Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in heading off the ever-growing tide of waste which blights our planet, we must prioritise both responsibility and fairness. Those who create waste must rightly take responsibility for its safe treatment at the end of its life, and those costs should be shared fairly and borne by those who also make the profit.

As your Lordships know, we are facing a mounting waste crisis and electrical waste is no exception; in fact, it is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, and the UK is the second-biggest generator of electrical waste in the world. Many electricals, including those sold from the online retail and vaping industries, are ending up in our bins, littering our streets and, too often, harming our natural environment. This is not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially. We must reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill and, in doing so, we must ensure that those who benefit from selling electrical items pay fully and fairly for their treatment at end of life.

This legislation will address two key areas. I will start by addressing the issue of sales of electricals placed on the market via online marketplaces and overseas sellers who are not meeting their obligations. The sales of electricals from sellers based overseas via online marketplaces, such as eBay and Amazon, are skyrocketing, with over 0.5 million electricals being sold every year via these platforms. I am sure that many Members of this House have recently made just such a purchase. However, when UK businesses sell an electrical item, they incur an obligation to pay for its recycling at the end of its life, and most overseas sellers using these platforms are not meeting their financial obligations to do the same. This is wrong, not least because compliant UK-based businesses are picking up the costs for those free-riding under the existing regulations. We believe that this must stop.

I now turn my attention to the issue of vapes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and other similar products, which for convenience I will refer to simply as “vapes” for the rest of this debate. The Government have already banned the sale of single-use vapes—a vital first step in taking an environmentally harmful product off the market—but our work does not end here. Other types of rechargeable and refillable vapes continue to be sold, and we need to ensure that their collection and treatment is properly and fairly funded. Producers of electricals, including vapes, are already required to finance the cost of their treatment when they become waste. However, existing regulations mean that producers of other types of goods—toys and leisure equipment, for example—risk cross-subsidising the waste management costs of vapes. This cannot go on. Vapes are difficult and expensive to recycle, as they contain hazardous substances and can cause serious fires if not treated correctly.

Unfortunately, a friend of mine suffered from such a fire in a recent incident. He has a haulage company, and he was called in the early hours of the morning to be told that one of his lorries had caught fire. By the time that the fire service was able to put the fires out, he had lost nearly all his lorries. It was absolutely appalling, and it was all down to a consignment of vapes in one of the lorries. So this is a serious issue, for health and for business purposes, which we really need to address.

We believe that the responsibility for dealing with vapes when they become waste must fall squarely on the shoulders of those who produce them. This is why I am pleased and proud to introduce these regulations, which will hold those producers directly accountable for the environmental impact of the vapes and other similar products that they place on the UK market. This instrument is about fairness for UK businesses. It is about supporting them to do the right thing and ensuring that the right people are paying their fair share of the waste management costs associated with their products. In doing so, we send the clear message that environmental responsibility is not optional; it is part of doing business in a modern, circular economy.

Transitioning to a zero-waste economy is one of five priorities that Defra will deliver as part of a mission-led approach to government. Our circular economy strategy later this year will set out further plans to stem the rising tide of electronic waste. This Government are committed to putting the “polluter pays” principle into action. We are on the side of those businesses that behave responsibly to protect our planet, and we are rooting out those that are not doing their fair share. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I warmly welcome and support. In the case of her road haulier friend, I hope that he had good insurance and was able to recover the costs and get back on the road again. I have a couple of questions in order to understand more of the detail of how the regulations will work.

The Minister mentioned Amazon and eBay, but one that keeps bobbing up, although I have never actually used it, is Temu, which seems to be everywhere for everybody. I welcome what the Minister is proposing in respect of online marketplace operators, but my question is how it will work in connection with the electrical goods to which the regulations refer. When one makes a purchase—obviously, I have used one of the companies to which the Minister referred, which I do not want to advertise, as there are others available—at what stage will the regulations kick into effect? How will her department police the operations as smoothly as the regulations envisage?

Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states:

“There are difficulties with enforcement of the 2013 Regulations against non-UK based suppliers”.


Obviously, one of the reasons that electrical goods are cheaper online is because the suppliers have not been paying for the costs of disposal. One question, therefore, is: will they now be more expensive as a result of the regulations, although people will be competing more fairly? It is no secret that the rise in online shopping has been one of the greatest challenges to traditional retailers up and down the country, including out-of-town shopping centres and market towns. I personally want to see market towns recover, although I know that there are a number of other issues, including parking. Paragraph 5.5 goes on to say:

“The intention of this SI is to ensure that OMP operators who facilitate these sales into the UK are responsible for those costs, ensuring the costs are distributed more fairly”.


Presumably, the reporting that the statutory instrument is making a requirement will ensure that such operators are in the system, so to speak.

The Minister has identified how flammable and how dangerous some of these items can be. My other question is: what is the normal disposal mechanism for, in particular, e-cigarettes, vapes, heated tobacco products and other similar items? In previous debates on statutory instruments in this very Room, we have discussed how important vaping is in getting people to switch from smoking and in the prevention of smoking in future, although there are obvious dangers where young people are vaping for the first time, which I know the Government are seeking to address.

It seems odd that, originally and currently, e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products fall within category 7 under the WEEE directive, which category also covers toys and leisure equipment. Will they be recategorised, so that vapes are taken out of that category? The Minister will not remember, but there was a toy safety directive when I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I was even a Member of the European Parliament when the WEEE directive appeared in its first incarnation. The toy safety directive covered such things as teddy bears’ eyes—if a child could eat them, they had to be carefully disposed of—and it impacted charity shops on the high street, which had to deal with them separately.

I should like to understand how these e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products will be disposed of and what the financial costs of the collection, treatment and recovery are estimated to be. Will the onus be on the user of these products to dispose of them safely and in a responsible manner?

With those few remarks, I wish the Minister well with the regulations, and I hope that they go on to make a positive impact.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I thank the Minister for her introduction. I have a few specific questions, particularly relating to online marketplaces.

We can probably all come up with a list of half a dozen large websites that we would expect to be selling these products, but I have a little awareness—possibly more than most Members of your Lordships House, but still not that great—of things such as Discord servers, which are not very visible or open to the public but require membership. A lot of selling, particularly to young people, may take place through these layers of the internet, which be at the top layer of the TikToks and eBays and so on. How will the Government ensure that we are not going to see the cheapest products ending up further and further down the chain of legibility to government and regulators. I would be interested in understanding a bit more about how the Government will enforce these regulations. How they will find the sellers and work out who owns them and who owns the websites? What level of enforcement is going to happen?

I take this opportunity to pay testimony to the work of Action on Smoking and Health. At an ASH event that I attended downstairs a week or so back, they had a disposable vape and a reusable vape, and the trick question was: which was which? They were indistinguishable. I also note recent reports that many shops that used to sell disposable vapes are now selling reusable ones, but the same shops do not sell refills. Such shops are just taking things called reusable vapes and still treating them as disposable vapes. If the Minister is unable to answer that now, I will understand if she wants to write to me. When we are talking about managing the waste problem, although there is a sense that we have dealt with the problem of single-use vapes because we have passed a law, I would question that. From what I have seen and has been said to me, how much have we changed the reality on the ground?

My other question comes from practical experience. Last week, I happened to be in the middle of Dudley town centre where I saw what is perhaps a measure of the socioeconomic usage of vaping. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to the fact that vaping was supposed to be for people giving up cigarettes; the last statistic that I saw suggests that there are 1 million people in the UK who vape who have never smoked tobacco. In the middle of Dudley town centre, the borough council had provided a specific bin for the disposal of vapes.

My question to the Minister, therefore, follows on from the probably fairly modest extra revenue that these regulations will raise. How will we ensure that the funds raised actually go to the people incurring the costs? I am thinking of the financial impact on councils in particular—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—but also any other bodies that may be forced to deal with the disposal of what may or may not be single-use or reusable vapes.

Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 2 June. I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 5 June in relation to the draft instrument. This corrected a typographical error on page 20, in Schedule 2, in the heading to the second table, “Table 1”, which should read, “Table 2”. This does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation. Copies of the correction slip have been made available to Members.

I probably should declare an interest as sheep are kept on our smallholding.

For years, industry has been calling for mandatory sheep carcass classification and price reporting. This instrument will bring the sheep industry in line with the beef and pork sectors, where mandatory carcass classification and price reporting has been in place for many years.

This instrument mandates sheep carcass classification and the price reporting of sheep carcasses for larger slaughterhouses—those which slaughter at least 2,000 sheep per week. Smaller slaughterhouses that slaughter at least 1,000 sheep per week can voluntarily decide whether the regulations will apply to them. The legislation will also provide a process for the introduction of a system for the authorisation of automated sheep grading methods for slaughterhouses that wish to use automated carcass classification.

The reason we are introducing this legislation is that slaughterhouses are currently able to set their own standards for preparing and presenting sheep carcasses for classification and weighing. As a result, carcass weights across the sector lack consistency due to variations in the way the carcass is prepared, trimmed and presented. This inconsistency leads to a lack of transparency across the industry, with non-comparable prices being quoted or recorded. Consequently, farmers often struggle to achieve the best payment for the quality of their sheep carcasses when they sell their stock.

We want to see a more transparent, productive and efficient sheep market. By addressing this long-running supply chain fairness issue, we will both encourage farmers to improve productivity and ensure that they are paid a fair price based on the quality of their sheep. Producers can then also rear lambs that will better fit the market’s specifications and consumer demand.

The legislation will also introduce a consistent and robust mechanism for the evaluation of the carcasses of sheep that are aged less than 12 months old at the time of slaughter; this encapsulates the prime lamb market. The instrument requires the use of the EUROP grid, as it is commonly known, to assess conformation—that is, the shape—and the degree of fat cover. The meat industry is familiar with this carcass classification scale through the mandatory schemes for pig and beef carcasses. Several abattoirs have already been using it when voluntarily classifying sheep carcasses.

The new system will require operators to ensure that sheep carcasses are presented in a consistent way post-slaughter, at the point of weighing and classification. Regulated slaughterhouses will have to use one of two specified carcass presentations at this point.

The regulated slaughterhouses will be required to report the weight of the carcass and its classification details, along with the price being paid for sheep sold on a deadweight basis—that is, where payment for the sheep is dependent on the classification and weight of its carcass. These carcass and pricing details must be reported both to the supplier of the sheep and to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will process the information under contract to Defra, as it currently does for beef and pork.

The instrument will apply a licensing regime to classifiers and to automated classification methods. The Rural Payments Agency, which will monitor and enforce the regulations, will assess and license carcass classifiers. This means that both manual classifiers and automated classifying technology in regulated slaughterhouses will need to be licensed for sheep classification. Provision is made for automated classification methods to be first subjected to an authorisation testing process, which must be passed before the automated equipment using that method can be put forward for licensing in regulated slaughterhouses. This will ensure that the method being used for automated classification can repeatedly and accurately classify carcasses. The Rural Payments Agency will be given the powers to inspect the regulated slaughterhouses and to take enforcement action where there are breaches to the regulatory requirements. The sheep industry, including farmers and meat processors, has been pressing us to create a mandatory carcass classification and price reporting system for sheep carcasses, which this instrument delivers.

I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for, and congratulate her on, introducing these regulations, of which I wholeheartedly approve. This must be the most consulted-on SI in the history of SIs; obviously, it is a brilliant piece of work, because it was started under the outgoing Conservative Government.

I declare my interest in that I own one lot of shares in the Thirsk Farmers Auction Mart. For the purposes of Hansard, that is one lot—a very small group—of shares, not a lot of shares. I am also a patron of the Huby & Sutton Agricultural Society Show, which is not happening this year, sadly, because of the animal diseases that were prevalent earlier in the year.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I welcome the fact that there is a de minimis rule and that small abattoirs will be excluded. Is there any crossover with the requirements of the BSE and foot and mouth provisions, or are these are entirely separate? This instrument is stand-alone in that regard, I think.

My concern is that abattoirs are reducing in number. It is not my fault but the first time that this happened was, I remember, when there was a European directive on abattoirs. It might even have been under a Conservative Government. We gold-plated it, over-egged it and implemented it in a way that was never intended. That was down to the Home Department, I am afraid, which thought that birds flying around an abattoir was not a good idea when, in fact, all the carcasses were washed before they were cut up.

Since that time, the number of abattoirs has greatly reduced. The NFU is, as I am sure the Minister is aware, very concerned about the implications of abattoir numbers reducing for livestock farmers generally. Has the department done an impact assessment on where we are with the current number of abattoirs? I welcome the fact that, for one thing, this SI applies only to small abattoirs; and that, as the Minister said, we are equating sheep with pork and beef.

If we are not careful, though, all abattoirs will be large abattoirs because there will simply be no small abattoirs left. It is causing great concern among livestock producers, as well as—dare I say it very softly—among the animal welfare lobby, because animals have to travel further to slaughter. Obviously, given the extreme heat that we have seen recently, that is not something to be commended.

With those few remarks, I endorse entirely what farmers and the NFU are saying: we need more smaller abattoirs. Are the Government likely to look at this? I know that there was a small abattoir fund up until 2023. Locally, a lot of the Thirsk livestock went to Kilburn abattoir, but that is now gone. This is not acceptable. It is not fair on farmers that they must have this additional worry and the cost of sending their livestock a longer distance. I therefore welcome the regulations and congratulate the Government. I know that there were a number of reasons for the delay, but I would welcome the Minister’s support for small abattoirs; it would be good to see where we are in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate and their strong support for these regulations; it is much appreciated. These regulations are important, so it is very good that we can bring them in smoothly.

The key issue raised in the debate is that of small abattoirs: every noble Lord who spoke mentioned the problem of the closure of small abattoirs. One of the reasons we wanted to exempt small abattoirs from the scheme, in order not to put extra administrative regulatory burden on them, is because we know what pressures they face. I am acutely aware that many small abattoirs have closed over, I would guess, the last decade. It is much harder for abattoirs to stay open, and I am very aware of the extra stress that that puts on farmers. Farmers like to know where their animals are going, and with abattoirs becoming more centralised and larger, they do not necessarily know the abattoir and the people running it in the way they used to. As noble Lords have said, animals have longer travel distances, often in hot vehicles, so it is not great for animal welfare.

When I was president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, we had a campaign around small abattoirs, so this is something I know quite a lot about; it is very close to my heart. In fact, last year, I chaired the Oxford Real Farming Conference session on small abattoirs and talked to people from the industry, as well as to the people running mobile abattoirs, who were represented at that meeting.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, talked about the small abattoir fund, which Defra was running at that time. That fund was for a fixed period, which has now come to an end. I have been talking recently to the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, about small abattoirs—I know that he has a particular interest in them—and what we can do next to support the industry, because we in Defra are extremely aware that this is particularly challenging in more rural areas. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is from Yorkshire, others are from East Anglia and I am in Cumbria, and we all have the same problem. Our nearest abattoir is probably a two-hour drive in a farm vehicle.

One of the issues we are coming up against is the skill set. It is an extremely skilled job, and there is a problem with staffing abattoirs. We need to look at that, because it is all very well having funds, but if we do not have people with the skills to do the job, and people who want to train to do that job in future, we are never going to solve the problem. We are looking at how we can encourage people to look at this as a career choice. It is not always an easy career choice to sell, but it is an important and valuable job and it can be very well paid.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising this matter, because I understand that part of the problem was Brexit—in particular, attracting Spanish vets and people who would have done the job. Are the Government planning to find a means of recruiting people to that role?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, the EU reset is looking at all sorts of different things and it is not something I can particularly comment on. What I can say, though, on the issue of vets being present, is that we have also been in discussion with the Food Standards Agency on the regulation of smaller abattoirs, the presence of vets, the level of inspection and so on. We are also working with the FSA on that.

The simple thing for me to say is that I do not have an answer to how we resolve the issue of the closure of small abattoirs. It is not just about them closing but about how you get them to reopen, because that is really important; the small abattoir fund was only to support existing abattoirs, not to open new ones. It is quite a complex issue, but I reassure noble Lords that it is very well recognised in Defra. We have officials who really know and understand the problems around this, and Ministers who are committed to try to do their best. If noble Lords have helpful information they would like to share with me, I will be very pleased to receive it.

On other issues, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked specifically about whether this instrument is separate from issues around FMD and so on. It is completely separate, just to reassure her on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked what happens if a small abattoir gets bigger. The answer is that, if it is then caught by the regulations, the abattoir itself has a duty to report it to the department so that it comes under the regulations properly.

Finally, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for recognising the broad industry support for these regulations, because it is really important to recognise how important they are for industry. He also mentioned the devolved Governments. We have worked very closely with the devolved Governments, and they are working to ensure that retrospective legislation comes into force at the same time so that we have consistency across the country, because farmers and food processors need to get the value that their products deserve.

This instrument is an essential tool in our efforts to increase the fairness of the supply chain. It will establish a much-needed scheme that will result in a more open, fair and transparent sheep market.

Food Allergens

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I applaud my noble friend for her dedication and passionate advocacy on this issue. As she said, we published the best practice guidance in March this year and, as noble Lords will appreciate, any new guidance requires time to embed and be adopted by businesses. We hope to carry out an evaluation one year after the implementation of the guidance to assess both its uptake and its impact, and to better inform Ministers on the need for any potential legislation. This means that our evaluation work is likely to begin in spring 2026, and the gap between the launch and when the impact of the guidance can be meaningfully assessed ensures that our evaluation is based on a representative and reliable picture of how the guidance is actually working in practice. This will be very helpful in our understanding of the need for and any potential impact of any future legislative options. We very much welcome the opportunity to meet and to review the new research, which we have not yet had sight of. It would be invaluable to examine these findings alongside the FSA’s research in this area.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, although the guidelines are very welcome, and I applaud the Food Standards Agency’s work in this area, does the Minister share my concern about whether local authorities have the resources to do the necessary work to visit the establishments concerned to ensure that the guidelines are being applied? I think most restaurants in my area ask whether you are allergic. Does she also share my concern about the increasing amount of passing off of one food substance as another? We had the horsemeat scandal some 12 years ago, and we do not want to see a repeat of that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we absolutely do not want to see a repeat of that. As she says, local authorities enforce allergen rules, typically via trading standards and environmental health officers. The number of trading standards officers has dropped, although staffing rose slightly in 2023, so we are looking at how we can improve that. The FSA has backed a level 6 trading standards apprenticeship, for example, and is training over 100 new officers in one year. The FSA will continue to monitor that, and will continue to support training guidance and the food law code of practice with local authorities.

Thames Water

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said previously, the Government are not going to be renationalising the water companies. The Government are not dithering. This is a private company that has some serious debt problems. It is not for the Government to tell a private company how to manage its finances. If it comes to it, we are prepared to ensure that customers continue to receive high-quality water through their taps, because that is what is really important, and that the systems stay in place.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the interim Cunliffe report was very clear that part of the problem is the short-termism of regulation and the high volatility in returns not being conducive to long-term, low-risk, low-return investors. Will the Government accept whatever the commission proposes in its final report and bring a Bill before this House so we can review the situation in the long term?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, the report we have in front of us is an interim one, so we are currently looking at it and considering the recommendations. Further work will then be done and as a Government we will then look at those recommendations and work with Sir Jon Cunliffe on how best to move things forward. Clearly, there are some serious structural issues in the way things have been managed and we need to take this very seriously if we are going to sort out the mess that many water companies have found themselves in. That may well result in a further water Bill in the future.

Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I apologise to the House and to the Minister that in my earlier question, I did not declare my farming interests as set out in the register, and I do so now.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the Minister undertake an urgent review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the relevant legislation for safety in the event of a possible breach of a reservoir? There is a lack of competent panel engineers, as they are called, to undertake this work. I think the noble Lord who asked the original Question would accept that we are too reliant on large reservoirs. Will the Minister also review the de minimis rule in the 1975 Act to see whether we could build smaller reservoirs in a greater number of places?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware of the Government’s pledge to build nine new reservoirs, and we are currently fast-tracking two of those, one in East Anglia and one in Lincolnshire. As we look at the future of reservoirs in this country, it is clear that the Reservoirs Act is a few years old now and it makes absolute sense to consider whether it is fit for the future. I will certainly take that back and discuss it with the department.

Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lord, these regulations use powers contained within the Agriculture Act 2020 which enable the Government to address power imbalances within agricultural markets. These fair dealing powers allow for regulations that impose obligations in relation to the contracts of those businesses—usually larger businesses—that purchase from smaller producers. The fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act, and their first use in the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, have previously been debated in this House, with important contributions made. I therefore know that many noble Lords will agree that these powers can play a significant role in promoting fairness in this sector and beyond.

I should first say that the pig sector is a British success story, characterised by effective relationships between producers and processors. It is a sector that delivers high-quality products, enjoyed across the UK and around the world. However, where power imbalances exist, relationships are not always as fair as they should be. As a result, farmers have too often felt that they bear a disproportionate share of the risk when market challenges arise.

A public consultation in 2022, seeking views on contractual practices in the sector, highlighted several challenges faced by producers. Defra has developed these proposals in response to the concerns raised and in close collaboration with industry, aiming to ensure fairness for producers while taking account of the practical concerns of processors. I am pleased to report that many stakeholders believe we have struck the right balance—protecting farmers while supporting existing good practice.

There will be opportunity for detailed discussion, but I would like to begin by outlining some key provisions. First, I will say a word on existing structures that already serve to protect farmers. We heard from many producers that the collective negotiation undertaken through marketing groups is highly valued. These regulations preserve this arrangement, allowing collective sellers, who purchase pigs from more than one farmer without processing them, the same protections as individual sellers.

At the heart of the regulations is the principle that written contracts should be the norm. While many transactions already use written agreements, this is not consistent across the sector. Establishing written contracts as the default provides a vital safeguard for farmers’ rights and promotes greater transparency in commercial relationships. Although industry supported this approach, it was also clear that not every transaction requires a protected contract. The pig sector includes a functioning spot market, where pigs are traded off-contract, an important mechanism for managing supply. In these cases, and others, the regulations allow producers to issue a notice to disapply the requirements for certain purchases. However, in most cases, both farmers and processors benefit from certainty. When no notice to disapply is given, farmers must be offered a fully compliant written contract, which cannot be varied without their consent. We heard clearly that farmers often felt that changes were imposed on them unilaterally, and this is not in the spirit of an open and balanced relationship.

One of the key priorities raised was the need for clarity around agreed volumes of supply. Clear terms in this area will support better planning and ensure that both parties fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences if those commitments are not met. In the pig sector, pricing is already often linked to published data or other shared information, offering a level of transparency that benefits both parties. The regulations encourage this approach by placing fewer obligations on processors who base their prices on such information.

At the same time, we were clear that flexibility must be preserved. It is for producers and processors to decide together how prices are calculated, reflecting what works best for their commercial relationship. However, when pricing mechanisms use data or factors which are not clearly accessible to producers, it is right that contracts include provisions to allow farmers to verify that pricing is fair and consistent with the agreed terms.

In addition to volumes and pricing, the regulations require that contracts clearly set out all terms relating to the purchase, as well as essential elements of the agreement that define how the relationship will operate in practice. These include matters such as payment terms, delivery arrangements, and how and when the contract can be terminated. While the specific details of these terms can be negotiated between the parties, this clarity helps protect farmers by reducing the risk of sudden or unfair changes, ensuring that both sides understand their rights and responsibilities throughout the contract. Importantly, all contracts must include a dispute resolution procedure. This will promote dialogue and help sustain the successful relationships already present in the sector.

The regulations extend the enforcement powers of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The ASCA will investigate complaints about compliance with these regulations, as it already does in the dairy sector, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Before I conclude, I should note that these regulations make an amendment to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. After those regulations came into force, the Government were made aware of unintended consequences regarding tiered pricing in exclusive agreements. We received representations from businesses with shared ownership structures, explaining that exclusive supply is central to their model, and that the prohibition on tiered pricing was inadvertently penalising arrangements that actually benefit producers. These regulations therefore introduce a limited amendment to allow such practices in cases where a shared ownership structure is in place.

In summary, I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that these regulations represent a significant step forward for fairness in the UK pig sector. They respond directly to producer concerns, protect practices that work well, and will promote more balanced and transparent contractual arrangements. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon and thank the Minister for giving us the outline. It is an interesting backdrop, in the sense that pig prices seem to have been at their highest for a while now. I have come straight from a meeting with some Danish businesses—none of them farmers. While I am half-Danish, I wish to help only the British farmer, I should explain.

I am a big supporter of auction marts. How will this provision impact on sales through such marts? Will they be left pretty much as is allowed at the moment? Presumably, the regulations will come into their own at a different time, when the prices are particularly low and when the farmers, or pig producers, are not covering the full costs of their production.

Having been an MEP in an area with intensive pig farming and then having gone on to be an MP in another area with equally intensive pig farming, it was very sad to see the impact of foot and mouth disease on pig production. Many farmers will simply not go back into pig production again. Anything that we can do, like the content of these regulations, is very helpful indeed.

The Minister referred to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and I pay tribute to it. I still believe that we should go further and allow the adjudicator to look at the market and at particular supplies off its own initiative. If there is an imbalanced relationship that it is there to resolve—and overwhelmingly it has worked well—there is no way that someone is going to jeopardise it. That perhaps relates more to different sectors than to pigs, such as the dairy sector and fruit production. If you are in a contract and you are being unfairly discriminated against, it is difficult for you to jeopardise that contract by being identified as a complainant with the adjudicator. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue, please, to keep that under review.

Mindful of the fact of movement—which I do not think is covered by the regulations, but perhaps the Minister could write to me about this—we have a number of agricultural shows coming up at this time of year, right through to the autumn, and they are immensely important to the agricultural sector. Again, this probably covers sheep and lambs—I have not seen too many pigs at the Great Yorkshire Show, I have to say. Will the department give advice on movement of animals? I know it is on the case as regards avian flu, but some imports have already been banned because of foot and mouth existing in parts of the European Union. Will she make sure that the department gives advice at the earliest possible opportunity, well in advance of the shows taking place? That would be very welcome indeed.

I cannot let this opportunity go without singing the praises of the Malton pig factory. Again, while not directly within this remit, we have a bed and breakfast for pigs in North Yorkshire, and they are just as well looked after as we are at the famous bed and breakfasts that many of us stay in. One of the outlets for the bed and breakfast pig industry is the Malton Bacon Factory. It exported a huge amount to China, which takes pig’s trotters and other parts of the anatomy that I will not go into, which we do not enjoy in this country. That was a multi-million pound contract, and that might have gone by the wayside. The regulations focus probably more on those that do not necessarily have an initial contract.

One thing that struck me in the regulations—I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 21st report—is that it seems very odd in this day and age that many contracts are still not made in writing. Will the Government insist on that through the course of the regulation? The committee highlights in paragraph 44 that the requirements will

“include that all contracts are made in writing, contain clear pricing terms and set out how the price is determined”.

That relates to my initial question about how this will impact—presumably, the auction marts will be left alone and this will relate just to those contracts that are done individually. I would be very interested to know what proportion of the market is intended to be covered by the regulations. I welcome the regulations this afternoon and the opportunity to raise those issues.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always instructive to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I thank the Minister for her persuasive, well-informed introduction. I do not quite know how George Orwell—Mr Blair—would view these regulations, because he had it in for Napoleon. But the Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, and clearly Mr Andrew Powley has played a blinder in the department.

In another place, for some 31 years, I visited perhaps six farms a year, and one was hospitably received—bacon sandwiches were often on the farm menu. Indeed, I was once an Agriculture Minister in the lovely land of Wales. I cannot be the only one of your Lordships who regularly tunes in at 5.45 am to Radio 4’s informative farming programme. Pigs feature therein, and I am sure our Minister listens quite regularly to that programme—after prayers, of course.

Farming: 25-year Road Map

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, the first iteration will be published later this year. As we are still in the process of determining the content of the road map, and therefore the timetable of implementation, I am unable to give a detailed answer to my noble friend. We will publish more details in due course. I can assure her that we are continuing with targeted engagement right across the sector in order that we can agree a collective vision and shape the first version of the farming road map through discussion with stakeholders.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern at the loss of farmland, to the tune of 10%, through the proposed clean energy projects? Will she ensure that the road map rolls back this land grab and ensures that all grade 1, 2 and 3 farmland—the most productive land—will remain in farm production, putting food security and self-sufficiency at the heart of the road map?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that food production and self-sufficiency will be at the heart of the road map as it is developed. We work very closely with DESNZ around where energy projects are sited. With the land use framework also being developed, there is a lot of discussion about the best use of farmland, because we do not want good agricultural land taken out of food production.

Farming and Rural Communities

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate, and I welcome the Minister to her place today. I declare my interests as vice president of the Association of Drainage Authorities and a member of the rural interest group of the Church of England Synod; I also work with dispensing doctors in rural areas. I can testify to the inequality in access to healthcare, housing and transport in rural areas.

It is a matter of regret that Labour, having been elected on the promise of restoring trust and confidence in government, has achieved quite the reverse with its farming and planning proposals. First, it reversed its promise not to amend inheritance tax proposals affecting farms, or agricultural property relief; then there was the early closure of the sustainable farming initiative, with no promised six-week notice. How can any responsible farming business plan around such erratic policy changes without notice or time to prepare to make alternative arrangements?

The impact on the uplands has been severe. Farmers are stuck in less lucrative, higher-level stewardship schemes and are unable to switch. Early SFI closure has had a particularly devastating impact on family and upland farms. There is a long-term threat to livestock, which will simply disappear from the uplands, and there will be a consequential knock-on impact on lowland farms too.

I urge the Minister to find a better balance between food production and nurturing nature, and to recognise: who better to achieve this than farmers, who actively farm the land and tend the livestock?

The issues of food security and greater self-sufficiency in food must be addressed. We must learn from the invasion of and ongoing hostilities in Ukraine the lesson of how quickly the food supply chain can be upturned.

The economic impact of the international aspects of food and farming cannot be ignored. The free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand have been neither fair to our farmers nor have allowed them to compete. The very minimum demand in any free trade agreement should be that imports be permitted only if these agricultural products meet the same animal welfare and environmental standards as are demanded of our domestic producers. In addition, no meat should be allowed into the UK if produced with antibiotics or hormones or rinsed in chlorine.

Farmers play a crucial role in flood prevention and flood resilience. The noble Baroness will have seen this first hand locally in her time as a constituency MP. This role is exercised through internal drainage boards, as well as the regular maintenance and dredging of water courses, for which farmers and landowners are responsible. It is still not clear whether the temporary storage of water on land, by farmers and other rural businesses such as golf courses, will be rewarded under the ELM scheme. If so, how will the de minimis rules of the Reservoirs Act apply in these circumstances?

The role of auction marts should be celebrated. They not only set an economic and transparent price, but enable the animals to be seen live at the point of sale, and provide an essential social and support network.

Farming is a vital part of the rural economy. When farming does well, a market town flourishes. Children attend schools in a healthy and well-fed fashion, and farmers clear the roads of snow and ice in winter and play other such roles throughout the year, benefiting the rural community—at no cost.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a further threat to rural communities with its proposals for building and developing on high-grade agricultural land. The Minister kindly promised to return to me on the vexed question of 9% of farmland being lost under energy proposals to build solar farms, battery storage plants and pylons on farmland. Has she had the opportunity to look at this and discuss it with the Energy Minister in this place? Farmers need certainty and stability, not these constant changes at short notice, which do not instil confidence for their future.

Farmers’ mental health is an issue of mounting concern. I pay tribute to the churches for their rural pastoral work, as evidenced by the outreach to rural communities such those in Thirsk.

When did the Government take their decision to end SFI? Will they recognise and reward upland farmers for producing food at a time when food security and self-sufficiency levels are being challenged? Will the noble Baroness address the issues of falling stock levels and tenant farmers, most particularly in the uplands; and what will the future be for graziers who want to graze in perpetuity on common land? Finally, where will the growth of the rural economy come from, if not from farming?

UK Fishers: EU Agreement

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I made quite clear, we intend to negotiate with the EU in the best interests of the fishing industry and to protect our fishing communities. However, due to the nature of the current negotiations regarding the EU reset, I am not in a position to give any further information about what we discussed at those meetings.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concern that fishers have lost 10% of their grounds through energy use, particularly through the Great British Energy Bill? How does she intend to address this spatial squeeze and ensure that the fisheries’ grounds loss is not permanent but will be compensated?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware—because we have talked about it in relation to other issues with Defra—that we are working closely with other departments in this area, including DESNZ, to address exactly the kinds of issues she raises. I will go back to the department and talk to my colleague the Fisheries Minister, Daniel Zeichner, specifically about the point that she just raised.

High Seas Treaty

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes a very good point. No law or agreement is worth anything unless we enforce it. That is why we are determined to do all that we can to achieve our 30 by 30 commitments at sea. These are challenging targets—it is important that we acknowledge that. Minister Hardy, who is responsible for this area in Defra, has confirmed her intention to continue working on this and push forward. Enforcement and ensuring that it happens are part of that important work.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern at the intense pressure that our fishing grounds are coming under with a spatial squeeze from marine conservation and 10% of fishing grounds removed through the GB Energy Act? Will she look carefully at this to see that our fishing grounds and future fishers’ livelihoods are ensured?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Supporting our fisheries is an important part of the work that Defra does. We must ensure that when we work on areas of conservation those who fish are also talked to and understand the implications—and that we understand the impact that any decision has on our fishing fleet. My honourable friend Daniel Zeichner MP, the Fisheries Minister, speaks regularly to those who fish so that we hear their voices as loudly as we hear others.