Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I applaud His Majesty’s Government for these new contract regulations. They are both comprehensive and long overdue in addressing matters of serious injustice in the dairy farming sector. Unfair milk contracts have been an area of concern for the dairy sector for many years, going back to the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts, introduced in 2012. In their current form, most milk contracts do not create mutually balanced business relationships between buyers and sellers. Rights and obligations are often heavily biased in favour of buyers.

At times of pressure, purchasers have been able to change contract terms and pricing mechanisms, in some instances even introducing retrospective penalties and price cuts without negotiation. The Covid-19 crisis saw many of these scenarios play out. Farmers were hit with price cuts at no notice, a lack of transparency on pricing, and delayed payments, resulting in significant pressures on producers during this challenging period.

These regulations will see freely negotiated and fairly balanced contracts, tailored to the needs of both buyers and farmers. They mark a significant step forward. It will be important for industry and government to help support the development of farmer representation structures, such as producer organisations within the dairy sector, to make the most of the regulations and improve trust and collaboration across the supply chain.

This legislation contains extensive powers for the Secretary of State to oversee and enforce the code. I welcome the recruitment of the agricultural supply chain adjudicator, who will, among other things, enforce the regulations on behalf of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister clarify whether it is intended that the person appointed to this role will learn from the operation of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which has been in operation since 2013?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward these regulations. They plug a gap which has long been open, as most farmers do not supply supermarkets directly and so are not covered by the Groceries Code Adjudicator.

When I chaired the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place, I took a small delegation to Denmark to learn about the effectiveness of its milk and other co-operatives. Does my noble friend see this as an opportunity to encourage more co-operatives and producer organisations than we have seen in the past?

I grew up in the hills of the north of England, where I could see how fiercely independent hill farmers and others were. There is often a certain resistance to working together. I hope that the regulations my noble friend has presented this evening will lend themselves to producing such co-operation in future.

The NFU has long argued for fairer, more transparent supply chains. I hope that its pleas will be rewarded in the regulations before us. Can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will lend their support to the development of representational structures, such as the producer organisations and co-operatives to which he alluded? This will ensure that the dairy sector can work collaboratively and effectively with improved trust and greater collaboration across the supply chain.

I warmly welcome these regulations.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I too warmly welcome these regulations. It is interesting and rather ironic that the farmers are protesting in Parliament Square while we are addressing this topic. When I saw the tractors outside, I felt rather envious. I wished I had brought my own tractor from Northumberland, although it might have taken most of the weekend.

This has been an issue for a very long time. I have been involved in trying to encourage better relationships within the dairy and other sectors for at least 25, if not 30, years. This is an important development. I welcomed it when the then Agriculture Bill came into the House. It was a big step forward for the Government to bring this in as part of that Bill.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, did the Government seriously consider whether to extend the existing GSCOP and Groceries Code Adjudicator to include the elements contained in that Bill? There have been at least two reviews of the scope of GSCOP during the years. Many of us have been keen that that scope should be extended down the supply chain to provide greater protection and support for primary producers.

Secondly, if the answer to that is, “Yes, we have considered it but have decided to go it alone and establish our own adjudicator within the dairy sector”, are the Government likely to extend that scope to other sectors? Many of the issues dogging the dairy sector dog other sectors too. Relationships within supply chains are nothing like as good as they should be and, in many cases, degenerate into confrontational relationships. In my view, it is important to look at other sectors. When the adjudicator is appointed, it should be made clear that—if it is government policy—the remit is likely to be extended to include other sectors.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th March 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

2: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of impact on import of livestockWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a review of the impact of this Act on—(a) the number of livestock imported into Great Britain from the EU for fattening or slaughter, and(b) the welfare standards of livestock imported into Great Britain for fattening or slaughter.”

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on moving his first amendment in Committee; it is very good for him to get that under his belt.

In moving Amendment 2, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 3, which is also in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for lending her support to Amendment 2. These two amendments are grouped with Amendments 4 and 5 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Bakewell; they are on similar themes, but I will leave them to speak to their own amendments.

I declare my interests at the outset. I chaired the EFRA Committee in the other place for five years and served as an MEP for 10 years. I am also an associate of the British Veterinary Association; I must stress that I do not always agree with its views, but I welcomed the briefing that it shared with me in advance of today.

As I indicated to my noble friend the Minister at Second Reading, I wish to press the Government into, I hope, reaching a reciprocal arrangement with EU member states on our exports; that was mentioned earlier in connection with Amendment 1. In effect, there is now no trade in live animal exports, so that ship has sailed, but I believe that it would be far better to proceed on the basis of reciprocity.

UK farmers are currently in an extremely unhappy, unequal and unfair situation. For example, at home, we have banned egg production through battery cages. Egg producers in this country were keen to comply with this, and, more specifically, British consumers were really agitating for this to be put in place. Yet we are now importing thousands of eggs a year that are produced across mainland Europe in battery cages. I note that the NFU reported that the UK granted temporary suspensions in May 2022, and—dare I say it?—that imports of Ukrainian poultry meat to the UK,

“direct and transhipped via the European Union, had increased by 90% in the first 11 months of 2023 compared to the same period in 2022”.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, the Bill will reinforce our farming industry’s position as a world leader on animal welfare, boosting the value of British meat and helping to grow the economy. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Hoey and Lady Bakewell, for seeking to ensure that all of the Bill’s impacts have been fully considered. I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 2 and ask noble Baronesses not to press their Amendments 3, 4 and 5.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this; I am particularly grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Fookes. We are often not entirely on the same page on this as, in the other place, I represented a livestock-producing part of the country and she represented a livestock-consuming part. She has campaigned with great vigour.

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken for their support for the amendments. I am slightly disappointed that my noble friend the Minister skirted around some of the issues causing great concern to the farming community, which were so eloquently encapsulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in terms of the impact on farmers. We are discussing animal welfare today but I am very conscious of the impact on the farming community from an onslaught and barrage of legislation such as this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned, my noble friend’s estimate was from 2021 when, in effect, there was no export. Having lost that probably five years previously —probably before Covid—the impact is much greater than £5.2 million.

I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, in this regard as well. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned the importance of monitoring. I do not think that my noble friend the Minister mentioned what monitoring there will be. It concerns me that we have not got to the bottom of this loophole, which does exist. I heard what he said about trade going through. I believe that it is lucrative enough and is already happening. I have been told that it is the only way for breeding stock to get out of the country. It is a much longer journey than would otherwise be the case.

My noble friend picked up on a point about slaughter-houses—but not the point that I made, which is that, because we have closed local abattoirs, livestock in this country has to travel further, which is obviously a source of concern to the farming community as well as consumers, the RSPCA and others. Vets are required on-site at slaughterhouses, which raises another issue about vets.

I take my noble friend’s point that these border posts in EU countries are a commercial arrangement but he skirted over the fact that this is a commercial arrangement that our farmers expect us to put in place for them. I hope that we can focus on the reciprocal arrangements for this.

I appreciate that my noble friend said at Second Reading that there are ongoing discussions about sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements, but I leave the Committee with the thought that breeding stock is a real issue. We have lost generations of breeding stock, which are immensely lucrative and obviously finite; they live for only so long, so to get them over to the continent is very pressing indeed, as is the urgency of phytosanitary agreements being negotiated and the opening up of border posts. I will discuss with colleagues what we might do at the next stage. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Amendment 6 is the only amendment in this group, but just before I go into the detail I want to mention to the Committee that I have had a message from my noble friend Lady Mallalieu to say how disappointed she is that she has been unable to join the debate, due to ill health, and to assure the Minister and Members that she fully supports the Bill but has some reservations around exporters of breeding stock to Europe. She does not feel that there was adequate consultation with them during the planning process of the Bill. I mention it here because I want to talk about welfare standards around breeding stock, and so it links to some of my concerns.

My Amendment 6, calling for a review of the impact on welfare standards within six months of the Bill being passed, is less about what is in the Bill and more about what is not. As the Bill covers only livestock and live exports that are for slaughter, and not those for breeding and competition, my concern is that, because the standards around breeding and competition are not covered, it risks some animals falling through the cracks in this area.

The British Veterinary Association sent a particularly good briefing on the impact of transport on animals’ health, including animals that are being transported within this country, not just exports. This was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The BVA is asking that there be a well-defined set of animal health and welfare standards which must be met for the entirety of the journey of animals that are transported within this country, which I fully support and I hope that the Minister will, and that the minimum standards should be the same for all animals, no matter the purpose of the transportation.

The BVA talks about the multiple factors at the different stages of an animal’s journey that need to be considered. These include the transport time and distance from point of production. Its argument is that animals should always be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are reared, which brings me to the issue that the noble Baroness raised. So many small, local abattoirs have closed. I know that the Government are developing a very good policy on this and are funding small abattoirs, but the funding is only to keep currently existing abattoirs open, not to reopen any that have closed. Unless we look at that aspect, animals in this country will always travel further distances than they ever have in the past.

At this stage, I should draw attention to my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, as this is something it has done quite a lot of work on. The BVA also talks about the transport design, the condition, the stocking densities and the skill of the driver. How the driver actually transports these animals—watering, feeding intervals, rest periods and the proper monitoring of health and welfare—is not talked about enough.

It also points out that, in December 2023, the EU announced plans to replace the current legislation for the protection of animals during transport. These changes would include maximum journey times, limits on transportation under high temperatures, increased space allowances and increased welfare requirements for vulnerable animals. Its concern is that the UK risks falling behind, and therefore diminishing its world reputation when it comes to animal welfare, if we do not look at replicating something similar for animals that are transported within this country. I know that is not about banning live exports, but if one of the reasons we are doing this is because of animal welfare during transportation, it is logical that the next step is to consider the standards within this country when we are transporting animals.

Finally, I thank the Minister for responding to and reassuring me on the questions I raised at Second Reading about delays to sea journeys. I was particularly concerned about that, and I thank the Minister for his thorough response, which was much appreciated. Transportation in animals is a bigger issue than simply that addressed in the Bill.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I will intervene briefly to support the contents of Amendment 6, as moved so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

I had to give a wry smile, because I spent hours in the European Parliament passing legislation on the movement of animals, including on the length of journey and the feeding and watering intervals. Can my noble friend say—I cannot remember but I am sure his department will—whether we transposed all the existing regulations on animal welfare at the time that we left the European Union? Is it part of our retained EU law? I do not think we need to start from scratch—that is extremely important. That is true particularly in view of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was saying about long journeys from Scotland. I am not saying that there should not be journeys from Scotland—it is very proud of its livestock production —but we need to be sure that we have transposed those regulations and that we will not start absolutely from scratch.

That also begs the question that I referred to earlier about the shortage of vets. I was grateful for the briefing we had, over a very enjoyable evening, from the British Veterinary Association. I am sorry that my noble friend was not there, but the Secretary of State was, and he acquitted himself extremely well. The point was made that there is a shortage of vets, and a plea was made to whichever party is in government after the next election—I am sure it will be a Conservative Government, so I am addressing my noble friend very vigorously here—that we should address the issue that the BVA raised about veterinary qualifications and the status of veterinary. This was a big issue in some of the Brexit legislation that went through. We had a number of Spanish and other European vets who left, so there is a shortage of vets.

This is my noble friend’s opportunity to wax lyrical about abattoirs. My husband and I have a voucher—it is rather an odd thing to bid for—to go and visit an abattoir followed by a lunch. We thought we might do it the other way round—we will see how it goes. With the closure of abattoirs, not only are there longer journeys but there is a requirement that a vet is at the abattoir for the duration of the slaughter process. Is that putting undue pressure on vets, as well as all the export certificates that are required in this regard? I am also deeply disappointed that eggs and poultry meat are not included in the remit of the Bill.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am always in favour of anything that might improve the welfare of animals. Of course, one must include this review of the impact. However, on a technical point, I wonder whether this does not go slightly beyond the remit of the Bill itself. We are dealing in the Bill only with the export of animals for slaughter or further fattening, and this refers to export alone, not to animals that are going to be slaughtered. It would be aimed rather at the sort of animals that would be going over for racing, showjumping and the breeding of specialist animals.

Environment Agency

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an insightful point about these precious and irreplaceable water bodies—chalk streams. Indeed, 2028 is a key date for changing the current system. Specifically, 95 licences have been revoked in chalk stream catchments since 2008. In addition to reducing the burden of abstraction pressures, the Government are protecting chalk streams and have identified them as a priority site in our storm overflows discharge reduction plan. We are also delivering restoration projects amounting to 400 kilometres in chalk stream areas, increasing investment into restoring chalk stream catchments and looking at further options as part of the environmental land management plan. Defra is also working closely with colleagues in Natural England and the Environment Agency on the chalk streams recovery package, which is intended to set out the broader approach to protecting and recovering chalk streams.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, part of the problem with Environment Agency funding is the arbitrary definition of what constitutes capital spending and operational expenditure. Will my noble friend look very carefully at this in considering a total budget, or at least at getting rid of some of the arbitrary definitions that are in place?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. She is absolutely right that there are issues around this. However, there is a degree of flexibility within the capital and revenue budgets. Money is allocated each year to maintain and look after flood defences, and money is allocated for capital expenditure to make future improvements. Only last year, during the very stormy weather in the autumn, the Secretary of State reallocated capital expenditure funding to revenue for this very purpose.

Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)]

My Lords, we have an afternoon of waste regulations today. These regulations were laid in draft before the House on 17 January. They amend the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023. Since June last year, when those regulations were first amended, there has been significant change and development of the collection and packaging reforms. This includes a 12-month deferral to the full implementation of the packaging extended producer responsibility scheme, in order to focus on stakeholder engagement, and a delay to the Scottish deposit return scheme. These events have caused several issues that now require amendments to producers’ data reporting obligations.

I turn to the details of this instrument. These regulations introduce two key changes, but I assure the Committee from the outset that these changes are not a change of policy intent; instead, they address the delay to the Scottish deposit return scheme and stakeholder concerns. First, this SI removes the exemption from data reporting on drinks containers that would have been obligated in a Scottish deposit return scheme. The delay to that scheme, combined with the exemption from the data reporting regulations, meant that 180,000 tonnes of packaging would have gone unobligated for a number of years under both the deposit return scheme and the packaging extended producer responsibility. This amendment accounts for this development and ensures that all packaging supplied in the UK will attract a recycling obligation. The new provisions will exempt this material again once a deposit return scheme is operational.

Secondly, this instrument responds to stakeholder feedback on the definition of household packaging. These amendments address two key aspects of this feedback, broadening the definition to allow for more packaging to be exempt from disposal fees. The first update to the definition concerns packaging, or a packaged product, designed only for use by a business or a public institution: for example, a 50-litre beer keg. Under the current definition, if this beer keg is sold to a wholesaler before being supplied to the pub that uses it, this packaging would have to be reported as household packaging. However, large beer kegs are unlikely to end up in household bins. Our amendments introduce an additional test that offers producers the opportunity to exempt such packaging from being treated as household packaging.

The second update widens this “business only” exemption to include packaging or a packaged product that is supplied to public institutions, such as hospitals or schools, and is unlikely to end up being disposed of in a household bin, such as packaging for an ultrasound scanner or restricted medicines. These amendments allow for more packaging to be fairly exempted from being defined as household packaging and therefore not attract packaging extended producer responsibility disposal cost fees. However, all packaging, regardless of whether it is household packaging or not, will remain subject to packaging extended producer responsibility recycling obligations, as at present. This requires producers to purchase evidence from recycling facilities and those who export packaging for recycling; this is then used as proof that their recycling obligations have been met.

In addition to the two key areas that I have discussed, these regulations also make a number of other changes. There are four amendments that were identified not long after the original regulations came into force in early 2023. We were not able to include these in the amendments midway through the 2023 data collection year as they would have retrospectively increased obligations. We therefore always intended to make these changes starting from the 2024 reporting year.

This includes an amendment to clarify that the packer or filler is obligated for branded packaging if the only brand on that packaging relates to the packaging itself, not the product inside. For example, if a packer or filler puts their product in a branded “Jiffy bag” but does not add their own brand to it, the packer or filler is obligated, not Jiffy. I hope that is clear.

A further amendment to the regulations clarifies who is responsible for packaging where ownership is retained by an overseas producer while a UK-based third party imports or manufactures the product on their behalf. Once the ownership is passed to a UK-based client, that person, as the first UK-based owner, becomes obligated for that packaging. This could be a supermarket or wholesaler. This amendment ensures that packaging does not go unobligated.

The third amendment addresses a loophole to ensure that distributor producers retain their obligations where they sell empty packaging to large producers that then sell the packaging onwards without filling it, for example where a distributor makes coffee cups and sells them to a wholesaler, and then that wholesaler sells them on to a small coffee shop. In this scenario, the amendment will make the distributor the obligated producer for those coffee cups.

The regulations also amend the data reporting requirements on the nation in which packaging is sold. The regulations already require reporting by nation of packaging sold from a business to a consumer. This fix extends this requirement to ensure that data on the nation in which packaging is sold from one business to another is also collected. This was always the intention and will help enable recycling rates to be tracked individually in each nation. In addition, we are making an amendment that will aid distributor producers to comply with the regulations. It does this by requiring the Environment Agency to publish a list of all large producers that have reported data, supporting distributors to identify which of their customers are obligated producers in their own right.

Finally, the SI includes some minor amendments to correct drafting; some provisions to accommodate for the transition from the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007; and some changes to help avoid the reporting of one piece of packaging by two producers. These amending regulations will apply to England only, but similar amending regulations are being progressed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My officials have worked closely with the relevant departments in the devolved Administrations in the development of this legislation.

In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in these regulations are crucial for enabling the effective implementation of extended producer responsibility for packaging and realising its associated environmental benefits. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these regulations. I have two quick questions.

First, throughout the Explanatory Memorandum, a key theme is the link between the regulations before us and the extended producer responsibility regulations. When might we expect to see them? The two fit quite closely together. I do not know whether my noble friend can give us a date, but I understand that those regulations will contain guidance relating to the ones before us.

Secondly, I looked up the cost-benefit analysis and if I understand it correctly, the costs are about £1,200 million per year, presumably to producers of the packaging —I do not know whether that includes local authorities—and the benefits are zero. If so, is that beneficial going forward, on the basis of that cost-benefit impact assessment?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informative introduction to this long-awaited and much-heralded SI. He will be relieved to know that, unlike the previous SI, I am not outraged by this one.

These regulations come into effect on 1 April 2024. Large producers must collect the data from 1 January to 30 June this year but may not have to report it. However, all must collect and report the data from the commencement date of 1 April to 30 June, according to the Explanatory Memorandum. It is not clear what the large producers are expected to do. Can the Minister provide some clarification?

The Environment Agency will provide the necessary guidance for this SI. Why is it necessary for the EA to do so? Why is Defra not doing it? The EA is already under-resourced and under pressure, with a wealth of other duties. Surely Defra, which has increased its staff considerably in recent years, could have produced this guidance for what is, after all, a government policy objective.

These regulations relate to the extended producer responsibility scheme, as the Minister said, whereby producers will pay a tax for the amount of packaging they release on to the market. However, information about the cost will not be available until the producer responsibility, packaging and packaging waste regulations are produced. Smaller producers are particularly affected by not knowing the likely level of fees, and cash flow is a vital element of their businesses. I am sure the Minister is ready for the next question and will have a substantive answer. Exactly when will these regulations be published? Without them, the exercise we are going through today is somewhat meaningless.

I fully support these regulations, which should help considerably to eliminate plastic and other non-compostable waste from our environment. I have been contacted, as I am sure have others, by the Federation of Wholesale Distributors. It too is wholly supportive of the regulations but has a couple of reservations. usbIt feels that it is essential that the Government and the Environment Agency work with the sector on the types of products that will be classified as household waste. Can the Minister give a reassurance on this issue? The FWD is also keen to see continued collaboration between the Government and the wholesale sector to ensure that EPR remains a pragmatic and inclusive policy. I fully support the FWD in its aims and objectives. It is only by working together that a solution which suits all will be found and, therefore, be successful.

Waste Enforcement (Fixed Penalty Receipts) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2023

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 10 January.

Litter and fly-tipping harm the environment and blight local communities. In a recent survey, 61% of the public thought that litter and dog fouling were a problem in their area, and 49% thought that fly-tipping was a problem. Street cleansing, including clearing up litter and fly-tipping, cost councils in England £822 million in 2022-23. There is clearly a need for more action to deter people from committing these offences, and to ensure that those who cause these problems face the consequences.

Councils already have a range of powers, including issuing fixed-penalty notices to those who litter, fly-tip or pass their household waste to someone without the proper licence. But we know that some councils are not using these powers, even where they have significant fly-tipping problems. In his anti-social behaviour action plan, the Prime Minster made it clear that councils should take a tougher approach to enforcement and make greater use of these fixed penalties. The Government have already taken steps to help councils do just that, including publishing new league tables providing transparency on how councils are using their enforcement powers for fly-tipping. Furthermore, the maximum fixed penalty councils can issue has been increased from £400 to £1,000 for fly-tipping, from £150 to £500 for littering, and from £400 to £600 for householders using an unlicensed waste carrier.

Income from these fines is retained by councils and currently ring-fenced for various functions related to waste management, including sweeping, emptying bins and household waste collection. We know that in a minority of councils, fixed-penalty receipts are absorbed into general council budgets or are spent on other neighbourhood functions. The Government believe that revenue received through payment of litter and fly-tipping penalties should be reinvested in expanding or improving councils’ enforcement functions and cleaning up the consequences of this anti-social behaviour. The instrument will ensure this by amending the qualifying functions on which councils can spend income from fixed-penalty notices issued for littering, fly-tipping and breaching the household waste duty of care, to enforcement and clean-up only.

By improving their enforcement capabilities, councils should be able to catch more perpetrators and deter others from offending, which should lead to cleaner streets, parks and the wider countryside. Enforcement functions could include employing more officers, investing in CCTV and signage and improving the use of data. Clean-up functions can include collecting and disposing of litter and fly-tipping, and restoring land which has been harmed. The instrument also retains the Secretary of State’s ability to make provisions by legislation in future on how local authorities in England use their fixed-penalty receipts.

Although this new ring-fence will apply to councils in England only, the instrument does include consequential amendments relevant to Wales to ensure that no changes are made to how local authorities in Wales can spend fixed-penalty receipts.

The instrument also makes consequential amendments to the Local Government (Structural Changes) (Further Transitional Arrangements and Staffing) Regulations 2009 to ensure that arrangements pertaining to the merging of authorities in England are not affected. Consequential amendments are also made to the Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018, meaning that no changes are made to how authorities can spend income from these civil penalties.

In conclusion, this instrument will ensure that all councils in England reinvest the money they make from those fines into expanding or improving their enforcement functions and cleaning up the consequences of this anti-social behaviour. This should help deter people from harming our public space and make it more likely that those who do so face the consequences. I hope noble Lords will support these measures and their objectives. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward these regulations and, in particular, on ring-fencing the money raised through the fixed-penalty receipts. I will raise one issue with him. If I have understood it correctly, this still applies only to public land. If so, this is a missed opportunity. In incidents of fly-tipping on private land, as I am sure my noble friend may be all too aware from his home estate, we are increasingly seeing an element of criminality, with people taking construction waste and literally dumping it on private land.

I worked with the Environment Agency when I was an MP and a shadow Minister in the other place. It has a very good mechanism of cameras in strategic places—I know it does not always want it publicised—which can catch the perpetrators of this crime to very good effect. That makes it much easier for it to bring them to book. My concern is that there was a very powerful response from the NFU, among others, and I am sure that the CLA and the TFA would have responded in the same vein. In its response to the original consultation, which is the basis of these regulations, the NFU asked for

“greater consistency across how local authorities, the Environment Agency and the police engage with private land managers who are victims of fly-tipping. We believe it should not be the sole responsibility of the land managers to deal with this crime, when it is a community-wide issue”.

I would like to understand why, if that was in the consultation, the department chose not to apply the regulations or ASBOs to private land and what the basis was for that. The NFU concluded that

“it is imperative that these proposals are not limited to fly-tipping and littering incidents solely on public land”.

I am sure that my noble friend and others in the Committee will have seen the graphic images on television of people now taking matters into their own hands because the Environment Agency and the police do not always turn up. There was a very good example of how these criminals can be apprehended—although there are dangers attached to this—when four vehicles hemmed in one van that was dumping on to private land all the materials to which I have referred.

I accept that there is an inevitable cost to local authorities and the Environment Agency in finding the perpetrators and, for public land, removing this material, but we are missing the fact that most fly-tipping is increasingly on private land. I would like to understand why it was excluded from this. If we are to go down the path of people individually trying to apprehend perpetrators on private land when they are in the middle of a crime, that will bring inherent dangers and I am sure the Government do not wish to encourage it. In the instance to which I referred—I cannot remember which part of the country it was—they apprehended the perpetrator and he was brought to book. The police attended and criminal charges followed.

I applaud everything that the Government are doing to make these regulations, firm up government policy and make sure that the receipts are ring-fenced, but the weakness is that most fly-tipping is on private land and we seem to have left that out.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the details of this SI on the fees received from fixed-penalty receipts for fly-tipping. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

Fly-tipping is a scourge on our environment. During the passage of the Agriculture Bill there were several debates on the effect of fly-tipping on the farming community. Fly-tippers find it particularly easy to dump their spoils on droves, bridleways and open countryside, leaving the farmer to clean up the mess, often at considerable expense. The law is of no particular help to them. Local authorities issue fixed-penalty notices for littering and fly-tipping where they know who the culprit is, but this is often very difficult to ascertain. They are also able to issue notices for breaching the household waste duty of care. In this case it should be slightly easier to discover who the culprit is, but I wonder how often this power is used. Can the Minister say how many fixed-penalty notices were issued last year for breaching the household waste duty of care?

This SI is yet another example of central government adding to the burdens of local government. Subsection (5) of new Section 73ZA inserted by Regulation 2 of the SI is a good example of this:

“A waste collection authority must supply the Secretary of State with such information relating to its use of its fixed penalty receipts as the Secretary of State may require”.


Subsection (6) adds:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … about what a waste collection authority must do with its fixed penalty receipts pending the use of those receipts for the purposes referred to in subsection (2) or (3)”.


Subsection (7) of new Section 95A inserted by Regulation 3 inserts:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … about what an authority must do with its fixed penalty receipts pending the use of those receipts for the purposes referred to in subsection (3) or (4)”


Subsection (8) states:

“The provision that may be made under subsection (7)(c) includes (in particular) provision for the payment of sums to a person (including the Secretary of State) other than the authority”.


It is clear that central government does not trust local government to conduct its waste-collection functions effectively or to have the best interests of its communities at heart. As we have local elections coming up in part of the country in May, I wonder how many political leaflets will say, “If you vote in this election don’t be surprised if we are unable to carry out any of the usual services you expect of local councillors, as central government is continually putting extra duties and restrictions on the way we can operate”. This is nothing more than a tax to be collected by local authorities and paid to central government.

The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the SI will

“add a new list of qualifying functions for local authorities in England”.

This should, allegedly, mean that more enforcement will take place, resulting in more fixed-penalty receipts, which would reduce incidents of fly-tipping and function as a deterrent. The logic appears fine, but it takes no account of “first find your fly-tipper”. I will share with the Committee an example of the way in which illegal fly-tippers operate, although I am sure everyone is aware of this. Last autumn, as I went to the GP surgery for my Covid booster, I had to negotiate a huge pile of what looked like cedar tree prunings in the middle of a junction in the road. This was at 9 am in the morning. By the time I came back 40 minutes later, council employees were there with a truck clearing the mess away, and I stopped to speak to them. They confirmed it was likely to be fly-tipping by an operator who had persuaded a householder that they were a legitimate contractor who could do some work for them but who was, in fact, an operator without a licence. There was, of course, nothing on the pile of tree branches to indicate who the culprit was.

I am afraid that restricting what local authorities can spend their fixed-penalty revenue on is not going to prevent fly-tipping. A wholesale campaign to alert the public to the fact that everyone who removes waste from a property or business must have a licence to do so, and that they should ask to see it before parting with money, is really the only way to reduce fly-tipping.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all three noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate. I will start with fly-tipping on private land, which they all raised. The Government appreciate the difficulty that fly-tipping poses to landowners. As was pointed out, it is indeed deeply unfair and places a huge and unreasonable burden on private landowners. The Government are working with a wide range of stakeholders, such as the NFU, through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group, to promote and disseminate good practice, including how to prevent fly-tipping on private land.

Furthermore, in April last year, the National Police Chiefs’ Council established a new National Rural Crime Unit to support police forces nationally in responding to rural crime, including fly-tipping. Defra has awarded the National Rural Crime Unit a grant of £100,000 to fund a dedicated 12-month post, which started last month on the Northumberland-County Durham border, to explore the police’s role in tackling fly-tipping and how this can be optimised, with a particular focus on rural areas. Outputs from this will include training for police officers and working on intelligence-sharing across borders and between authorities.

Defra is also funding councils across the country to directly intervene at fly-tipping hotspots, including in rural areas, through the fly-tipping intervention grant scheme. For example, in Herefordshire, councils have seen a reduction in fly-tipping of over 90% across areas where CCTV—another issue raised by noble Baronesses —and signage have been installed, and they have developed stronger relationships with local farmers and landowners. If any noble Baroness has further specific questions on that issue, I will write to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Why was it excluded from the regulations before us today?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I will write to my noble friend on that because I do not have that detail in front of me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, stated quite a strong view about the Government passing this burden, if you like, on to local authorities. Interestingly, that was in fairly stark contrast to what my noble friend Lady McIntosh had previously said. That illustrates to me that there is no right or wrong way to do this; it is probably just a personal choice. Everybody will have a view about how it might be best done, but the Government’s view is that this is the best way to do it. I appreciate that that will not get much traction or be very well received, but it is the Government’s position, and that is where we will be heading.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the powers of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State already has these powers but due to the drafting required to retain the status quo, it has been necessary to restate them. This is linked to retaining the status quo in Wales. She also asked why there is a difference in the value of littering and fly-tipping. That is largely related to the volume associated with fly-tipping. It tends to be much greater and has the potential to cause much more damage to the land. Sorting out that problem usually takes a little more time and costs a little more money.

The noble Baroness also asked about the date of the draft consultation. I will write on that, because I do not have that detail with me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked whether the SI had been laid, withdrawn and then relaid. She is absolutely correct; this is the exactly the same thing, but there have been a number of changes since then. There were some typographical errors in the last one which this seeks to address. I think she also asked why it has taken so long. The best answer I can give is that it is due to pressing parliamentary business. Other questions related to the number of officers employed and why the West Midlands do not feature in the consultation. Again, I am afraid I cannot give any details on that but will write.

I hope I have answered your Lordships’ questions and that all noble Lords share my conviction of the need for this instrument. As I outlined, it will help move more income from fixed-penalty receipts to building enforcement capability and capacity within English councils, meaning that more offenders are brought to justice. At the same time, the increased deterrent effect should make people think twice before ruining the local environment for the rest of us. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Pollution in Rivers and Regulation of Private Water Companies

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Water, and last year I chaired a study organised by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management into bioresources strategy. I also worked with the water regulator for Scotland, the Water Industry Commission, between 2015 and 2018.

At the outset, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on securing this timely debate on river pollution and the case for the regulation of private water companies. I, for one, recognise that privatisation has permitted the massive investment required to move UK water from being one of the dirtiest in Europe to upgrading our drinking water, rivers and bathing waters to infinitely better quality than they were in the 1980s. We can always improve regulation, although some might say that there is already a wealth of regulators for private water companies: Ofwat, the Environment Agency, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, and now the Office for Environmental Protection.

Let us examine the causes of the pollution of our rivers. A recent phenomenon has been surface water flooding, which was first recognised in 2007, with run-off from our roads spilling into combined sewers. Does my noble friend the Minister, whom I welcome to his place today, think it right that national highway authorities are not held accountable for surface water run-off? There is also the case of inappropriate developments, whereby water companies are required to connect wastewater—sewage—to antiquated infrastructure, causing further spills when mixed with flood water entering the combined sewers.

[Lord Framlingham (Con)]

Will my noble friend give way?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

We are on a timer, so I will take advice on whether we are permitted to take interventions. Does the Clock stop if I take an intervention?

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

No.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am afraid that I cannot give way.

Large-scale developments built in inappropriate places, such as zone B flood plains, compound that with poor connections. We must tackle the problems of sewage at source, before it enters the rivers and sea. While the Government make the case for building on flood plains in certain circumstances, that should not be encouraged. In any event, such homes will not be insured under the Flood Re scheme if built after 2009.

I will also raise the vexed issue of misconnections. The Government made two commitments under the storm overflows discharge reduction plan that could help to address the issue: to give water companies the right to repair defective drains on private property, and to give water companies the right to alter drainage systems on private property to reduce impermeable areas connected to the combined sewer network. An important part of tackling misconnections is getting to the drains on private land, so that water companies can take action, as the majority of misconnections are on private land. Will the Government also allow water companies access to government-owned land, such as hospitals and schools, to make the necessary repair work and to repair drainage separation work where required? That measure alone would prevent excess water entering combined sewers.

Having examined the causes of pollution in our rivers, is there a case for further regulation of private water companies? Water companies have a positive role to play in areas such as creating natural flood defences—as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, pointed out—particularly by working with farmers and others. I pay tribute to the work of Yorkshire Water and United Utilities in that area. Defra should encourage other private sector players to contribute to that. What plans does my noble friend the Minister and his department have to do so? The Slowing the Flow scheme in Pickering, with which I was associated, is a good example of a natural flood defence combined with a small reservoir—not an overengineered project, such as those to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, objected—although all those involved were from the public sector. I urge the Government to lever more private sector funding into that. If we are to follow through with linking renumeration to performance, I invite my noble friend the Minister and his department to look at the corollary of that by giving water companies the tools to do the job.

The Government promised in this place and the other place that Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will be implemented as it has been in Wales. Will my noble friend confirm that this will happen in England before the election? It is extremely important that we stop the automatic right to connect, whereby water companies are expected to connect pipes from three, four or five-bedroomed homes to antiquated Victorian pipes that simply cannot take the amount of wastewater and sewage coming out of these new builds. The Government must insist on mandatory SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—for all new builds. I hope they will also commit to an ambitious programme of retrofitting to existing developments, where appropriate. Obviously, that raises the question of who will maintain the SUDS, which is an open question at the moment.

Will the Government look favourably on rewarding farmers for storing water on flood land? According to the NFU, over half the most fertile farmland in Britain is on flood plains. The farming community and landowners are performing a public good by preventing communities downstream from flooding. However, there is great uncertainty as to how farmers can benefit from public funds. Often this flooding will include sewage. Can my noble friend clarify who will be eligible to apply for both the flood recovery framework and the farming recovery fund, and what level of damages can be recovered? Equally, will Defra recognise that the role farmers play in storing floodwater is a public good? Will the Government look positively at a whole-catchment area approach, and more slow-the-flow schemes such as those successfully implemented in Pickering and elsewhere protecting downstream communities from flooding?

I applaud the action that the Government have taken on holding directors to account, particularly the instruction they have given to Ofwat and the work Ofwat has done on executive pay. Ofwat has been very clear that companies need to demonstrate that performance-related executive remuneration is linked to performance for customers and the environment. In June last year, Ofwat confirmed that where companies do not demonstrate that executive pay is linked to performance, it will stop companies recovering the cost of bonuses from consumers.

I welcome the level of investment announced in the five-year business plan that Ofwat has yet to approve. It will factor in £96 billion in the next investment period 2025 to 2030, of which £11 billion will be allocated to reduce overflow spills. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, identified an area which has only been recognised for spend—innovation—since 2014. I hope that Ofwat will go much further, recognising the natural flood defences to which the noble Baroness referred as innovative projects under the spending review. I think this will help many of the issues the noble Baroness identified. We do not want overengineered projects, we want natural flood defences—and these schemes have to be approved as part of the price review.

Finally, the NAO report in November 2023 made a number of very apt recommendations to increase resilience to future flood events, such as reprofiling capital spend, maximising long-term value for money and ensuring flexibility to switch money from capital spend to asset management. My preference is to establish a single budget for all flood spending.

Finally, will my noble friend look favourably on the use of SUDS and natural defences to ensure no overspill of raw sewage into combined sewers, so that it will not enter the rivers. Will he look favourably at a whole-catchment area management approach, to make highways authorities responsible for water run-off of pollution from these surfaces into combined sewers? Will he address the issue of missed connections and permit water companies to enter private land and government property in schools and hospitals? Will he look at giving water companies the right to alter drainage systems, consider the recommendation from CIWEM for a comprehensive independent review of water management, inform the public of the importance of water efficiency and address all the recommendations of the NAO report of November last year?

Animal Welfare (Primate Licences) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to put a couple of questions to the Minister, as she was kind enough to invite us to do. I declare my interest that I am an associate of the British Veterinary Association. It did not issue a briefing, but I have looked at its website and it supports the original thrust of the consultation, which was for a ban. As recently as December last year, when it posted its position on its website, it was in favour of a ban. Why have the Government and the department moved away from a ban to licensing, as in the regulations today?

Is the Minister in a position to say exactly how many primates are kept as pets? The noble Lord, Lord Trees, referred to a figure of 5,000, but I do not know whether that is an authoritative figure or a guesstimate.

The thrust of the regulations looks very much at licensing becoming the responsibility of local authorities. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said about the difficulty of identifying which professional would be best placed to make sure that the conditions in which the primate was to be kept were appropriate. The Minister will be as aware as I am of the severe constraints under which local authorities are operating at this time, so I wondered what the thinking was behind putting in place a licensing scheme rather than a ban—and it would be helpful to know the total number of primates that we are talking about.

Lastly, when I chaired the EFRA Committee in the other place, we took a lot of evidence on the import of illegal dogs, dog smuggling and boiler-room breeding of dogs. I wondered why we have before us a very worthy statutory instrument on animal welfare and keeping primates as pets, but we do not seem to have tackled those other issues, which are a source of great concern and anxiety to the British public, of illegal dog smuggling and boiler-room breeding, often in inappropriate sheds, in people’s homes.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I want to follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, about the possibility of exportation to Scotland when the licensing scheme is set up, as it will be, in England. It is quite a serious issue, as we have seen with XL bully dogs. I wonder whether the Minister’s department has been in touch with the authorities in Scotland to draw their attention to what is going on so that they are fully aware and can make their own assessment of the risk.

Some primates are kept as pets in Scotland, and I happen to have met two of them on separate occasions when they were being taken for walks. It is not as if it is an entirely English practice; there are certainly some instances north of the border, although I do not know how many there are. It is important that the two jurisdictions work together on this system without the disparity that is apparently coming because the regulations apply only to England.

Peatlands

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, given the role that peatlands play in flood defences, as the noble Baroness said, will the Minister pay tribute to all those involved in the Slowing the Flow pilot scheme in Pickering? Will he ensure that more private sector funding, either from water companies or others, can also be factored in to speed up the programme to which he refers?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point on the involvement of private companies. It is one of the Government’s aims to involve them more and get a bigger response from them shortly.

Water and Sewage Companies: Directors’ Remuneration

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I start with my declaration of interests, as on the register. I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group. Last year, I undertook to chair a study organised by CIWEM, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, into bioresources strategy. For a number of years, I worked with the water regulator for Scotland, the Water Industry Commission.

At the outset, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on securing this debate, and on his forensic examination of the subject. I, for one, think that privatisation has been a success. We can always improve upon it, and that is the purpose of today’s debate. It has delivered benefits, but there is always cause to look at the regulation.

I applaud the Government for the action they have taken on holding directors to account, particularly the instruction they have given to Ofwat and the work Ofwat has done on executive pay. It has been very clear that companies need to demonstrate that performance-related executive renumeration is linked to performance for customers and the environment. In June last year, Ofwat confirmed that, where companies do not so demonstrate that executive pay is linked to performance, it will stop companies recovering the cost of bonuses from customers. So, one of the points the noble Lord raised has already been addressed by both the Government and Ofwat. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister about what further action is envisaged.

Water companies have a public role to play in other areas, such as flood defences, particularly by working with farmers and others. I will spend some time outlining how that work could be done. If we are to follow through the thrust of the title of this debate and link renumeration to performance, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and his department will look at the corollary of that: giving water companies the tools to do the job. The Government promised in this place and the other place that Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 will be implemented, as it has been implemented in Wales. Will my noble friend tell us today, or in writing after the debate, what the programme is for that?

It is extremely important that we stop the automatic right to connect, whereby water companies are expected to connect pipes from three, four or five-bedroom homes to antiquated Victorian pipes that simply cannot take the amount of wastewater and sewage coming out of new-build houses. The Government must insist on mandatory SUDS—sustainable drainage systems—for all new builds, and I hope they will also commit to an ambitious programme of retrofitting sustainable drains to existing developments. Obviously, that raises the difficult question of who will maintain the SUDS, and I can well imagine that that might be the cause of the delay we are suffering in implementing Schedule 3. If my noble friend could report back on that, that would be immensely helpful.

The Government also need to attack the vexatious problem of building on inappropriate places such as flood plains. Building on flood plains is increasingly having the undesirable effect of mixing sewage with floodwater in combined sewers, which then pollutes existing developments. That has very negative public health consequences, causing people living there to leave. Will the Government also look carefully at making national highway authorities, not local authorities, responsible for water run-off from the major highways, which mixes with the combined sewers and is an additional source of flooding?

Will the Government also look favourably on rewarding farmers for storing water on flood land? According to the NFU, over half the best, most fertile farmland in Britain is flood plains. The farming community and landowners are performing a public good by preventing communities downstream flooding. However, there is great uncertainty as to how farmers can benefit from public funds. The NFU is seeking urgent clarification from Defra as to who will be eligible to apply for both the flood recovery framework and the farming recovery fund, and what level of damages can be recovered. Equally, there should be a simple recognition of the public good that farmers deliver in that regard.

I am very keen on and excited by the prospect of introducing more private sector funding from both farmers and water companies. Will my noble friend the Minister and his department look at that? That could include a whole-catchment area approach, and more Slowing the Flow schemes such as those successfully implemented in Pickering, protecting downstream communities from flooding.

I welcome the level of investment announced in the five-year business plan that Ofwat has yet to approve. It will factor in £96 billion in the next investment period, 2025-30, of which £11 billion will be allocated to reduce overflow spills. That is very welcome indeed.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate and to participate at Second Reading of this Bill. My interests are that I chaired the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place and served as an MEP for 10 years.

I am extremely proud of the high animal welfare conditions met by livestock producers in this country. Yet, as we have heard, there are no EU border posts currently in place, so it is impossible for our livestock producers to export, even for legitimate breeding purposes. While we admit breeding stock from the EU, with health checks conducted at the farm of destination, there are no reciprocal arrangements in place for British breeding stock going to the EU other than through Ireland, as we have heard. The Bill therefore seems to address a problem that does not exist—the live export of animals for fattening and slaughter—but fails to solve one that does, that of failure to export breeding stock. Can my noble friend the Minister say when the Government will address this? In the view of the National Sheep Association, it is a matter of utmost urgency.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for taking on this Bill as his first Bill and for his briefing with us on 30 January and subsequent letter, which I received today. I have some personal history with this issue. I was the Member of the European Parliament for the constituency which contained Brightlingsea, and exports came through that port when the Port of Dover stopped the movement of live animals in 1992. A vigorous campaign was mounted by a rather unknown organisation at that time, run by a mother and daughter, the embryo of Compassion in World Farming. The manager of the Port of Brightlingsea suffered attacks to his home and the town was overrun by visitors protesting about the transport of live animals on the ferries. I made a point of going to visit and board a ferry for myself, to see at first hand the comfortable conditions in which those sheep were transported— they were, frankly, superior to those enjoyed by foot passengers on many cross-channel ferries at that time.

It is important to note, however, that the live export of animals has always been a very limited and heavily regulated trade, as the maximum hours that animals can travel between resting periods, and feeding and watering intervals, are heavily regulated throughout the EU. Live exports of sheep and cattle—particularly sheep—were economically important to livestock producers in the north of England and Scotland for the same reasons as my noble friend and other cited regarding poultry exports, which will continue. They are of high value and meet the highest animal welfare standards, which is why our live exports of sheep were so welcome, particularly in France. The impact assessment gives the 2020 figures for exports of all livestock as 6,272 sheep for slaughter and 38,111 for fattening, with four goats for fattening—those four goats must have been very important.

The Bill raises a number of questions. Why is the ban not on a reciprocal basis? Why does it impact only producers in Great Britain? Why does it discriminate against our own producers in favour of EU exporters, in particular of breeding stock? I presume that some livestock comes from the EU to this country for fattening and slaughter purposes, no matter how small the trade —I ask my noble friend to confirm that. I would like to see an amendment from the Government to make this Bill work on the basis of reciprocity. Why is poultry excluded? The same welfare conditions should surely apply to poultry as to other livestock, such as sheep and cattle, particularly in view of the fact that they do not travel as well as other livestock such as sheep.

As we have heard from a number of speakers, the Bill contains a glaring loophole, referred to in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Dodds. Livestock movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be permitted, which means that, under the provisions of the ban in the Bill, any animal could be exported from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and through the Republic of Ireland for onward export to other parts of the EU, entailing a much longer journey that undermines the key animal welfare provisions of the Bill. I understand that that route is currently the only one available for breeding stock.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, very eloquently described the importance of the agri-food industry to Northern Ireland. I would echo that: it is an extremely important industry to the whole of the United Kingdom. Given the fact that basic payments are reducing and the ELMS criteria are still extremely fuzzy, yet we face a rising need for food security, what is the government action plan for beleaguered livestock farmers, particularly in the upland areas of England, which were the source of much of the live trade in the past? Again, I understand that the figures quoted showed that, for every live animal exported, seven were in carcass form—so the vast majority of this trade will continue, but in carcass form.

A further problem that I ask the Government to address is the lack of a phytosanitary agreement with the European Union. There is a chapter in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary standards that has never come into effect. Does my noble friend not agree that it is extremely important, as others have stated this afternoon, that any import, whether from the EU or a third country coming via the EU, must match the same high standards that are applied in this country? This gap in regulatory agreement, together with the new controls at UK border posts, is causing grave concerns to farmers and consumer groups alike.

I understand that the new BTOM regulations that are coming into effect are moving the checkpoint some 20 miles from those envisaged in the port of Dover to Sevington. I would argue that that is a hostage to fortune and not conducive to effective checks on entry to this country on plant and animal health. Let us pause and remember the recent cases of ash tree dieback and horsemeat fraud, which should serve as a wake-up call for greater vigilance on imported foods, whether they are live animals for breeding purposes or plants and food products coming in through the checkpoint at Sevington. There is also concern about the reliance at sale and production points on environmental health and trading standards officers at a time when local authority budgets are under severe constraint.

I conclude by saying that no farmer has willingly exported a live animal for fattening or slaughter in recent times. I pay tribute—and I hope that my noble friend and the House will join me—to the very high standards that our farmers meet, as expected by UK consumers. I hope that the beleaguered livestock industry in this country will soon have some good news from the Government, and certainty as to what their future will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Once animals have passed into the Republic of Ireland, that is outwith the jurisdiction of the Bill. That is the current position.

I would like to address the issues eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, concerning Northern Ireland and the Bill. I hope they will appreciate that I am somewhat constrained in this respect. Perhaps I might write to them separately on the issues they have raised.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised the question of negotiations with the EU on veterinary medicines going into Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to seeing a long-term, sustainable solution ahead of December 2025 that will properly support the flow of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland from Great Britain on an enduring basis. It remains our priority to find a solution, through technical talks with the EU, that removes the barriers to supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland. The Government are very clear that, in all scenarios, it is imperative to safeguard the supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland. If necessary, we will deploy all available flexibilities in line with our legal obligations.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the impact of this legislation on farmers and businesses. The current position is that we expect the ban to have minimal impact. We published an impact assessment in 2021, which can be accessed via the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. We estimated the direct cost to businesses of ending live exports to be around £5.2 million across the 10-year appraisal period, or around £500,000 per year. As there have been no exports for this purpose since 2020, the impact will have further decreased.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, also asked about border control posts on the northern coast of France. EU border control posts can be operated only with the approval of the competent authority in the relevant EU member state. The majority of BCPs are privately operated, and the main barrier to date for the establishment of a BCP for livestock is the commercial viability of such a site. We have encouraged our counterparts in France to do more to support commercial efforts to construct and operate a BCP for livestock, and we continue to engage with them to try to resolve this issue.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, may I press my noble friend on that point? Across the European Union, most ports are owned by the state. Is there any wriggle room whereby my noble friend and the Government could ask the Government of France to look into providing some sort of help? It looks like a rather protectionist measure as it stands.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I understand my noble friend’s point. I assure her that our officials are working very hard on this issue, but it is not going at pace at the moment.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked why the Bill had been brought forward, given that there are other issues facing our farming sector. It is important that we put a permanent end to this unnecessary trade. Although there have been no exports of livestock for slaughter recently, given that there is demand from the EU for sheep from Great Britain, we would expect that trade to restart in the future if we did not legislate to ban live exports now. She also asked whether there were any plans to introduce a corresponding ban on animals imported for slaughter and fattening. There has never been a particularly significant import trade for either: for example, in 2019, only 91 cattle and 178 sheep were imported for slaughter or fattening from mainland Europe.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, reflected on the Government’s broader animal welfare commitments. I take this opportunity to reassure them that we remain committed to our other animal welfare manifesto commitments, which are to crack down on illegal puppy smuggling, ban the keeping of primates as pets, and prevent livestock worrying.

On the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised on poultry, when we consulted on banning live exports for slaughter or fattening, we were clear that we were not proposing to extend the ban to poultry. There have been no exports of adult poultry for slaughter in recent years. I appreciate that the poultry industry and breeding companies export around 25 million day-old chicks every year, but no welfare concerns have been identified with this practice.

I once again thank all those who have spoken for their thoughtful and valuable comments. It has been hugely encouraging to hear the broad consensus throughout the debate on the importance of protecting and enhancing the welfare of the animals in our care. It is also clear that we can agree on the core aims of the Bill.