Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Lord Deben Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the broad support for the regulations and for the contributions that have been shared on this instrument. There seems to be consensus that, even in a market that often functions well, as we have heard, it is essential to protect the smaller producers in the supply chain, so I welcome the support.

The specific requirements that are set out in the regulations—on volumes of supply, pricing, contract variation and termination—represent a significant step forward for the pig sector. Dispute resolution provisions will also support continued dialogue and collaboration across the supply chain. At the same time, the regulations are designed to protect and support existing good practice. I am confident they will strengthen the many successful relationships that already characterise the industry.

I turn now to some of the specific points that were raised. Some noble Lords talked about the different flexibilities that we have built into the regulations. I want to be clear that we are confident that they will not be easily misused. The reforms deliver a real and meaningful improvement in transparency for pig producers, which has often been lacking in the past. If the reforms are to be effective, they have to be proportionate and reflect the realities of how the sector operates, which is why we have built in flexibility. That does not mean we are going to be hands off in the approach to it.

I assure noble Lords that implementation is going to be closely monitored. If we find that the flexibility is such that the notice to disapply is being abused, or if the behavioural changes we expect do not materialise, we will not hesitate to revisit our approach and take further actions. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked if we are going to be keeping an eye on it, and the answer is yes.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about auction marts. First of all, pig sales through auction marts are quite limited but they will not be impacted. This is one area where the notice to disapply may be appropriate to use. If a notice to disapply is given to the business purchaser by the producer, the regulations do not need to be complied with for that specific purchase. I hope that helps to clarify that.

The appalling pig crisis of 2021 and 2022 was mentioned, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. Everyone in the sector wants to make sure that that does not happen again. As we have heard, at the time, there were a number of related factors, including the Covid pandemic, a lack of skilled butchers and declining export demand, and we ended up with a backlog of pigs on the market, which is why we had the awful cull that we witnessed. That was quite unusual, though, and it was quite difficult to avoid what was almost the perfect storm that built up at that time. We need to learn from it, which is why these regulations will make sure that farmers do not bear any disproportionate levels of cost when market challenges come up in the future.

The regulations outline that both producers and processors need to be clear about the levels of supply that they can expect in advance. That will be subject to negotiation between the parties, to maintain flexibility, and those agreeing a contract would be able to agree any tolerances for over and under supply levels. The new rules outline that contracts should say in advance what the remedies would be for either party when agreed levels of supply are not met by the other party. This could be a financial remedy, a change in future volumes that would be supplied, or a suspension of existing penalties; we need to look at each individual situation. What is important is that it will be open for negotiation between the parties, written down in advance and subject to change only by mutual agreement of both the farmers and processors alike. The whole point is to ensure certainty and transparency across the marketplace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to the Cranswick incident and the difficulties around animal welfare and the breaches at that particular abattoir. The Animal and Plant Health Agency is investigating—it investigates every allegation that is reported to it. Obviously, I cannot comment on that because it is ongoing, but I reassure the noble Baroness that APHA is looking at that.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Should we not be extremely pleased at the immediate steps taken by supermarkets and others when they heard about this allegation? And it is an allegation at this stage. It shows that we now have a very much more acute understanding of how animals should be looked after and what welfare really matters, which is crucially important for those of us who believe that eating meat is a satisfactory and proper thing to do.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to draw attention to the work the supermarkets did. They do not always get the credit that they should. That swift reaction was really important. It shows the industry coming together, right across the board, when something really appalling happens that is breaching regulations. I absolutely agree.

There were a number of questions about the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Grender, and others mentioned that. For those covered by the groceries code, the GCA has prioritised communication of the statutory requirement to maintain supply confidentiality. The GCA has relaunched the Code Confident campaign, launched a confidential reporting platform called Tell the GCA, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality, which we hope will help. The GCA’s fourth statutory review is currently ongoing. That is being led by the Department for Business and Trade and will also allow for feedback to be provided in this area and in others.

For those covered by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, a complaint does not need to be made from a producer for ASCA to investigate and perform enforcement functions where necessary. The current Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has confirmed that it will always seek confirmation from the producer that they are content for a complaint to be formally investigated before contacting a purchaser and sharing any information. It has also recently launched the Contact ASCA in Confidence service, learning from the GCA’s Tell the GCA scheme; this allows producers and anyone else to raise issues with ASCA confidentially. Although ASCA will not be able to open a formal investigation without an actual complaint, the information provided will help inform its activities.

On who will enforce this, which a number of noble Lords asked about, the option to expand the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator was explored in a formal call for evidence back in 2016. This concluded that the extension of the GCA’s role further along the supply chain would not be appropriate. Part of this is because the Groceries Code Adjudicator has a very specific remit: regulating the relationships between the largest grocery retailers in the country and their direct suppliers. These regulations focus instead on the contracts that pig farmers hold directly, which are almost exclusively with the processing companies. We are therefore confident that the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—obviously, it also handles enforcement for the dairy sector, as noble Lords will be aware—is the most appropriate means of enforcing these regulations. It will continue to focus on regulations made under Section 29 and this first important stage of the supply chain.

I mentioned dairy sector enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked whether this will be sector by sector. It will be introduced sector by sector going forward.

I was asked whether the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator has sufficient resources. ASCA was relatively recently established. Enforcement for the dairy regulations began only in July 2024—less than a year ago—and existing contracts are not being covered until July this year. Currently, the office is sufficiently resourced to fulfil its remit of enforcing the regulations in the dairy sector and, soon, in the pig sector. However, we will monitor resourcing requirements as the regulations take effect, so that we can respond accordingly if need be. Similarly, we will continue to do so as further reviews are conducted and as more sectors come into scope.

Why did we choose this route instead of reforming the GCA? We have talked about the fact that we did the consultation but, particularly for pig producers, this is a highly consolidated part of the supply chain. Just four processors account for the vast majority of pig purchases. We believe that, to deliver the greatest benefits in fairness and transparency, it is right that we focus on this primary relationship between producers and processors.

These regulations were developed with extensive engagement with industry, and stakeholders were invited to comment on detailed drafting—including the text of the statutory instrument itself—to confirm that they found the whole approach workable. We are committed to using the fair dealing powers wherever they are needed. We are now working with industry on the proposals for fresh produce and the egg sectors, which will be the next areas that we look to bring in. We will continue to work with stakeholders as we do that.

My noble friend Lord Jones asked about the size of the pig herd. We do not actually know how many pigs there are, but we know that the UK pig industry is worth £1.6 billion at the farm gate and £5 billion at retail. Considering food service, external sales and export values, we think it is worth over £14 billion in total. I hope that that helps him to understand the size of the industry.

Flooding

Lord Deben Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware of the specific incident the noble Lord referred to but if he would like to share the details with me, I would be happy to take a look at it. It is important that we do not tar all insurance companies with the same brush. Some are much better than others. They are not all part of the Flood Re system, for example, although the majority are. The incident the noble Lord referred to is clearly to do with business, which is different from Flood Re. There are particular challenges in managing flood insurance for businesses.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Given that we are likely to have more and more occasions like this because of climate change, does the Minister acknowledge that the previous Government were strongly criticised by the Climate Change Committee for not producing a proper five-year programme for what should be done about resilience? In those circumstances, can she remind the House what the present Government will do to fill that gap and to produce a new report that will say how they will deal with this issue over the next five years?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an important question, because future resilience is going to be critical, particularly as we will have more incidents such as this due to climate change. That is why it is so important that we have set up the Floods Resilience Taskforce. The idea behind that is to bring together everybody who has a genuine understanding and a mutual interest in trying to resolve these issues for the long term, not just for the short term. Part of the problem is that often we have looked at short-term solutions. Part of the work of the Floods Resilience Taskforce is to get a better understanding so we can build exactly the kind of long-term plans that the noble Lord is talking about.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Lord Deben Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, this outbreak is very low compared to previous years, and we have brought in preventive measures to ensure that it does not become a major problem, as we had a few years ago. As I mentioned in responding to the previous question from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, compensation will be paid in the same way as it was previously. I have absolutely no expectation that there will be any problem with turkeys being provided for Christmas, particularly as 85% of the turkeys that will be eaten at Christmas have already been slaughtered and are either fresh or frozen, as it is quite late in the year.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

This disease can be spread from the smallest of flocks. Is the Minister confident that we now have the registration of all people who are keeping birds? Without that, we are not able to enforce the necessary protections, should this particular event increase. We are bound to have such events in the future as well.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, we are keen to encourage all small poultry keepers to register. The system is now working well—I have actually done it myself, because I am a small poultry keeper—so I absolutely encourage anyone to do it. It is very simple: it probably took me about a minute and a half. It is very straightforward so, if you have not registered, please do.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a riparian owner and as the chairman of a company which helps businesses, including water businesses, to improve their environment and their safety. Normally I am very questioning of additional requirements for information from companies, because it can be very expensive and divert people’s attention. But in this case I support the general run of these amendments, which ask for the public to know what is happening.

First, a series of them ask the water companies to tell the public only what they have to know, because, if they do not know it, they cannot do what they have by law to do. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is right that the information has to be presented in a way that is easy to find. The comparison with the Modern Slavery Act—again, we debated modern slavery, so I know how it works—is that it is so easy to find it difficult to discover the facts. The whole idea of the Modern Slavery Act was that the public and the campaigners would be able to see how people were behaving, and check against it. This is an extremely important thing.

I also want to refer to a comment by the noble Baroness who spoke on the subject of fat. I do not know whether the Minister has had the pleasure of going down a sewer, but it is one of the most important acts of any Minister. I did it when I was, in some part, doing what she is doing, and you learn a great deal.

My worry about the Bill is that, if we are not careful, we will take away from some of the things that ought to happen—not in this Bill about water companies—to make the way in which we deal with sewage much more sensible. You can go down a sewer and tell exactly where the fast-food restaurants are, and you can tell which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. I would recommend to the Minister that she looks at what happens in Canada, where they insist that you measure the oil that comes in and then show how much oil has been taken away by an approved waste collector. We have to look at a number of things of that sort if we are going to make this legislation work. Do not expect the Minister to add to this legislation, but I think she will find that, unless we do some of these things, we are not going to deliver what is needed.

My last point is about telemetry. One of the things I think government is very poor at—and that is all Governments—is recognising how much they can change costs by insisting on necessary machinery. If this Government said, “We are going to monitor every river and we want the telemetry to do it”, the price would fall very considerably, as the noble Lord rightly said. Unless we do something like that, this Bill is frankly time-limited, because it will not deliver what we need, which is a constant measurement of our rivers and for that information to be provided, where we have suggested, to the public. If we do those things, we can both recover support for what is happening and do what my noble friends have put forward, which is to make it possible for water companies to say honestly that things that have happened were nothing to do with them. That is also important because, otherwise, we are laying a burden on them which, even with their current reputation, is an unfair one, and I would much prefer to be tough but fair.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 87 in this group, and I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for their support. I agree with all that has been said, in particular what the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Deben, said. We do need a step change here, rather than just trying to fix the system—although I do want to talk about fixing the system.

The water companies are completely uninterested in transparency. It echoes so much of what we talked about: who is winning in this game, nature or money? Rather too often, the money seems to win out. According to the Observer at the weekend, they have been passing pollution tests that were not even carried out. The system is so clearly not working that it seems an obvious one for the Government to reset.

Amendment 87 would require the proactive publication of both regulatory and what the water companies call “non-regulatory” or “operational” data about their sewage works and their associated discharges of sewage effluent. Specifically, it defines water companies as “public authorities” for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations, amends the regulations to make clear that public authorities must make the information they hold on effluent or wastewater monitoring data completely public to anybody. It amends the appeal and enforcement provisions in the 2004 regulations to allow members of the public to complain to the Information Commissioner where such info is not proactively published.

This will cut through all the delaying tactics and refusals by water companies, by ensuring that data is proactively published, so that the public and campaigners will not have to keep asking for information and be endlessly given the runaround. Water companies will be required by law to publish it up front, without anyone having to ask. I support my noble friend’s amendment that this must all be in one place and easy to find. I feel that this is complementary to Clause 3 of the Bill, which requires discharges from emergency overflows to be published accessibly and immediately, so that action can be taken.

It is important to outline a little history of the context. Despite the success of the leading Fish Legal case, which went to the European Court of Justice a few years ago, in securing a decision that water companies are “public authorities” for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations, over the last few years the water companies have tried many different tactics, under the Environmental Information Regulations, to try to avoid disclosing data to those requesting access that shows how poorly performing their sewage works or CSOs have been. They have been extremely successful. The ICO has, in the past, supported various water companies in their refusal to provide data to a range of campaigners, due to the long-running investigations into them by the regulators themselves. The ICO’s mind seemed to change on this after the CEO of Ofwat announced that they did not consider the investigation by Ofwat and the Environment Agency as a reason to not publish. So now we are in a weird situation where the water companies, specifically United Utilities, are currently appealing against an ICO decision that went the other way, in which the ICO decided that information, specifically about how poorly a sewage works in Cumbria was operating, should be disclosed to the public. This case is ongoing, but we have an opportunity to send a parliamentary reminder that we are in no doubt that this information should be made publicly accessible.

This has highlighted to me not only the clear lack of transparency but the real lack of willingness. Despite several years of this very public scandal, companies continue to obstruct. This is what the Bill is really about: forcing them to change where they will not. We are well past simply asking them to do this.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Deben Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 100. The issues of water pollution and the supply of clean water to everybody are ones I clearly care a lot about. But this Bill is just papering over the cracks. If we are going to paper over cracks, we could at least try a radical departure; perhaps we could try to bring some democracy into the regime.

I take issue with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Remnant. I have chaired a board and it was extremely successful. Part of that was because I invited people who thought very differently on to the board. We had 20 members or so. It was called London Food and we were tasked with writing a report for the Mayor of London on a sustainable food strategy for the city. It was successful, I would argue, partly because of my charm—obviously —but also because we had extremely good reports from every single aspect of food and food supply for London. We had a member from the City who was obviously a Conservative, we had an organic farmer and so on. We had a huge range of people, but we agreed on the strategy and we came to some very useful conclusions. This is what we need: we need some democracy in the systems that try to keep us safe.

Honestly, given the scale of the challenge that the water industry faces at the moment, in trying to make a system work that has proved not to work, we need to ensure that there are some new voices that can represent other parts of society that use the water system and care very deeply about it. We should also involve the people who actually do the work. My amendment brings in people from the workforce.

At the moment, the CEOs and senior staff are more focused on delivering dividends than they are on delivering a quality service, so having worker representatives on the board would provide a constant voice for those whose job it is to provide a service. The regulators have been captured by the industry they are meant to be keeping an eye on, so they are almost useless. This system should not be a national scheme but one based on the geography of the water systems themselves.

I am a believer in democracy and this would be an extremely useful way of making sure that a crucial industry for our society has some resonance with people out there. I am sure that this would be welcomed by the majority of people, just as I am sure that the Minister is aware that polls suggest a majority of people would prefer public ownership. Failing that, however, let us get the public in there, talking and being listened to.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments, particularly those placed before us by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. To the last speaker I have to say that there is a fundamental difference between chairing a committee to produce a report and running a business, which is what the water company has to be. She is absolutely right, however, that this Bill does not properly address the fundamental problem that we have two regulators and they have failed to produce a co-ordinated programme for the water industry.

I speak as somebody who knows a bit about it because, until 10 or 11 years ago, I was chairman of a water-only water company—so do not blame me about sewage as I never had anything to do with that. However, I do therefore know a bit about water companies. It was always impossible to meet the requirements of both the Environment Agency and Ofwat. Ofwat was under pressure from the Government to keep bills down and the Environment Agency, perfectly rightly, was saying that we should do more for the environment. As chairman of a water-only company, I was interested in doing something about the pollution of the water sources right from the beginning instead of having to clean them up, which is a very stupid way of dealing with it. Ofwat, however, would never allow one to do those things, whereas the Environment Agency was much more sympathetic.