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

Debate between Earl of Effingham and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Monday 7th July 2025 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, these schemes, long established in the aforementioned beef and pork sectors, have provided transparency, accountability and consistency across the market. It is only right that the sheep sector now be afforded the same standards.

The proposed regulations, based on the existing Carcase Classification and Price Reporting (England) Regulations 2018, would require regulated slaughterhouses to submit weekly reports detailing price data by carcass classification for individual sheep under 12 months of age. Not only is this move logical, it is also timely. It will enable producers to better understand whether the prices they receive reflect the true value of their animals. It will also support better forward planning, evidence-based policy-making and market monitoring.

As it stands, the absence of a mandatory classification and pricing system has created a fragmented and inconsistent marketplace. While some abattoirs have voluntarily adopted classification systems and reported prices to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, others have used their own internal standards for trimming and weighing carcasses. This misalignment of practices has led to inconsistencies in carcass weights and a lack of price comparability, leaving many sheep farmers at a disadvantage.

Non-standardisation presents real-world consequences. It means that farmers often struggle to negotiate fair payment for the quality of their livestock and lack the data needed to make informed decisions that may improve both their businesses and productivity.

The proposals put forward today have been supported by a consultation held by Defra and the Welsh Government last year, which found broad support from stakeholders. Notably, the National Farmers’ Union, which has long campaigned for the reform, welcomed the proposals. David Barton, chair of the NFU livestock board, greatly looked forward to the proposals, which will benefit farmers, processors and customers all across the wider supply chain. The Meat & Livestock Classification has also voiced its support, recognising the potential of these changes to promote transparency and high standards in the British sheep industry.

Those processing 2,000 sheep or more weekly will be required to comply, and smaller abattoirs slaughtering between 1,000 and 1,999 sheep weekly on a rolling annual average will have the choice to opt in. This threshold strikes the right balance, capturing approximately 85% of all sheep slaughtered, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory pressure on smaller operations.

The instrument also includes a licensing regime for classifiers and automated classification methods, with an authorisation process in place to ensure the reliability of automated systems before they are approved for use.

I shall briefly touch on the subject of mobile abattoirs and smaller abattoirs, as referenced by my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Shephard and Lord Deben. I know from personal experience that abattoirs are on the decline; I do not know the exact statistics, but the decline has been significant. Will the Minister come back to us on what has already been asked, but also on the small abattoir fund, a fund that we introduced, of around £4 million? What are the Government’s plans for that fund? Will it remain? Will the funding be increased? How are the Government promoting it to smaller abattoirs? What regulations can we look at changing in order to make mobile abattoirs easier to be set up and used throughout the country?

In conclusion, we welcome today’s statutory instrument, which seeks to ensure that sheepmeat producers get a fair price for the product. It is a sensible, proportionate and long-overdue step towards a more transparent and equitable marketplace. It gives sheepmeat producers the clarity and confidence they need to ensure that they are receiving a fair price, and it should result in the system operating to a higher standard.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Thames, Yorkshire and Northumbrian Water: Ofwat Proposed Fines

Debate between Earl of Effingham and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On 19 December last year, Ofwat published its consultation notice, which set out the provisional decision to impose the financial penalty on Thames Water, as my noble friend laid out. As I explained earlier, there is a legal process that Ofwat has to go through. That consultation closed on 16 January—so, very recently—and Ofwat is now looking at those responses.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, at Report stage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, my noble friend Lord Cromwell successfully secured the overwhelming support of your Lordships’ House for his amendment on financial reporting by water companies. Given that many water companies are overleveraged, it is crucial that we have a laser focus on managing debt in the water sector, and the Government have indeed recognised the importance of water companies’ financial resilience. Can the Minister therefore please explain why the Government have removed my noble friend’s amendment from the Bill in the other place?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl is correct that tackling financial leverage and debt in water companies is important, and it is a priority for this Government. We are currently in discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, regarding his amendment.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024.

Debate between Earl of Effingham and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the Government’s Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Enforcement Regulations 2024. In government we took the issue of animal welfare very seriously, as evidenced by the passing of the Act to which this statutory instrument refers. The Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024 prevented the exportation of livestock for the sole purpose of slaughter or preparation for slaughter and received cross-party support.

We are pleased that the current Government continue to focus on this area by implementing the practical steps to ensure that the correct people are held responsible. Increasing the necessary requirements of evidence submission will allow inspectors to examine more closely the intentions of a transporter and ensure that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that an animal is not being taken to slaughter.

I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument forward. We are satisfied that this is a sensible approach and have no issues to raise.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. It has been a good debate and I am pleased that so many noble Lords have taken part in it, because this is an important piece of legislation and we were very pleased when in opposition to support the Bill through Parliament to becoming an Act.

As I said, the instrument contains a proportionate set of powers necessary for the Animal and Plant Health Agency and local authorities to enforce the live exports ban effectively. Without these powers to carry out checks and investigations and take enforcement action, there is a risk that the ban could be undermined.

I will check to make sure that I have answered the questions that were asked properly. If I have not, I will get back to noble Lords. There were some questions around equines—horses—from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned horses. One question was around the delay in bringing in pre-export controls for equines. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that equines are currently exported for multiple purposes ranging from bloodstock moves to leisure activities. They can be privately or commercially transported and fall under numerous industry bodies or none at all. Registered equines are not subject to journey log controls, so at present there is no control point at which intervention by the regulator can occur to stop an export movement that might contravene the ban.

Ivory Act 2018 (Meaning of “Ivory” and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Debate between Earl of Effingham and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in favour of any measures to preserve the rich tapestry of species on this planet, particularly those threatened with extinction. However, we have some concerns, not with the objective of this SI and the Ivory Act more broadly, but with some of the consequences of its drafting.

The SI extends the definition of ivory to include whale teeth and narwhal tusks. Although we agree with the banning of selling of modern items manufactured from these sources, there is no modern market for whale teeth or narwhal tusks. Old pieces of art, such as inscribed sailor’s knives or mounted narwhal tusks, will fall foul of these regulations and will have to be landfilled.

As we have heard already from my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Carrington, there is virtually no import or export trade in whale teeth or narwhal tusks. In 2022, there were no commercial imports of sperm whale teeth, and just two teeth were exported. Narwhals are not on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s endangered list.

While it could be argued that this legislation is an important aspect of our soft power, it is debatable whether this soft power has worked. It has not had much influence on the EU, which bans the import and export of ivory but allows it to be traded within the EU. Will the Minister please clarify to the Committee what outcomes she foresees from this decision? Will she outline why these measures have been implemented and say whether she can see that they may have unforeseen and unintended consequences?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for raising important points. As described earlier, extending the Act to these four species demonstrates UK leadership in support of international conservation efforts, setting an example at home to encourage similar actions globally. It makes the existing ban more effective and adds protections to four species that will complement those already in place internationally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

I was involved with this the first time around, back in 2018, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said, it seems to have taken an awful long time to get here. I wonder whether, like me, she had a stuffed narwhal on her desk—which my grandchildren have now chosen to play with. From our perspective, it is good to see these regulations in front of us.

This measure is part of a comprehensive package of UK leadership to tackle the illegal wildlife trade and reduce poverty, including through our Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund, which has allocated £57 million to 173 projects across 60 countries. These projects are reducing demand for illegal wildlife products, strengthening law enforcement, establishing effective legal frameworks and promoting sustainable livelihoods.

I turn to answer some of the questions, and hope that we do not have another vote in the middle this time. I will look first at the consultation and stakeholder engagement that took place ahead of this. There was a call for evidence in 2019 and a public consultation from 17 July to 11 September 2021 on extending the Act to other species. The consultation received 997 responses and a clear majority supported an extension to these species. The previous Government published their response to the consultation in May last year.

There is a conservation risk to each species as exhaustible natural resources, which includes the trade in their ivory, both legal and illegal, and how this relates to their conservation status and other threats that they face. There was a clear demonstration in the proportion of respondents who supported this option and the comments submitted that commercial exploitation of species that are endangered or accepted as being in need of protection from the threat posed by trade in their parts violates public morality. So that was the consultation and its outcomes.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked specific questions around the effectiveness of the Act. One was how many elephants had been saved to date. This is a cross-cutting policy, so it is not possible to say what impact the Ivory Act alone has had. For example, the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund is a grant scheme that funds actions to tackle illegal wildlife and poverty reduction in developing countries. These projects contribute to reducing the demand for illegal wildlife products, strengthening enforcement and establishing effective legal frameworks, and promoting sustainable livelihoods through innovative approaches, partnerships and evidence-based interventions that protect endangered species, including elephants. So I cannot be specific, but it does play a role.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked for more information about why we are not extending it to walrus. As I said, walrus were included in the original consultation but are not now, because they continue to be protected under existing regulations on the trade in seal products. Under these regulations, seal products, including walrus ivory, can be imported and placed on the UK market for sale only in very limited circumstances and subject to strict conditions. You can bring seal products to Great Britain and sell them only if they qualify under the Inuit and other indigenous communities exemption and have a seal catch certificate. This is an attestation document that proves that the item is exempt and that the seal products are certified as coming from a traditional hunt carried out by the Inuit or other indigenous communities. The hunt must be carried out for and contribute to the subsistence of the community, and must consider the welfare of the animal. I hope that goes some way towards answering the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, around the fact that we work with indigenous communities on these pieces of legislation.

Further questions from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, were to do with trade and why we decided to add these species. The main problem is that international trade in these species needs to be regulated to ensure that it does not threaten the species’ survival. The UK is also a net exporter of ivory from these species, and we are concerned that it fuels global demand and the market for these ivories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just going through the exemptions to the Ivory Act and had just finished talking about portrait miniatures. Also exempt are items a qualifying museum intends to buy or hire and items made before 1918 that are of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value. I mention that because it has come up quite a lot during the debate, and for clarification because it is some years since the Act came into play.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked a specific question about people going on holiday, small items and so on. This fits with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about indigenous peoples. To be clear, the Act bans imports for the purposes of dealing. Individuals who are visiting communities outside the UK can purchase items from them directly and bring them into the UK as personal possessions as long as they meet the requirements under CITES. That provides clarification on that point.

With that, I hope I have answered most questions; I will check and come back to noble Lords if I have not.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I think the Minister said that narwhals are an endangered species, but we believe that they are not endangered; there are around 80,000 mature adults in their population. If the Minister could come back to us at some point, it would be much appreciated.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I clarify that all four species being added to the Act are listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. I hope that helps to answer the noble Earl’s question.