision-making process to one on a voting basis at the intergovernmental negotiating committee to accelerate progress? Finally, given that the UK itself has one of the highest plastic waste levels per person globally, including UK households throwing away 60 items per week, when will the Government bring forward their promised regulations to restrict the export of plastic waste from the UK?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the first part of the question, the INC has been adjourned; it will be resumed at a later date, at a time to be agreed. We remain steadfast in our commitment. We think that it is important to work with all countries if we are to make the kind of progress that we need in order to make a real difference. So, although no agreement was reached in Geneva, and neither of the two treaty texts put forward by the chair was accepted as a starting point, progress was made on other areas of the treaty. It is important to point out that this was not a complete waste of time. For example, the work the UK co-led with Chile and Panama to progress articles on product design and releases of plastic production in the environment resulted in a much better understanding of country positions and progress towards a landing zone. So we will keep all options under review, but we will continue to work towards a treaty that has broad support, because we want to have absolute maximum impact. Regarding the domestic policy that my noble friend mentioned, we are very keen to work and drive towards a more circular economy. We want to recycle more plastic waste, and we also need to ensure that it is recycled in the most effective and appropriate manner. So all these things are being considered under our circular economy policy.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given the collapse of the talks in August, does the Minister agree that a global agreement will not be reached if the petrochemical lobbyists continue to outnumber the independent scientists at the talks? What threshold of plastics needs to be found in human brains and reproductive systems for the oil-rich nations to treat this as an emergency and get everyone back to the table?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s last point was the main point—getting everybody back to the table. If we are to make a real difference globally, we need those countries with us to appreciate that the production method of plastic has to be part of where we move forward regarding plastic in the future. You cannot solve these issues on their own; it is a global issue. I know that it is incredibly frustrating that we feel that we have stalled. As I said, we have made some progress—we are getting to a better understanding of where other countries are coming from—and we will continue to try to make the further progress that we so badly need.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

It was reported last month that the sale of single-use plastic bags in this country jumped from 407 million items to 437 million in one year, a 7% increase. This was largely driven by online shopping, and particularly by the online supermarket Ocado, which accounts for about half of the single-use plastic bags sold. Although Ocado claims that most of its bags are recycled, we know that in the waste hierarchy, avoidance of use comes above recycling, and other supermarkets, such as Waitrose, provide online deliveries without plastic bags. Could the Government engage in conversations with our major supermarkets to encourage them not to use single-use plastic bags for food delivery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. We have to continue to reduce our own plastic use in this country. Whereas recycling is important, if you do not have to use it in the first place, that is clearly an even better way to behave. We talk to supermarkets on all sorts of issues, and the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is something that we need to discuss and tackle with them. Consumers are expected to change their behaviour, but it is also important that retailers—and that includes online retailers—ensure that their behaviour is not adding to the plastic pollution problem.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, as so often, I agree entirely with the Minister on this matter—I know it is strange, but it is true. While we all deplore plastic waste—it is horrid, and I think that getting rid of plastic bags in general is fantastic—could she also reaffirm the enormous benefits that plastic brings in everything? We are carrying it now in our telephones and other things. It is really important that we do not throw plastics out with plastic waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The important thing is to make sure that we look at the pollution that plastic causes and the types of plastic that are most polluting. That is fundamentally what the debate is about.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Because of the importance of this subject, and notwithstanding the key blockers, is there a case for considering a mini-treaty of the coalition of the willing?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are keeping all options on the table. Our priority at the moment is to try to move forward with all the countries, because that is what will make the biggest difference globally, but we will consider all options.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

First, let us put on the record that under the last Government and this one, the UK negotiating team was regarded as one of the best in the world on this subject. Do the Government agree that recycling alone will not solve the problem of the planned massive plastic production we will see over the next 30 years, and will the Government rule out unilateral UK action on production, which would damage our own industry? However, recognising that the oil-producing countries will never agree to a unanimous UN treaty, will the Government now take the lead with the 70 countries in the high-ambition coalition—a group that, as the Minister said, we founded—and the 130 countries which want to cut plastic usage, to agree a new treaty on reduction, use and the most dangerous chemicals used, and thus avoid the obstruction of the oil-producing countries? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stole my ending line: I was going to say, let us have a coalition of the willing, bypassing the cabal of the blockers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are looking at all options, but we want to have a treaty that is going to make the biggest difference. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we have a fantastic negotiating team. We have made progress and we want to continue to make progress. It is very frustrating that production is becoming a blocker to agreeing a treaty, but if you take production out, you do not get the end result that is most beneficial. We want to continue working forward, but we will consider all options.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

In some ways we have let the horse out of the stable, in that we are flooded with microplastics ourselves. It is in breast milk, it is in placentas, and it is causing extraordinary newly discovered health problems—two of which, specifically, I would like to highlight. One is about crop production, in which people are reckoning that within the next decade, the yields from common crops will be up to 25% less because of the microplastics going through our water system. My question is: what are the Government doing on that? The other really big problem is that cheap school uniforms are made of polyester, which goes into kids’ bloodstreams. The European Union is moving forward very fast to try to ban that, at least in children’s uniforms. I ask those two questions of the Government about what they are doing about the problems we are already in and cannot immediately get out of because these are forever chemicals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: microplastics and forever chemicals are of increasing concern. One thing we pushed for in the treaty was the inclusion of microplastics to reduce and prevent microplastic pollution from all different sources. One thing we did at INC-5.2, working with Chile, was to put forward a proposal on plastic product design. The criteria for that design were aimed at reducing microplastics that are generated through wear and tear. We know that that is one of the real issues. It is something that we are taking very seriously.

Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 1 July 2025.

Today is Back British Farming Day, and this instrument seeks to do just that: back our free-range poultry meat producers. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing poultry meat marketing standards to enable free-range poultry meat to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures introduced during outbreaks of disease, such as avian influenza, which restrict the access of birds to open-air runs. All other criteria upon which the “free range” marketing term relies, such as stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formula and poultry house pop-holes, must continue to be met.

Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2024-25, resulting in the introduction of mandatory housing measures for poultry that, in all cases, lasted longer than the 12-week labelling derogation period. This was for an additional 10 weeks in 2021-22, 11 weeks in 2022-23 and, most recently, eight weeks in 2024-25. So it will be important for the industry that this statutory instrument is in place for the upcoming winter period and beyond, in the event that we experience another avian influenza outbreak.

Currently, when free-range birds are placed under mandatory housing measures due to outbreaks of disease such as avian influenza, the poultry meat marketing standards regulations allow poultry meat to continue to be labelled as “free range” for a maximum period of 12 weeks, known as the 12-week derogation period. After this, poultry meat from those birds has to be marketed as indoor reared.

In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes together with the Scottish Government. Some 79% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. A separate consultation was conducted by the Welsh Government. The European Commission also consulted on plans to remove the 12-week derogation period from its legislation. In line with the Windsor Framework, any changes to EU legislation will also apply to Northern Ireland, when introduced.

When a mandatory housing measure is imposed on poultry producers, this is to safeguard the welfare of the birds, which must be our primary concern. However, we also recognise that the current requirement for poultry meat producers and processors to re-label free-range poultry meat once the derogation period is exceeded represents a financial burden on producers. This is primarily related to the higher operating costs that continue to be incurred to maintain their free-range system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that birds are temporarily housed indoors. This is also combined with the loss of income from the premium price that free-range products attract.

This statutory instrument will remove the 12-week derogation period so that free-range poultry meat producers and processors can market poultry meat as free range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. With the European Union introducing a similar change to its legislation, the introduction of this statutory instrument will enable English free-range producers and processors to continue to operate on a level playing field commercially with producers in the European Union and Northern Ireland. As broiler chickens are generally slaughtered before reaching 12 weeks of age, the removal of this derogation will apply primarily to higher-value free-range birds with longer production cycles, such as turkeys, ducks and geese.

We are working closely with devolved Governments to align the introduction of the planned changes. A statutory instrument was laid in the Scottish Parliament on 3 September 2025 to amend its domestic regulations in relation to the removal of the 12-week derogation period. We anticipate that the Welsh Government will make an announcement shortly regarding the removal of the 12-week derogation period within their legislation.

The change to be introduced by this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British poultry meat industry by reducing costs, continuing to ensure it is competitive against imports and by protecting the value of its products without compromising the high welfare and food safety standards expected by UK consumers and our trading partners. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, this is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day—a moment to celebrate our farmers and the vital contribution they make to our economy, countryside and food security. I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important statutory instrument with significant implications for producers and consumers who value high food standards.

We welcome this proposal, which, after consultation, seeks to resolve a persistent challenge balancing disease protection with honest and transparent labelling. This amendment rightly removes the 12-week limit for how long poultry can be kept indoors under mandatory housing measures while retaining the free-range label. The change, as I understand it, has the greatest effect on turkey, duck and goose producers, as chickens are generally slaughtered before the time limit expires.

On this day dedicated to British farming, it is fitting to recognise the immense pressures faced by our producers, especially after the impacts of avian influenza, and the need for legislation that is fair and practical. Mass culls, supply-chain issues and uncertainty have taken their toll on our rural communities, and that is why the priority must be a regulatory system that protects producers from circumstances that are often beyond their control, without undermining their hard-won reputations, of which so many of our UK food producers can be rightly proud.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently championed high animal welfare standards. When in government, we introduced the all-out ban on caged hens. Consumers expect clarity and integrity in their food labelling, and the free-range label stands for quality, welfare and trust, and it is important that those values must not be diluted or diminished.

Support for producers should never mean weaker animal welfare or compromised consumer trust, so I urge the Minister to confirm, or respond with reassurances, that the statutory instrument will not do any of the following. First, will she confirm that it will not exclude British free-range eggs or poultry from EU markets due to regulatory divergence, risking essential exports? After the trading challenges of bad post-Brexit deals, this is a pressure that our farming communities cannot continue to bear. Secondly, will she confirm that it will not dilute the high welfare expectations associated with the “free range” label, which our producers and customers depend on?

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the statutory instrument will not lead to confusion or reduce confidence in what “free range” genuinely means—I note the examples from the polling that the Minister used in her introductory remarks—for so many of our consumers who today wish, in increasing numbers, to make ethical choices? Meeting public expectations and reflecting farm realities requires transparency. The reputation of “free range” must remain as a guarantee of higher welfare, not merely a technicality. Also, how will the Government audit compliance, ensure that labelling reflects actual living standards and work with producers and consumer groups to uphold these robust standards?

We support these regulations; we are looking at the small print, but we are very much in support of this statutory instrument when it comes to providing detailed reassurances on animal welfare and consumer confidence. On Back British Farming Day, we stand with our farmers while demanding the highest standards for animals, rural communities and our food security system. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

With those few remarks, I repeat again that we totally support this SI, and we look forward to a happy Christmas with some good turkeys, ducks and geese for consumption—properly labelled, of course.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I know it has not been a very long debate, but I thank noble Lords for their support, because this is an important instrument.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked whether or not animal welfare would be diluted by it. The answer is: absolutely not. Animal welfare legislation continues to apply even though the birds are being housed. Keepers are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their birds, but we have good legislation in this country to ensure high animal welfare standards. Guidance for all bird-keepers on biosecurity and preventing welfare impacts on poultry has been published by Defra and is available on the avian influenza pages on the Government’s website.

On the free-range criteria, the criteria on which designation of the “free range” special marketing term is granted are outlined in Article 11 and Annexe V of the poultry meat market standards regulations. In summary, for poultry to be regarded as “free range”, the stocking rate in the house and the age at slaughter have to follow detailed requirements. To take chickens for example, the stocking rate per square metre of floor space must not exceed 15 birds and a live weight of 25 kilograms or less, and the age of slaughter must be 56 days or later. Continuous daytime access must also be provided to open-air runs that are covered by certain amounts of vegetation—for example, 4 square metres per turkey or goose. During mandatory housing measures, access to the open-air runs only will be restricted; all the other free-range criteria will continue to apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about enforcement. Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors conduct risk-based and random checks on free-range poultry producers. Local authorities also conduct checks at retail level. These inspections will ensure that only free-range poultry meat is labelled as free range during mandatory housing measures. Previously, retailers have put up clear signage to explain the conditions that are being met under the new arrangements.

Regarding consumer information and consumer confidence, we issue national, local and trade press releases to make sure that the latest information is communicated through the media. We also post the latest advice, key messages and situational updates on both the Defra and APHA social media channels. Working with different industry groups, the information is then distributed through those industry group members. In addition, you can also subscribe to APHA’s free animal disease alert service for any latest information on situations in Great Britain.

On the EU, there should not be a problem. As I mentioned in my introductory speech, the EU has confirmed that it is also intending to proceed with the removal of the 12-week derogation. Once Scotland and Wales have also come into line, because Northern Ireland is impacted by EU legislation, that should mean that we are all on the same page, which would be very helpful for trade.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the avian influenza aspect and the impact on birds. I am sure he is aware that the housing measures are brought in to reduce the risk that poultry and captive birds will come into contact with wild birds, because avian influenza is often passed on through wild bird populations. It is also not just about the bird itself but the wild bird faeces as well, which can also transmit the disease. Then, even when the birds are housed there is also a risk of infection, so this must be coupled with good biosecurity.

We do not want to see birds slaughtered so we are working with producers, the NFU and others on the importance of biosecurity. Good biosecurity—disinfecting clothing and equipment after use, repairing building defects such as holes in the roof, which unfortunately is often one way that wild birds can get in, and keeping good records, and so on and so forth—is one way that producers can reduce the impact. Obviously, we do not want to slaughter birds. I think we have a better understanding of avian influenza now than we did a few years ago; it is not going to go away.

It is also worth noting that, although the vaccination of poultry and captive birds against avian influenza is not currently permitted, and currently it is unlikely to provide full protection because of the kind of strains that we have at the moment, we are still looking at this issue. We are not there yet. We know that vaccination can help reduce mortality, but we are also concerned that despite that, they could still transmit the disease to other birds. So we are looking at that. There is more work happening on the longer-term view on tackling avian influenza but currently we are not there. Coming back to consumers and trading, we also know that some of our trading partners will not accept vaccination at present.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their support of the need for this instrument. As I outlined in my opening speech, the introduction of the mandatory housing measure is to protect the welfare of our poultry. Removing the derogation will support industry by reducing those financial pressures and will get a level playing field with trading partners, including the European Union, as they also move in the same direction. We have to do our part to support our poultry industry. I think I have answered all the questions, but I will check Hansard just to make sure. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 June be approved.

Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 September.

Motion agreed.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important Bill in the other place and for taking it through so eloquently. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for assuming responsibility for the Bill in this House, and I recognise her long commitment on this issue. I am delighted to speak and to confirm government support for the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and support. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, for his eloquent maiden speech. I look forward to his further contributions and welcome him warmly to our House.

As we have heard, dog ownership and the number of livestock kept in the UK have drastically increased since the passing of the 1953 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the survey that had been carried out by the National Sheep Association on the number of dog attacks now experienced by farmers—with 87% of them having experienced attacks in the last 12 months and 96% saying they experience between one and 10 cases of sheep worrying every year. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, spoke about a particularly harrowing attack, which demonstrates why the Bill is so needed.

To speak personally, a few years ago, our neighbour had some sheep on our top field. Unfortunately, there was a dog attack there. Luckily, no sheep died, but it is still horrendous when it happens. Unless you have seen it, it is difficult to truly imagine the damage and stress. The scale of these attacks is really concerning now, which is why the Government are so strongly supporting the Bill. We need urgent measures to protect our farmers and their animals.

We have heard about the devastating consequences—injury or death of animals, aborted lambs and flocks of birds being smothered—all of which are appalling to the farmers who own the livestock. The National Sheep Association’s survey showed clearly the concerns that farmers have raised. It also agreed that there is a need for additional police powers. We must go further to protect our agricultural sector from this, which is why we so strongly support the Bill.

Livestock worrying does not have just an emotional impact; it also places a large financial strain on farmers. A 2025 survey carried out by the National Farmers’ Union found that the total cost of livestock worrying across the UK reached £1.8 million. In England, the Midlands was the worst hit region in terms of cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £452,000. This clearly shows how detrimental it can be for farmers’ livelihoods.

The Bill will address farmers’ concerns by strengthening police powers. These include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Under current legislation, the police can seize a dog found and suspected to have attacked or worried livestock only for the purposes of identifying the owner. Under the Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk that a dog could attack or worry livestock again, they will have the power to seize and detain it. The dog can then be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought forward for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. Additionally, the police can currently enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog. The police powers will be extended to allow the police to enter and search premises with a warrant to seize a dog and take samples if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.

The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and dental impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that the sample or impression might provide evidence of the offence. These powers give the police the tools they need to bring offenders to justice and will help ease the worry that many farmers feel when it comes to dog attacks on their livestock.

To better deter livestock worrying offences, the Bill will also increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. This measure reflects the severe consequences that these incidents have for livestock and their keepers and the significant resources required by the police to investigate.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about guidance on these penalties. The courts will determine the appropriate fine amount, and that will take account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The level of the fine will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive. There were further questions around enforcement that I will come to in a moment.

Furthermore, the Bill will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly farmed. The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Reframing the legislation so that the term “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.

I come to the questions around enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about that, and I absolutely understand concerns around enforcement. As I said, there is no point in legislation if you do not enforce it. As the noble Lord so clearly demonstrated, it has not been working effectively enough—another reason for bringing in the Bill. It improves enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying and attacks much more effectively. It should help the police take each report more seriously. We have engaged with the police on the measures in the Bill, and we know that the police are very keen for it to go through and get on to the statute.

Most livestock worrying incidents are resolved out of court through the community resolution process, and this usually includes compensation paid by the offender to the livestock owner. There is also a separate regime for farmers to obtain compensation. Section 3 of the Animals Act 1971 provides that anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage by killing or injuring livestock may be liable for that damage. Farmers can also obtain and claim on their insurance in relation to losses incurred because of livestock worrying incidents. When cases are taken through the courts, as I said, the courts will determine the appropriate fine, taking into account the seriousness of the offence.

On the number of people prosecuted, the average number of livestock worrying prosecutions every year is 23. This is based on figures provided by the Ministry of Justice on the number of prosecutions from 2022 to 2024. The average number of people convicted and subsequently sentenced per annum is 20. That is based on the same figures from the MoJ. Because of the measures in the Bill, we would expect the number of prosecutions each year to increase.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also asked about enforcement. Just looking at the police recovering costs from seizing and detaining dogs, one issue is whether it will be expensive to enforce, and how that will affect the ability of the police. The Bill will make it easier for the police to reclaim any costs. Any dogs found without an owner or person in charge can be seized by the police and can be detained until the owner has claimed it back and paid all expenses incurred as a result of the seizure and detention. The police also have the power to dispose of or destroy a dog where the owner fails to pay these expenses within seven days of seizure. If the dog is seized and detained due to posing a continuing threat to livestock, the costs incurred can be recoverable if the owner is subsequently convicted. The Bill will enable the courts to make an order requiring the owner to pay whatever sum the court determines reasonable for the costs associated with the seizure and detention of the dog. The magistrates’ courts will also have powers to enforce these orders. The Government take this very seriously; we do not want extra costs on the police.

There was also a question about microchipping—it might have been from the noble Lord, Lord Trees. At the moment, 23 databases, operating independently of Defra, provide microchip data. If you include the dog’s microchip number in any evidence, that constitutes the processing of personal data and would give rise to a number of data protection issues, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions require the register to be made publicly available.

The Bill requires the police to keep a register of all dogs seized in the area, which must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure, and whether the dog was disposed of and how. That register must be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public, free of charge.

It has also been mentioned that this is an issue of responsible dog ownership, and I confirm to noble Lords that we have brought back the responsible dog ownership task force. We have asked it to do work in a number of areas, because it is important that people understand their responsibilities when they are owners of pets. For example, it is very frustrating when people say, “Look, Fido only wants to play”. There is a complete misunderstanding of the importance of keeping your dog under control in areas where there are livestock. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned the importance of socialisation, which, again, is incredibly important. Many dogs were left without this following Covid, so, again, it is an important part of educating owners on how best to look after their dogs.

Just to finish, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked a couple of questions. On petting zoos, it will be for the courts to decide whether a petting farm is agricultural land, based on the facts of each case as it goes to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Would it make sense, when the regulations come forward, to embrace all commercially produced animals in the definition, for the avoidance of doubt?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am happy to take these issues away. At the moment, it covers grazing land. The definition of grazing land is something, again, that the courts can look at. Perhaps we can consider those definitions further. On the noble Baroness’s final point, that the legislation will lapse in 2034, I would just like to confirm that it is not going to lapse in 2034.

I am confident that it has been recognised here today that the Bill is really necessary to protect our farmers and our livestock. I thank all noble Lords for their time and valuable contributions. The robust measures that this introduces are long overdue. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on continuing to pursue this issue. We must pass the Bill without delay to support our dedicated farmers who have long been calling for these measures.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers, as others have, for introducing this important Bill in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring it in this House. I know as well as everyone here that the noble Lord is a great advocate for animal welfare, and he has followed discussions on the Bill very closely.

The UK is a world leader in animal welfare and has a long history of promoting high animal welfare standards. Many across the House will agree that pets are important members of the family. The noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned my lovely cat, Sid. I also have a now rather elderly chocolate Labrador called Max. They are very important members of our household.

The Government take the issue of puppy smuggling and low-welfare imports of pets seriously. That is why we committed in our manifesto to bringing an end to this cruel trade, which causes unnecessary suffering to animals, in the pursuit of profit. This is a popular and important policy right across the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the organisations that support and have been pressing for this legislation over a number of years.

As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined, the importance of this legislation is that it looks to stop, for example, the exploitation of loopholes in our pet travel rules by unscrupulous traders. Crucially, the Bill reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that are permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement under the pet travel rules. That limit, as we have heard, will change from five pets per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. This means that non-compliant traders will not be able to evade the more stringent measures that apply to commercial imports by claiming that that the vehicles full of puppies are carrying their pets.

To clarify, and to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, where the purpose of a movement of a pet relates to the sale or transfer of ownership of the animal, the commercial importation rules should be used. But I am aware that some people, and many in the House today, have called for the measures to go a step further to reduce the limit to three per vehicle. We looked at this very carefully and had long discussions with Danny Chambers MP about it. One of the reasons for that decision was to not create unintended consequences for assistance dog users. There were concerns that that could negatively impact on their travel. But I can confirm for the noble Baroness that the Bill does give us the power to reduce the limit further, should there be evidence that the pet travel rules continue to be abused, and we will be keeping a very close eye on that.

The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet into Great Britain is explicitly linked to the movement of its owner. The amendments made by the Bill require that, in order to move under the pet travel rules, the pet and the owner will have to travel within five days of each other.

I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Black, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, about the disease brucella canis. I can clarify that we take biosecurity very seriously. Disease risk is monitored carefully and kept under constant review. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce, where necessary, preventive health measures to control diseases that are likely to be spread due to the movement of pet animals into Great Britain.

I now turn to some of the exemptions that were discussed. Crucially, the measures will make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to abuse the non-commercial pet travel rules. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned in his introduction, to ensure that the new measures do not disproportionately affect protected groups such as assistance dog users, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill will give the appropriate authority discretion to effectively exempt owners from these measures if needed. I want to reassure the House that these measures—this discretion—will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and the process for exercising the discretion will be tightly controlled to prevent misuse.

We do not want this to become a back door for illicit activity or to undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve. By incorporating this discretion, the Bill offers the flexibility needed to support responsible pet owners who could be affected by unforeseen events— something they did not know about in advance, such as a medical emergency or natural disaster that would affect travel plans—and provides reassurance to individuals relying on assistance dogs. As I said, we have the option to review the Bill going forward to make sure that no one is negatively impacted, particularly if we see that it is being abused. But every case will have to be judged on its individual merits. We will work in partnership with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop a clear and robust framework for the handling of exemption requests, ensuring that the discretion is exercised only when truly justified.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Sanderson, asked about exemptions to the prohibitions and restrictions that will be introduced within the Bill’s enabling powers. The main enabling powers allow exemptions to come through secondary legislation. We are going to continue to engage with stakeholders as the regulations are developed to make sure that we know that the introduction of exemptions is appropriate.

I am aware of the emails about the rescue and rehoming concerns about mutilated animals still being able to be brought in from abroad. We need to ensure that any pets that come into Great Britain for rescue or rehoming are moved in compliance with the stringent commercial import regime. We have to protect the biosecurity of our country and animal welfare during transport, and we know that bringing a dog from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We recommend that any prospective owners ensure testing for diseases, including Brucella canis, and that that is carried out before movement takes place. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce extra measures, as I said. The main thing is that any changes that we might make in future to the Bill do not open up loopholes. We do not want loopholes that undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve.

On the regulation-making powers in the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, rightly highlighted that the Government will first use these powers to raise the minimum age at which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain to six months. We will also restrict the movement of heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain.

I confirm to my noble friend Lord Grantchester that ear-cropping legislation applies to both commercial and non-commercial movements. In the other place, there was clear and vocal support at Third Reading to close the loophole that allows individuals to claim that mutilated dogs have been imported when in fact the animals have been illegally subjected to cruel procedures here. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly raised the fact that he can buy dog ear-cropping kits in this country on online, which is really shocking. To reassure him, it is an offence in England and Wales under the Animal Welfare Act to carry out a non-exempted mutilation, including the use of DIY cropping kits. Anyone convicted of illegally cropping a dog’s ear may be imprisoned for a term of up to five years, receive an unlimited fine or both. Those convicted of an offence may also be disqualified from owning or keeping animals. At the moment, the Government are focusing our efforts on delivering the crucial measures in this Bill, but doing so will also help us to do more to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and make it easier for us to police the existing offence in England and Wales, as future offenders will be unable to claim that the mutilation was undertaken abroad.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, asked about limiting the movement of pregnant dogs after 42 days’ gestation. The reason for this is that physical signs of pregnancy can be seen from 42 days’ gestation. These signs can be used during identity and visual checks at the border accurately to identify pregnant dogs and cats in the limit. That is why we cannot enforce a total ban on importing pregnant dogs. I spoke to enforcement officers about this, and they felt that this is the right approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about people who deliberately breed dogs with genetic defects, which is just appalling. We are considering a range of evidence, including the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on canine breeding and the findings from our post-implementation review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations. Under the LAIA regulations, anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs or who breeds three or more litters in a 12-month period must have a valid licence from their local authority. Licensed dog breeders are prohibited from breeding dogs if it can reasonably be expected on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health that this would lead to welfare problems for the mother or the puppies. Elsewhere, we support the work of the UK Brachycephalic Working Group, which works towards a world where no dog experiences health-related welfare problems as a result of being selectively bred. We also support the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, whose work helps online sales platforms to identify and remove illegal and unethical adverts, and we will continue to do further work on this.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding the exemptions to these prohibitions. Delivering these measures via secondary legislation allows us to gather further evidence and discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. It is important that any new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively without any unintended consequences. Any exemptions have to be appropriate. The department has already started discussions with the Kennel Club and Assistance Dogs International because, if there are going to be exemptions, we need to have proper information and evidence that they are the right way to go forward. As I said before, if anything is brought in as an exemption, we have to be confident that it is not going to create an unacceptable loophole.

The eagle-eyed will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial measures. This is because very low volumes of ferrets are brought into Great Britain. Unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in or low-welfare movement of ferrets at this time. However, if that changes, we will be able to continue to protect ferrets’ welfare in the future.

A number of noble Lords asked about enforcement. Any new legislation is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Therefore, we are working closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the guidance and tools to enforce these measures effectively. The Bill also introduces new powers to make regulations to provide authorities with additional enforcement powers when they are presented with a non-compliant pet.

I shall answer a few specific questions. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are going to be responsible for enforcing any new pet travel and commercial import requirements, and the Bill will make regulations to give them a clear process to do so. We anticipate limited additional impact on enforcement authorities, but we will continue to work with them to assess funding and resource impacts. In fact, much of what is in this Bill will make their job more straightforward with better outcomes.

We are looking at how to develop guidance so that enforcement bodies have the correct tools they need to deliver these measures. There are powers in the Bill to introduce measures to support and strengthen the current enforcement mechanisms. For example, this could be in relation to the detention and seizure of non-compliant dogs and cats and the costs associated with that seizure and detention, the rehoming of abandoned animals and any financial penalties. In response to my noble friend Lord Grantchester, I should say that the Bill creates the power to make regulations about detention and seizure because they are necessary to ensure that we get effective enforcement. As I said, what is the point if we if we do not have effective enforcement? Delivering those measures through secondary legislation means that we can develop those proposals with the enforcement bodies to make sure they are effective, efficient and proportionate.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about Northern Ireland. EU regulations relevant to pet travel apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Windsor Framework, as the noble Lord said. Therefore, the changes that the Bill makes to the maximum number of permitted single non-commercial consignments do not apply to Northern Ireland. The enabling powers in the Bill allow DAERA to introduce regulations restricting the bringing into Northern Ireland of dogs, cats and ferrets on welfare grounds, as appropriate. Officials and enforcement agencies across all four nations will continue to work together closely to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and safeguard the welfare of animals. That should make a difference, particularly as DAERA is currently consulting on some proposals. If those proposals are implemented, it would mean that anyone who sells puppies would need to be registered with their local council and registered individuals would not be able to sell, give away or otherwise transfer the ownership of the puppies that are unweaned, weaned at an age when they should not have been weaned or aged under eight weeks old. This, paired with the fact that third-party sales and sales below eight weeks of age are already banned across the rest of GB means that the issue can be tackled by separate legislation.

Having talked about Northern Ireland, I will say a few words on territorial consent. We have had legislative consent from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We are continuing to engage with the Welsh Government as their legislative consent process continues to progress. They do support the Bill; it is just a matter of it going through their parliament.

Changes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme, including the revised cap on the maximum number that may enter GB in a single non-commercial movement, and the requirement that the journey should take place within five days of the owners’ travels will apply in England, Wales and Scotland—I confirm that. The regulatory powers will extend across all four nations of the United Kingdom, although the duty to enact the three prohibitions the first time the power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply to domestic travel; this is really important. The Bill does not apply to the domestic travel of dogs, cats and ferrets, including movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those journeys will not be affected by this legislation.

As I said at the beginning, we made a manifesto commitment to put an end to the cruel puppy-smuggling trade. I am delighted that the Government are supporting this Bill so that we can get to work on this. I have backed previously failed versions of this legislation, so I am delighted to be here representing the Government supporting a Bill that we expect to get onto the statute book. Regarding timings, we are serious about this as it was a manifesto commitment, so we will bring in the measures needed as soon as is practically possible. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for taking this important Bill through the House today and I look forward to us all working together as the Bill progresses.

Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 30th 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, these regulations were laid before the House on 19 June 2025. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 4 July in relation to the draft instrument. It corrected a typographical error on page three of the draft regulations that are the subject of this debate. The change was from Her Majesty’s Treasury to His Majesty’s Treasury. Clearly, this does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation.

In February 2025 we consulted on expanding the warm home discount scheme, which provides low-income and vulnerable households with a £150 rebate off their energy bills. Today, we are considering the regulations that will allow us to implement those changes and bring this much-needed relief to around 2.7 million additional households. Since we took office, this Government have been committed to alleviating fuel poverty. Our review of the 2021 fuel poverty strategy made clear that progress has stalled and that we need a new plan to speed up progress on tackling fuel poverty. There are two principal ways of doing this. The first is by improving household energy performance and the second by expanding direct bill support to make energy more affordable.

Starting with the first, at the spending review in June, the Chancellor confirmed £13.2 billion for our warm home plan that will transform the housing stock and improve energy efficiency across the country, ensuring that less money is wasted on leaking, ageing homes that are expensive to heat. However, while we press on with that vital work, we recognise that many households remain at risk of fuel poverty and cannot wait until later in this Parliament to feel the benefits. That is why we are also expanding the warm home discount, providing vital support to those who need it most. This support will be available immediately, coming into effect this winter and, importantly, consumers do not need to take any action to receive it.

Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped around 3 million low-income and vulnerable households every year by reducing their energy bills when it is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £150 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills, and more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households also receive rebates.

The statutory instrument before us seeks to amend the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 to allow changes to the eligibility criteria for this coming winter so that more households can receive rebates. It will also extend the time period in which rebate notices can be issued to suppliers, so that as many as possible can be issued before the current regulations expire on 31 March 2026. The SI also amends the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 to increase suppliers’ non-core spending obligation by an amount considered to be commensurate to the expected increase in England and Wales.

This SI is a result of our consultation in February, in which we proposed to remove the high cost to heat threshold that we believed was unfairly excluding some vulnerable households from the scheme. This threshold often meant that families in almost identical circumstances were treated differently, with some receiving the rebate while others missed out. The current system also excludes many households in smaller properties because their home is not classified as high cost to heat, meaning that our support has not been reaching some of those who need it the most.

Removing the high cost to heat threshold will make all energy bill payers who receive a qualifying means-tested benefit eligible for the warm home discount. By bringing around 2.7 million additional households into the scheme, it pushes the total number of households that will receive the discount in winter 2025-26 up to around 6 million, which is one in five households in the UK.

We have a statutory duty to tackle fuel poverty. It is our duty as a Government to break down the barriers that prevent some of the most vulnerable families in the country receiving the support they need. The proposed regulations will help us to achieve this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate on an important issue for their contributions and for the broad support that the Committee has expressed for this statutory instrument. I shall cover the questions as best I can. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the fact that the scheme relates to electricity bills. She referenced the issues around rural heating—she mentioned Cumbria, where I live. It is a real issue for rural areas. We need to move away from fossil fuels. There are some challenges in rural areas on how we do that. I know that the department is working hard on this to understand those challenges because the transition needs to be countrywide, not just in one area and not another.

The noble Baroness also asked about universal credit. It is probably best if I ask my colleagues in the DWP to respond to that because I do not have the information and officials in DESNZ would not, so we will pass that on to the DWP if that is okay with her. She also asked about lower benefits to households. I stress that the impact assessment is based on our best estimates, but its purpose is to help those who are on low-income and means-tested benefits because that is the best way for us to get directly to the people who need the most support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. There were a few questions, which I believe her officials will have noted. I appreciate that UC and DWP are different, but the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that DESNZ assumes that 28% of people will not get this discount despite the other matter. I am sure that the Government will get the other Minister—the one from DESNZ—to reply, but I am grateful to this Minister for her responses so far.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that we can comb through Hansard and make sure that proper, detailed information is provided to the noble Baroness on the issues that she raised.

This scheme has been running for 14 years now. Over that time, more than £4 billion-worth of direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households. These regulations will build on that legacy by allowing support to reach more people this winter, including vulnerable households that were previously shut out of the scheme.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I have a point of clarification. The Minister responded to me most kindly about how the Government are going to invest in SMRs. I know that, if the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—a former Secretary of State for Energy—were here, he would stand up and say, “I’m speaking to all the SMR providers. They’re saying to me that they are ready to go. They’re doing it with other countries, but they need more progress from the UK”. Can the Minister come back to us at some point with a bit more detail on when are we going to see some progress with the SMRs? What is holding us back? Can we action this urgently?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Earl and his colleagues are aware that we have made a very strong commitment to nuclear energy and are pushing forward on that in a way that previous Governments have not done. It is really important that we are investing in nuclear energy with that commitment. The department is working up exactly what that will look like; I am sure that, when the time is right, the noble Earl and his colleagues will hear more about SMRs.

Motion agreed.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce activity regulations under the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023.

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

My Lords, the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023 provides a framework for the introduction of future bans on the advertising and offering for sale, in England and Northern Ireland, of low-welfare animal activities abroad. We are currently engaging with both industry and stakeholders to explore the most effective way to protect animals in specific low-welfare activities abroad from considerable suffering and unacceptable practices. We are therefore looking at both legislative and non-legislative options.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She said that this is an important piece of legislation, which was piloted through this Chamber by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. It is now two years since this important legislation was passed with strong cross-party support from the then Opposition, and indeed from the Minister herself, and we still have not seen these regulations. Can the Minister now give us a clear and transparent timetable for the introduction of the regulations?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct. As he is aware, I strongly supported the then Bill when it went through Parliament, because I do not want to see the abuse of animals in any circumstances. However, having looked at the Act and how to take it forward, there are certain challenges to ensure that it is effective when it is brought in. There is no point having legislation that is not going to do what we want it to do. First, it has to be clear for advertisers and enforcement bodies which activities are in scope, so we are looking at which activities to prioritise and bring into scope. We need to determine whether an advertised activity meets the criteria for being low welfare, because we need to ensure that high-welfare activities are not inadvertently impacted. We also need to ensure that the party placing the advert can be identified. This is complex, because it is about banning advertising only in this country, whereas many advertised holidays are not from organisations based here and the activities are abroad. It is complex, but I am determined that we get this right.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of media reports suggesting that this appalling practice is on the increase? In the light of that, what urgent support and guidance can she provide for the UK tourism industry that could be used right now to reduce this immediately, particularly given the current delay that she described in the introduction and implementation of the Act?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One reason I talked about non-legislative options is that we want to stop people buying such holidays in the first place. One problem is that, when people book a holiday with an elephant ride, they simply do not understand what has happened to that elephant and how it has been treated so that it can be ridden—so there is an education piece. It is currently the case that ABTA, which represents around 90% of British travel agents, offers guidance, working with its own members, as to what kind of activities are considered to be unacceptable. That guidance is there and we have been working with ABTA to look at how we can encourage further uptake—90% is a high number, but it is not everybody.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am so sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I cannot give her a date. All I can say is that it is something I am actively looking at and working on. We are shortly going to be publishing the animal welfare strategy, which I have been preparing over the last 12 months; that will be out before the end of the year. We are including this within the animal welfare strategy as something that we want to deliver.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, following my almost namesake, since we humans are also animals, is there any way the Government can stop Members of Parliament carrying out low-level activities abroad rather than attending Westminster or their constituency—mentioning no names?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would imagine that is probably an education piece.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm what specific criteria or evidence the Government are using to determine which activities abroad will be considered low welfare under the forthcoming regulations?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am determined to look at what makes the biggest difference. The whole essence of my approach to animal welfare is what makes the biggest difference, where are the most animals suffering abuse, and what can we do to try to reduce that. Those are the criteria we are looking at.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of taking this legislation through this House, with the support of the Minister. I am profoundly disappointed that, two years after it reached the statute book, it has not been implemented, letting down the 150 charities which campaigned for it and the animals it would protect. Does the Minister recall the terrible fate of 20 year-old Andrea Taylor, who was violently killed on a visit to the Nongnooch resort in Thailand when an elephant which had been brutalised charged her? She is one of the many tourists killed or injured because this legislation is not yet effectively in place. Is it not unacceptable that until this law is implemented by regulation, tragically, there will be more Andrea Taylors?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I congratulate the noble Lord on sponsoring the Bill; I was very happy to support him. I point out that it may be two years since the legislation, but I have not been the Minister for two years. That is not to say that it has not been some time. I have met campaigners and stakeholders, and I am determined to take this through. It is, unfortunately, proving to be more complex than I would have liked, and I am absolutely aware of the tragic case he talks about. That is why we need to work not just on the legislation but more broadly than that. People can still buy these holidays online, advertised from other countries. We need to look not just at the legislation we can bring forward through this particular Act but much more broadly.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, there is a pattern emerging from the Minister’s department, in that we continue to have a similar situation around the regulations on deforestation and forest risk products. What can she do to ensure her department turns the will of Parliament into legislation rather more quickly than seems to be happening at the moment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am aware of what the noble Lord is talking about regarding deforestation. I have been working with Minister Creagh from the other place on this and we are looking at the best way to take it forward.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the civil servants working on this and other issues have timeframes for these decisions? It seems to me that they should know how long it will take to conduct some sort of investigation and come forward with policies, so that the House will have some idea of when things are going to change.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Civil Service animal welfare team in Defra is extremely committed and works incredibly hard. This is a very broad area, with many areas of animal welfare that we are working on at the same time. This is something that we want to deliver on. I know the team is working very hard with both industry and stakeholders to look at the best way to bring legislation forward.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the commitment previously given to provide an opt-out for certified zoos will be part of these regulations when they are published?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assume that the activities the noble Lord is referring to regarding zoos are high-welfare activities. As I said, we are looking at how best to bring legislation forward. For any activity to be exempt, there would need to be compelling, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the activity was high welfare and therefore not to be constrained by any legislation coming forward. Part of the work in developing future legislation is considering how best to do that.

Independent Water Commission

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for making time for the repeat of this Statement. I also thank my noble friend Lady Grender for having another critical engagement at this time, thus allowing me to speak on the subject which had become routine for me over the preceding years. The noble Baroness the Minister and I have made many contributions on this subject in the years running up to the general election, both of us vehement about the lack of control Ofwat was exercising.

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report is lengthy, robust and to be welcomed. We look forward to knowing exactly how many of his recommendations the Government will take forward.

Since 2022, Liberal Democrats have called for the abolition of Ofwat. It is an organisation that is completely out of its depth. It had no real way of dealing with water companies, which seemed to have forgotten that their real remit was to provide a plentiful supply of clean water and dispose of sewage in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. Although some water companies were fined by Ofwat, their sanctions bore no relationship to the number of bonuses and dividends that the executives and shareholders received for doing an abysmal job.

Like others, I welcomed the Government’s ban on bonuses for water company executives who oversaw sewage discharges. However, at least one chief executive and his colleagues got round this by receiving a 100% increase in their pay by way of compensation for the absence of a bonus. It is ordinary water users and taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this, just as they have to contribute to the bill for the increases which will be needed to repair the creaking and dilapidated sewerage system and to build new reservoirs.

The Government have stated that they will cut water companies’ sewage pollution by half by the end of the decade. This is to be welcomed, but how exactly will this be achieved? Bringing the oversight of the water industry under a single regulator which has the means to ensure high standards is essential, but I have some concerns. Previously, we have seen a rotation of officers from the water companies into Ofwat and from Ofwat into the water companies—a merry-go-round of incompetence. Is the Minister able to give the House reassurance that no existing or previous officer of Ofwat or any of the failing water companies will have a role in the new regulator once established? It is essential that the incompetent are not rewarded with having a role in the new regulator. A fresh start has to be just that, and not tainted with previous failure.

We look forward to the interim strategy policy statement giving directions to Ofwat and the Environment Agency on how to move forwards towards the transition plan. The Environment Agency is not without involvement in the sewage discharge debacle. While the EA has been underfunded over recent years, and with ever more responsibilities thrust upon it, a radical rethink of the way it operates has to be part of the solution going forward.

Since Liberal Democrats have been raising the issue of sewage spills in this Chamber and the other place, the EA has found that last year alone, there was a 60% increase in serious pollution incidents. We are at the start of the school summer holidays. Children and their families will be going to beaches and rivers to enjoy relaxation and at least a paddle, as well as swimming to cool down in the heat—which we hope will return.

So many of these children will be in water that is polluted with raw sewage spills, discoloured and stinking. Certainly, I would not want my grandchildren to swim in such waters. Families should be able to take their children for a day out at the beach without having to worry about whether the water is contaminated. The sooner the Government can bring the water companies to book, the better. The lackadaisical approach to sewage discharges has to stop, and quickly.

Last year, water companies breached their permits more than 3,100 times, at the same time as paying out a total of £9.3 million in executive bonuses. No single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health; no English river is in good chemical health; and just 14% of English rivers are in good ecological health. This is a far cry from my childhood, when the babbling brook ran with clear, transparent water and I could see the minnows swimming along, trying to escape my small fishing net. I am confident that the Minister is as concerned about these issues as the rest of us.

What is needed is: more access for communities and citizens to hold water companies to account, including representation on water company boards; improvements in how pollution is measured and strict targets set, using volume flow meters and penalties for missing targets; an urgent implementation of a social tariff on water bills to help eliminate water poverty; and legally binding targets on the quantity and quality of bathing waters and sensitive nature sites, with independent and transparent testing of water quality. Local authorities, although already overstretched, should have strengthened powers to monitor the health of our rivers, lakes and coastlines in order to restore our natural environment and help tackle climate change.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on this vital issue, which affects every single water user in the country.

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

I thank noble Lords for their broad support for the recommendations that have come out of the Cunliffe report. This is a very important step forward in cleaning up our waterways.

The Statement talks about the five recommendations that we are taking forward immediately, including: the new statutory water ombudsman, ending operator self-monitoring, and the new single water regulator— I think there is consensus that Ofwat has not done its job effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, makes an important point when she says that we should not reward incompetence, and I am sure that will be fed through. There will also be greater local involvement. The noble Baroness talked about communities; we want them to be more involved, and customers to be right at the heart of how we move forward with these changes. That is one of the reasons for bringing forward the regional element: to enable communities and consumers to be more central in water planning and how we manage pollution going forward. There will also be an improved strategic direction, because water strategy has failed abysmally over the last few years.

Of course, this is not the limit of our ambition. We will respond in the autumn in full to the recommendations in the Cunliffe report. We will publish a White Paper, which will be open for consultation, and we intend to follow that up with a water reform Bill. So, many of the questions that the noble Lords asked, and I assume will continue to be asked, will be able to be addressed once we see that White Paper, and that consultation will be available for people to take part in.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a few questions, which I will address. First, he talked about funding. I stress that it is actually this Government who secured the £104 billion of investment, which is so needed because of the lack of investment in the water industry over many years. That is going to be critical to improving leakage, for example, and providing better service for customers. He asked whether the regulator would be independent of the water industry but also answerable to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. We have said in the White Paper that we are going to have this new, single water regulator. Those are the kinds of questions that will be debated as we move through that process in order to inform our further legislation when it comes forward.

Social tariffs were mentioned by both noble Lords. As I said, we want to put customers at the heart of the new model that we are developing. The recommendations made by the Independent Water Commission talk about national social tariffs and the introduction of compulsory smart meters. These will be considered alongside all the other recommendations as we move forward. As I said, further information will come out this autumn, when we have developed the White Paper.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also talked about the monitoring of overflows and mentioned that in 2010, 7% were monitored, and by 2023, at the end of the previous Government, it was 100%. In answer to that, a lot of this monitoring came in because of public pressure and because of the absolute horror at the amount of pollution that was going into our waterways. People had not been aware of that before. While we are very pleased that the previous Government increased monitoring, there is responsibility to be taken for the amount of pollution that had gone into our waterways and the complete incompetence of the regulators at the time, which is what we are now trying to address.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the target to reduce pollution—50% by 2030—and how that was going to be delivered. We have combined this with the existing commitment in the environmental improvement plan to reduce phosphorus from treated wastewater by 50% by 2028. Together, those two targets form the pledge that we are making on this commitment. Ofwat and water companies previously agreed a commitment for water companies on the PR24 agreement for storm overflow spills to be reduced by 45%, based on a 2021 baseline. To be clear, the data between 2021 and 2024 does not compare, because in 2021, only 88% of storm overflows were monitored. Although it looks less, the amount has increased, as has our knowledge. Our target for storm overflows is based on the 50% reduction in spills from storm overflows by the end of 2029, compared with 2024 levels. We can do that because we now have 100% of storm overflows monitored.

More broadly on communities, we are engaging for the first time on entire river catchment systems. As part of that, we want to bring local people, local authorities —which have an important voice—businesses, and farming communities, of course, into the work that we are doing to improve pollution systems in their local area. As I said, that will be done on a regional basis and then into the catchment model system. That will be more effective, I hope.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister and I have a long and mainly happy history of trying to reform the water industry, including the replacement of Ofwat. I read with interest the 88 recommendations in this very timely and useful report. There is a lot to discuss, much of it welcome, but for now I will focus on two questions.

First, the report underlines the need to recognise the very long-term nature of water infrastructure investment. It says that the strategic policy statements have been too short term and that water company plans, typically of five years, encourage short-term thinking. I have often asked successive Ministers to make it clear that there is no quick fix here. This will be very disruptive to consumers, cost billions of pounds and, crucially, will take at least 25 years to implement. That is five parliamentary terms. The Government need to be honest with the public on this, so I ask the Minister to underline this and to make clear the likely timeline for this refurbishment of the water and sewerage infra- structure.

Secondly, the report summary on page 29 calls for more

“senior engineering and financial expertise”

on its board. I agree with that, but a key problem at Ofwat was that it lacked the financial engineering skills to grasp what private equity investors were up to, which led to so many of the debt problems and other issues in the finances of the water companies that we see today. Will the Minister be pressing for expertise in financial engineering in this area to be included in any new board?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Any new board must have the right expertise if it is to deliver what we want for the industry. The noble Lord makes a very important point that whatever that expertise is, we must ensure that any future regulatory systems are set up to do the job they are supposed to do and that they have the knowledge, ability and skills to do that effectively. Otherwise, we will end up with a regulator that is, again, ineffective, which is not how we want to move forward.

The noble Lord makes a good point—this will take a long time. I hope the general public recognise that this is a long-term rebuilding programme. We are rebuilding a lot of a very old system, and we must get it right. This is also why will be bringing out the White Paper in the autumn, as quickly as we can, following the publication by the committee. From that, we will do the consultation, which must inform the public of what we are looking to achieve and what the timescales will be.

We want to bring in new legislation as swiftly as practically possible following that White Paper. That will also be part of the discussion on how we bring people with us, because people want to see the water industry cleaned up.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the things we discussed in the Climate Change Committee was the performance of the regulator. An issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in her instructive comments, was the revolving door between the water companies and the regulator, in both directions. What action will the Government take to make sure that the door is slammed shut?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have already said, we must get the regulator right, we must get the boards right, and we must move forward with this. There is no point in making the same mistakes that have been made over a number of years, and in not learning from what went wrong before. Getting the regulator and the boards right will be critical to achieving that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate Sir Jon Cunliffe and the Independent Water Commission on their excellent work, and I declare my interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group. What legislative timetable is envisaged? In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward a new water reform Bill early this Parliament. We are more than halfway through this parliamentary Session, so it would be interesting to hear exactly what timetable the Government envisage. Can the Minister also confirm that National Highways will be made responsible for the water run-off and the pollution it contributes to?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the timetabling, clearly, it is not something we can bring in this Session. We do not yet know when the end of the Session will be—we have not been informed about that—but when we have reached the end we will look to see when it will be practically possible to bring in such a Bill. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that this is a government priority.

The run-off from roads and agricultural run-off is being taken very seriously, and our response and how we will manage it as part of our overall approach to water pollution is being worked on.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that Sir Jon Cunliffe was not given the option to look at renationalisation. In the other place, the Secretary of State for Defra has twice replied to Green MPs Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, saying that his department looked at the cost of renationalisation and it came out at £100 billion. I have two sheets of paper here with lots of ideas about how we could renationalise without that sort of figure being necessary. The most exciting one suggests that, if we stack the liabilities against the assets of these companies, they would be worthless. So, perhaps the Minister could tell the Secretary of State to get new accountants or consult the professor of accounting we have here in your Lordships’ House. I would be pleased to give him these two sheets of paper with all these different ideas.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct: we have ruled out nationalisation. But if she would like to share the paperwork, I would be more than happy to look at it.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, Ministers claim that public ownership of water would somehow cost £100 billion, which is a totally unsound claim. Let me explain. The £100 billion figure is generated by Ofwat, which calls it “recognised capital value”. It is calculated by taking the value of the company at the time of privatisation, adding the annual investment and multiplying it by the annual rate of inflation. It adds that 35 times—that is, over 35 years—and comes up with the figure of £100 billion, which does not represent anything. On the same basis, a £10,000 Reliant Robin bought by Del Boy in 1990 would now have a value of over £50,000. There is no way that Del Boy would be able to sell it for £50,000, because that figure has absolutely nothing to do with value. So, can the Minister explain why the Government consider £100 billion to be a credible figure for the cost of public ownership?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would just say to my noble friend that we have discussed this on a number of occasions, including with officials in the department. I am sure that we will continue to discuss it.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister have the White Paper consider, and perhaps consider for the Bill, the idea of setting minimum annual investment requirements? I do not know much about Ofwat, but I know a bit about Ofgem. During the time when I was on a power company board, our annual bids to spend our money on improving our network were cut down by an average of about £1 billion a year. So long as the regulators feel that they are under pressure to keep costs to the consumer down, that is what will happen. It seems to me that Parliament and the Government need to take responsibility for setting a requirement on replacing the crumbling infrastructure. That should be at least discussed in the White Paper, and I hope it will find a place in the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Part of the reason why we have got into this mess is the focus on keeping bills low. People do not want to pay high bills, but if you are constantly putting pressure on that and not investing in the infrastructure, that is when you end up with a lot of these problems. That is why in PR24 we gave the most investment ever—to try to turn around some of the problems. The noble Lord makes a good point about what we need to look at going forward, in order to ensure that we do not have these sorts of problems in the future. He is absolutely right that this needs to be part of what we look at following the White Paper. I would be very happy if he has any ideas to share with me following his experience with Ofgem. That would be very interesting.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former water company director—one involved in clean water only, not wastewater. In the speech made on Monday by the Secretary of State, he made it clear as a priority that the customer would come first in all these considerations. The customer matters more than everybody else in terms of the environmental effects and, in particular, in the pricing of this utility. There is a price review going on. Can the Minister confirm that the role of the ombudsman, certainly in the pricing review, will give priority to pricing because of the incredible increases recently in water bills? In particular, will standing charges be looked at thoroughly because, in many cases of low consumption, the standing charge has become an enormous impediment in an awful lot of people’s water bills?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My right honourable friend said in his speech down the other end that the new regulator

“will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past”.

That basically demonstrates that we need to look at the big picture about what went wrong in the past and what we need to do to rectify it in the future. I am sure that we can look at the noble Lord’s suggestions as we move forward to ensure that we have regulation and pricing that are fit for purpose.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I declare my interest as a board member and director of the Water Retail Company. I thank the Minister for the Statement, and we welcome the report. I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking all the members of the public, charities and NGOs who have done so much work to ensure that we are aware of the level of the sewage crisis and the pollution in our water system. I noticed that there is no direct recommendation in the report to support citizen science. What action will the Government take to support these citizens? What is happening with the water restoration fund?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes an important point about citizen science and input from local communities. He is right that, in many ways, we are standing here today discussing the outcome of the commission because of the recognition by government of the problem that was originally raised by organisations such as Surfers Against Sewage and anglers’ associations, and by individuals such as Feargal Sharkey. It is important to recognise that this was brought to government’s notice because of the campaigns and the work by volunteers and charitable organisations. That is why it is critical that we continue those discussions with those organisations as we develop the White Paper and the legislation, because if you have experience of dealing with problems on the ground, you can bring valuable suggestions to the development of legislation.

Citizen science will be an important part of this. An example is Lake Windermere: there is a local group of people working there that we are trying to work with and support to look at how we specifically deal with the challenges there.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, like others, I would have preferred renationalisation, but a strengthened and unified regulator was my second choice so I welcome much of this report. However, will the next stage, the White Paper and the later legislation, envisage a situation where there is a system closer to franchising than to the total freedom of the water companies to carry on doing a disastrous job, as they have done since privatisation?

My other point is that, in relation to consumers, there seems to be a bit of confusion between the role of the Consumer Council for Water, which represents consumers, and a new ombudsman, which is a quasi-judicial body resolving problems raised by consumers. Possibly the Consumer Council for Water should be run by Citizens Advice, but there should not be confusion between the two jobs.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I take that point, which is a good point well made about that confusion. I am sure we will take it back to the department. The report includes proposals about ownership, which will be part of any consultation from a White Paper. That is another important point that we need to consider.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, some very high salaries have been reported payable to senior water officials. Can the Minister say whether those salaries require ministerial approval?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Water companies are private companies so, on that basis, no, they would not require ministerial approval.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, there are 83 recommendations from the report on which the Government have yet to decide what view they will take. Some of them are quite small wins—for example, the recommendations by Sir Jon on rainwater harvesting to address the shortages in housing. That could be sorted out, before a White Paper, in the Planning and Infra- structure Bill. Will the Government take all reasonable opportunities, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, to address some of the sensible recommendations outlined in the report?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a sensible suggestion by the noble Baroness. I am happy to discuss those considerations with the Water Minister and the Secretary of State to see if we cannot move things forward as quickly as we can.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Having worked so closely with the Minister, I know how dedicated she is to getting this right. I congratulate her and the Government on their decision to act swiftly on Sir Jon Cunliffe’s excellent report. I relay congratulations from my friend, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who was a leading voice in this House on this issue.

What safeguards will be in place to avoid the kind of hideous bureaucracy that we have seen bog down the industry and the monitoring of these water pollution incidents? Will the new regulator—a long called-for and excellent move—have the right remit from the start to avoid the kind of financial engineering that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to? Will it have proper data so that the public can have confidence that they know what is going on, including tying pay for water companies to performance and perhaps having delayed compensation schemes so that, for example, we can get pension funds investing profitably in them for the long term rather than the short-term profitability that we have so often seen?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Investment will be critical. That is a very important point. The answer to most of the noble Baroness’s questions will lie in the consultation and the response to the White Paper on how we move forward. In particular, it is important that we have the opportunity as early as possible to start talking about it and considering how to prioritise what needs to be in place in order to start delivering on our concerns and the outcomes as soon as we can.

It is worth pointing out that the existing regulators will stay in place until the new system is in place. The Government will clarify our expectations to the existing regulation system ahead of that, because we do not want the regulators just to continue as they have been. We will publish a strategic policy statement, which will have ministerial direction attached to it, at some point this year.