Meat Labelling

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have every sympathy for the noble Earl’s concerns about the closure of small abattoirs and the distances that animals have to travel. I was previously the president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which had a specific campaign on that, so I understand the issue. The Government have provided grants to support small abattoirs from closing. There are a number of difficulties—including the challenge of having trained staff in abattoirs and people who want to do the job—but we are working closely with the FSA on how we can move forward.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, what is the position as regards imported meat, both in relation to halal and in meeting other animal welfare requirements, either from a third country or via the EU? Are we yet in a position to label that meat as meeting our very high domestic animal welfare standards?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

All trade deals, whether for import or export, are expected to meet the animal welfare standards that we set in this country—that is what we expect as our standards. When we move forward with the proposals in the animal welfare strategy, labelling will clearly be part of it.

Environmental Improvement Plan 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this timely debate. I welcome the revised EIP published by the Government. I declare my interests as a co-chair of the Water All-Party Parliamentary Group and a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.

I am sure that the Minister will accept, in the spirit in which it is intended, that there is a growing list of unfinished business from the department, such as—this has already been referred to—the land use framework, for which we have been waiting for some time, and the water White Paper, which we were promised before the end of last year. Questions arise from the EIP. What will the relationship between the environmental improvement plan and the land use framework be? At what stage will that be set out? There is still a lot of detail left unclear in the EIP. For example, how will it be funded? Can the Minister elaborate on the success that the Government have established with private partners, farmers and others to progress the targets that they have set out in the land use framework?

More generally, having grown up in the countryside and having represented deeply rural areas in both the European Parliament and the other place, I yield to no one in my admiration of the work that farmers do in nurturing nature. How will the EIP as revised help promote domestic food production, boost self-sufficiency in food and increase food security? Farmers have faced three major shocks in recent years: Brexit, Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

I recognise that farmers have a role to play in nature recovery but they have also been battling the elements. As my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out, we have seen major flooding of farmland in recent years. Last year, we had a major wildfire on the North Yorkshire moors—it lasted for a long time—and faced severe water shortages that also affected farming. Clarity and certainty need urgently to be set out in the sustainable farming incentive to enable farmers to have the tools they need to grow our food and boost domestic farm production.

I welcome the focus in the EIP on nature-based solutions to water management. I pay tribute to the work performed by Pickering’s Slow the Flow scheme in saving the town of Pickering from a major flood. Its strength has been tested since its inception; I hope the Government will look to other such schemes to be rolled out in due course.

I make a plea—I know the Minister would be disappointed if I did not—and once again press her on the implementation of Schedule 3 to implement SUDS as a mandatory scheme for all major new housing developments, as set out in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That one instrument alone will protect many future and existing housing developments from future floods. Is the Minister able to set out today a firm date for the water White Paper to be published and an idea of the timetable for the legislation that will follow that White Paper and the excellent Cunliffe report?

I turn to species recovery and review of species. I am grateful for a briefing from Chester Zoo, which I understand is at the forefront of global conservation. It highlighted a number of threatened species on the priority list in England alone, of which 940 are in need of urgent recovery work. It is working specifically on the disappearance, surprisingly, of the harvest mouse, which it reintroduced successfully in Cheshire; the yellow sally stone-fly, a rare insect; the cotoneaster cambricus, a rare tree; and the large heath butterfly. I pay tribute to its excellent global work with its partners, and I hope the Government will be able to say today what plans the department has to work in this area of global conservation to reintroduce these species.

I am mindful of our work on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, looking at the numbers of species in this country that were at one time under threat, such as badgers, after the dreadful episode of badger baiting, outlawed in 1968. To what extent does the Minister’s department keep under review species such as badgers, bats and newts, which might not be as rare as we think and could be holding up development where it is needed? That goes to the heart of the Government’s growth programme.

Finally, I invite the Minister to complete the unfinished business I have set out, to work closely with farmers and others developing nature recovery to the best of their ability, and to give farmers and landowners the tools they need to increase food production, increase food security and boost self-sufficiency for food in this country.

Flooding Interventions

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is correct that we have committed a record £10.5 billion to flood defences, the reason being that flood risk is one of the factors that determine home insurance prices. Our investment programme is designed to manage flood risk by reducing it and by preventing further increases. Clearly, this can also take properties out of the need to use Flood Re for their insurance. To remind noble Lords, Flood Re is a joint government and industry flood reinsurance scheme designed to help UK households at high risk of flooding to access affordable insurance.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, one of the most efficient ways to reduce flood risk is sustainable drains. When do the Government expect to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to make sure that they will be mandatory for major new housing developments?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that sustainable drainage is an important factor in managing flood risk. I am sure she is aware that I am personally supportive of this measure. The department is looking at it and is working with MHCLG, which, as the planning department, also has a particular interest in this. I will keep the noble Baroness up to date as we progress.

Energy Market Reforms

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. Nuclear energy is part of the Government’s strategy in order to have sufficient energy for this country and to move away from gas power stations, for example. Personally, I am keen on small modular reactors: they are very important as part of our nuclear energy mix. I know that colleagues of mine in Cumbria have been pressing that we should have them there, as well as in Sheffield.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action. The warm home discount—for those households in greatest fuel poverty—has remained at £300 for the last few years. What plans do the Government have to increase that figure so that the poorest, most fuel-impoverished households will receive more money off their bills?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is absolutely critical that we support families who struggle to pay their electricity bills. We do not want people to be cold in the winter. I am not aware of any plans to increase that payment at the moment; I will get back to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is important to bring down bills but also to work with energy companies on their support for vulnerable customers, because there is a role for energy companies to play in that aspect.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: overfishing has been a real problem and we absolutely need to ensure that it does not happen in the future and that the fishing quotas that are agreed are sustainable. In fact, they are, in theory, sustainable at the moment, but we need to get the best data we can in order to make the best decisions in the future. Clearly, we hope that working with the EU more closely will enable this.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, before Britain left the European Union, the inshore fishermen, the under-10 fishermen, were promised an increased quota of cod and other fish—before the waters warmed up and they went elsewhere. Under the coastal fund, will there be anything for the inshore fishermen, who are now the largest number of fishermen in English waters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to refer to inshore fishermen, who are a really important part of our industry. Regarding detail, we are negotiating with stakeholders. We are looking to work very closely with all the different groups that are interested or have an impact with this growth fund. Clearly, they will be an important group as part of our discussions.

Waste Crime

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord and the House about exactly where the sites are because I do not have that information in front of me. When we came into government, we acted to put pressure on to get that area, Hoads Wood, dealt with, because it had been dragging on for far too long, as the noble Lord is aware. That is also why we have brought in the changes that we are making, increasing the Environment Agency’s budget and looking to do more about enforcement, because we do not want these situations dragging on. The blight on the countryside is just too grim.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that, despite the excellent work of the Environment Agency, a report in July showed that only 27% of waste crimes, and 12% of crimes on private land, are reported? What can the Government and the Environment Agency do to ensure that these waste crimes, often connected to organised crime, are reported and acted on at the earliest opportunity?

Plastic Pollution

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[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.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill and add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Coffey and others who have participated in the proceedings. I give a very warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Hart and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I declare briefly my interest as associate of the British Veterinary Association.

We have heard why this Bill is needed and about the gap in the current legislation. The changes we have seen since 1953, when the original Act was passed, are dramatic: the number of livestock has doubled, dog ownership now stands at 12 million and one in three households owns a dog. There have been 34,000 incidents a year of dogs worrying sheep, with 15,000 sheep being killed by dogs annually. This causes great concern and distress to the farming community. The Countryside Code has a role to play here but this demonstrates its weakness, as does the number and nature of wildfires we have seen, not least the one that is still burning on Langdale Moor, causing great concern in North Yorkshire.

Farming is not a charitable undertaking. Farmers care greatly for their livestock; they cherish and nourish them. It is a huge personal loss, not just an economic loss, and causes extreme grief when a sheep dies as a result of sheep worrying or a dog attack. It shows a gross lack of respect for the countryside and the farming community, as well as for sheep and other livestock. We should take note of the contribution that the farming community and livestock industry make to the food and drink sector; at the moment, this stands at £153 billion, and farming is a great part of that.

I have two small questions to put to the Minister. The first concerns the description of the animals that are covered. I welcome the introduction of camelids in the Bill, which will cover alpacas, llamas and others. In my former constituency in North Yorkshire, there are petting farms, and other areas have petting zoos. Will these be covered if a dog attack or worrying incident takes place? Secondly, is my understanding correct that the provisions of the Bill will lapse in 2034? If that is the case, for what reason? The problem will not just disappear at that time.

I give a warm welcome to the Bill. My noble friend Lady Coffey outlined each and every one of the provisions, which I support, including giving the police the authority in the circumstances described by my noble friend Lord Colgrain, in which many of the perpetrators—the dogs—may go free. I wish the Bill a smooth passage, but would like answers to those two brief questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the draft regulations before us. I am conscious that this is not her department. Nevertheless, with her Cumbrian background—not just background but experience—she will be conscious of the number of families in fuel poverty, in particular those off the gas grid.

One of the challenges around the warm home discount is that it is focused solely on electricity bill payers, so there are some issues there around aspects of fuel poverty and how it gets distributed. I am conscious that it has generally been a success; I am going to sound a note of caution though. This looks like a potentially generous package. Of course it is: it is the second, if not the third, package brought in by this Government that is very generous to households that receive universal credit. We have seen the extension of free school meals. With the Royal Assent coming through today, we will see a big uplift for everybody who is on universal credit. I think that the Government underestimated how much all this is going to cost, partly in the impact assessment for the Act that has just gone through but also in these regulations. Even now, there are more people on universal credit than it seems has been considered by the impact assessment for these draft regulations.

There is also a different way of thinking about this. These measures are increasing incentives for people not to increase their earnings and to stay on universal credit as long as they can. That is part of what the Government need to think about in these regulations.

There is another oddity here. Changing the criteria will mean the number of households receiving the discount rising from an estimated 3.4 million—around 3.1 million in England and around 300,000 in Scotland —to an estimated 6.1 million, although I think that it will be a lot more and it will, therefore, cost a lot more. People’s average energy bills will go up by about two-thirds, but everybody pays that levy. Consequently, those estimated 3.4 million people will be worse off as a consequence of the rebate now applying to a lot more people. Before, the cost of the levy was estimated at £22. The net effect is £150 minus £22, which is £128. With the average levy now going up to £37 a year, the logical consequence is of that benefit ending up dropping to £113 per household. I appreciate that the finer points may not work out quite like that in some of the calculations, but the Government cannot do this in a very detailed way. So we are in this odd situation where those households with the highest estimated energy costs will get less rebate to help them; I do not understand how that is going to help fuel poverty.

I appreciate, by the way, that the Minister does not have policy responsibility here. I am not sure what sort of response I might get from DESNZ, but it would be quite useful to get some thinking on that.

The reason why I think the costs here have been underestimated is that, in May this year, the UC statistics showed that 6.6 million households were on universal credit, 6.1 million of which are getting payments. That is not simply the transfer from existing legacy benefits to universal credit; there is an element of that, but that number will continue to increase because people are still claiming universal credit. On top of that, there are around 1.4 million people receiving pension credit and around 1.1 million pensioners receiving housing benefit. This is why the figures start to get bigger and bigger. There will undoubtedly be an overlap between the 1.4 million on pension credit and the 1.1 million on housing benefit; nevertheless, this will show, I think, that the costs here have been underestimated. I fear that the levy will, in effect, be higher for other bill payers. It is not the same as the winter fuel payment, because that came from taxpayers—this is coming from every bill payer.

I should also point out to noble Lords, based on a response to an Answer, that there are 200,000 households on universal credit with an income of more than £35,000. They will continue to receive this benefit now. The brilliant DWP—I love it so much—is fantastic at getting the matching. So I would be grateful to understand why DESNZ estimates that 28% of the 8.1 million people it thinks are eligible for this will not receive the warm home discount due to data-matching. Surely more should be done to kick the energy companies. I am concerned that park home residents are excluded. They are a particular group who have a nice life but tend to be on pretty low incomes, but I understand some of the complexities.

I found it astonishing in a different way, although it was perhaps a bit welcome, that there was a 150% uplift of people receiving this in London compared to the rest of the country. That is pretty high, given that more than double the number of households in the south-east will receive this. Clearly, this has not necessarily been done on what might be considered traditional regional adjustments. It is important also, regarding aspects in annexe 5 of the assessments, that the NHS estimates that the preventable costs would be about £540 million. Now the cost on these bills is going up to £1 billion, but I am convinced it will be more like £1.1 or £1.2 billion.

Of course I am not going to try and vote down this instrument, because that is not what we do in the Lords. I wish I had spotted the consultation earlier so that I could have contributed then but, when we come to the post-implementation review of the regulations in a few years’ time, the figures will be telling and Ministers should be looking out for this a lot more quickly. Genuinely, the impact will be that benefits from this levy will decrease, as opposed to increase.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for stepping into the breach and presenting the regulations in the form of the statutory instrument before us. I share and echo the concerns of my noble friend, without going into any great length, who was an excellent Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions at a most difficult time during Covid—a big applause to her and her department at the time, and the work that it continues to do.

I welcome much of the content of the regulations. I forgot to declare my interest as president of National Energy Action and co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Water, which will be significant when I come on to smart meters. However, the Whip on duty will remind me that I have said this in the past, so I am going to say it again because I want to record it at every opportunity. I do not know if it is something that the department might look at but, if the noble Baroness is not able to answer today, can she write and place a copy of the letter in the Library? Those households that are most in need of energy, such as in the north of England, Scotland and many vulnerable areas would have qualified for, say, £300, so fewer households would have benefited, but it would have had a much bigger impact on fuel poverty in that regard. Is that something that the Government are minded to look at?

Again, it is not part of these regulations but it is something that National Energy Action would like to place on the record but that I do not necessarily agree with. It would like to see a social tariff. My understanding is that there was a social tariff for energy prior to the warm home discount. I was trying to explain to NEA that you either have one or the other. Social tariffs operate quite effectively in the water sector, but I do not see how we can have both. I presume that that is something that the department under successive Governments has looked at. I should like to find out and have placed on the record for National Energy Action’s benefit what the current Government’s thinking is. Are we going to stick with the warm home discount, which would be my preference, or are we going to have both a warm home discount and the social tariffs?

My more radical thinking, when the Minister was referring to the contents of the regulation and the result of the consultation, was about transforming the housing stock. The Government have granted £13.2 million, not an insignificant sum of money, in that regard. I have a mounting concern that there is housing stock—I see this locally, and I am sure it is in other parts of the country as well—that would benefit from just a bit of an upgrade in having double-glazed windows and maybe a bit of stuff in the wall cavity areas and the roofs to make those houses more habitable. Obviously that would reduce the cost of heating, so it is not going out the window or through the walls, so to speak.

The plan I propose is that we reverse VAT. Take VAT off renovations and put it on newbuild. That way, I argue that it would be neutral. Obviously, it would pass on to the purchasers of new houses, but it would greatly increase the housing stock. Again, that is not in the regulations, but is it something that the Government might consider?

In preparing for today, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 30th report, where it did a short analysis on this. Its conclusion, as my noble friend Lady Coffey referred to, was:

“We note that the percentage increase in the levy on billpayers and the impact of the expansion of the Scheme on the number of recipients and overall spending are expected to be significant”.


It is no secret that the major parties are deeply concerned about the cost of living crisis, which is ongoing. We have had the higher cost, for those who are not on a fixed tariff, of energy prices going forward for this winter. As my noble friend pointed out, that is going to mean a higher increase for those households that do not benefit to pay for the significant amount of money, which we know to be approximately £1 billion, up from £600 million in the past.

The Government could look at other measures as well. I have long been interested in the possibility of having a smart meter. Anna Walker did a report on water efficiency at the same time as there were the reports by Martin Cave on competition and Michael Pitt on flooding in about 2007 or 2008. Of those three reports, the Walker report on water efficiency never really got any legs. However, she gave very useful advice like, “Don’t run your water when you’re brushing your teeth, but in particular don’t run the hot water because you’re literally putting hot water that you have heated down the system, which is ridiculous”.

Is there a possibility that energy and water would both be governed by the same smart meter? Are the Government aware that currently—my authority for this is the Radio 4 programme “You and Yours”, which I happened to listen to on, I think, Friday—there is evidence that smart meters do not work in rural areas? I know the Minister lives in a deeply rural area. I have been reluctant to fit a smart meter for that reason; there is no point in having one fitted if it is not going to work. Apparently they will give you all these other gadgets to help it work, but still it will not.

If smart meters are not working and people are not able to monitor true energy use then that is one point, but if we were able to develop smart meters that covered both water consumption and energy consumption then that would be a big plus for households. So I give a cautious welcome to these regulations, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make the few comments that I have.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, this instrument brings forward much needed and real expansion of a vital scheme that we believe will have significant positive impacts. We welcome the proposed expansion of the warm home discount, which aims to bring financial relief to millions more households across Great Britain that are grappling with the brutal realities of fuel poverty and escalating energy bills.

What we have here is, in essence, a doubling of those who will be eligible for the £150 rebate on energy bills. This will bring vital relief to many families who are struggling, but the scale of the challenge is immense. In England alone, some 2.7 million households are trapped in fuel poverty. The average fuel poverty gap has soared to an alarming £407—a near 60% increase since 2020 in real terms. Disturbingly, the number of households forced to spend over 10% of their income on energy bills, after housing costs, has more than doubled since 2020 to 9 million households in 2024. Furthermore, energy debt and arrears hit a record £3.85 billion in December 2024.

Independent Water Commission

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[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.