Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these two statutory instruments. On the face of it, they seem fairly straightforward and relate to the border target operating model. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has flagged that this is a matter of interest to the House.

The first instrument relates to sanitary and phytosanitary border controls—SPS. The second relates to SPS controls applying to imports of live animals, animal products, high-risk food and feed of non-animal origin, plants and plant products at the border. This second SI contains a large and potentially complex list of products; however, the instrument appears to deal only with plants and plant products. Also, the risk-based import checks on medium-risk goods applies to goods from some countries that are EU member states, as well as Liechtenstein and Switzerland. These countries’ goods that are not within scope include fruit and vegetables, which are currently treated as low risk.

I have some questions about these two instruments and wish to ask for some clarification. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the first instrument, on fees and charges, states:

“This instrument changes the duty to charge to a power to charge by extending the circumstances in which the CA”—


competent authority—

“may reduce charges or waive them altogether”.

The Minister has mentioned this already. I am concerned that, if the charge is waived, it could mean that the imported product would be cheaper than a homegrown or home-produced one, which would disadvantage our farmers and horticulturalists. Can the Minister provide reassurance on this issue?

The ability to waive charges also seems at odds with the second instrument, on official charges and frequency of checks. Paragraph 7.2 of its EM states:

“Changes are being made to the fees legislation to reflect the level of identity and physical checks determined in accordance with the 2022 Regulations … ensuring the full cost of services to conduct import checks are recovered from businesses using these services”.


Further on, the last sentence of paragraph 7.4 says:

“The existing fees legislation ensures that the cost of plant health services, including import inspections, is recovered via fees”.


Either the fees are to be charged on a cost-recovery basis or they can be reduced—or waived altogether. Perhaps one SI legislates for full cost recovery while the other allows for the waiving of fees and charges. Can the Minister give clarity on this issue?

Paragraph 7.4 of the first instrument’s EM states that

“not all consignments will … attend a BCP”—

a border control post. It also says that fees and charges can be levied digitally and away from the BCP. Some have raised concerns that this may not be safe and that consignments should be capable of being inspected at the BCP. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also raised concerns about the security of plants. Can the Minister comment?

Consultation through targeted stakeholders ran for 10 weeks. The second instrument’s EM indicates:

“The respondents were generally supportive”.


I have read the letter from Defra, dated 24 February, on the consultation responses; I have also looked at the responses online. There were three. Two were from Scottish businesses that raised no concerns. The third was from the NFU; it highlighted its concern about the flat rate fee for plants for planting, which should be extended to include bulbs for planting, and the definition of the final user. Defra’s response to the NFU was that its concerns are outside the scope of the consultation as the instrument is for medium-risk goods while bulbs are high-risk goods. On this basis, we are told that the consultation response was “generally supportive”, which just goes to show that, with a bit of ingenuity, you can make a consultation give whatever response you want it to.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about the common user charge, which is to be introduced later this year and does not require legislation. This means that there will be no parliamentary oversight of the charge, its impact and whether it will be draconian or not likely to actually cover the costs of implementation. Would the Minister care to comment on the introduction of this common user charge?

I am not opposed to these two SIs, but I am somewhat dismayed by the way in which they are being introduced and the lack of clarity over the implementation of the charges and fees. I look forward to the Minister’s clarification.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, looking first at the Official Controls (Fees and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations in front of us, previous speakers have clearly raised concerns about BTOM. I have also done so in the past; the Minister and I have discussed this in the Chamber previously. However, with this SI, we are particularly concerned about the potential impact on small businesses and the fact that the charges also need to be considered in the broader context of the increased charges, particularly for small businesses, since we left the EU. I am aware that the Government believe that there is not going to be any serious impact on small businesses but our concerns come from within that broader context, because we know that British importers have been paying further costs over the last few years since we moved to the new system of trade with the EU.

Around 30% of the food that we consume in the UK comes from the EU, so it is incredibly important that, when we bring in new systems, we avoid any confusion, chaos or delays. It would be useful to hear reassurances from the Minister on these issues because small businesses are particularly worried about this, as well as the increased costs. Once you start getting delays, as I am sure the Minister knows, they have a huge impact on perishable fresh produce. How confident is the Minister that this can go through smoothly?

The British Chambers of Commerce has complained to the Government about the lack of communication and information provided. How has the Minister’s department been working with businesses, particularly small businesses, on improving the communications and information that chambers of commerce have raised concerns about? What clarifications have been provided following the concerns raised?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the fact that this provides competent authorities with greater flexibility to determine fees and charges, and that this is now on a recovery basis. She asked some questions around that, but I just wondered if there are any precedents for recovery like this, with fees and charges being done on a cost-recovery basis. What are the precedents around that?

The other thing I was going to raise also applies, to a certain extent, to the plant health SI and is around the lack of consultation. I am aware that there is no statutory duty to consult on this issue but, considering the number of concerns that have been raised around BTOM and its rollout, including the very late announcement of the common user charge, I wonder whether the department might have followed a different process, with the benefit of hindsight. It could have done a bit more consultation with industry to avoid those concerns and late rollouts. In future, when looking at the different trade mechanisms that will need to come in, will it perhaps look more broadly at working with business at an earlier stage to avoid some of the, shall we say, glitches that have happened?

I agree with very much with what both noble Baronesses have said already on the draft plant health fees statutory instrument, so I will not go into great detail. The concerns of the Horticultural Trades Association have been clearly laid out: the impact of the volume of checks that will be required and whether that will lead to further delays. The importance of the horticultural sector to our economy needs greater recognition. It would be good if the Minister could give some indication to the Horticultural Trades Association on ornamental horticulture, plus vine horticulture, tomatoes, and others. We have seen gaps on our supermarkets shelves in recent years. It would be very good if our horticultural sector was better supported and encouraged.

Farmers: Flooding Compensation

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I have recently attended a number of meetings on this specific subject, and the intention last week was to get the first element of this fund out and available to farmers. We have this issue under constant review and I hope that, if there are further announcements to make, we can make them very shortly.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I come back to the right reverend Prelate’s question about food security. The Minister talked about food production being constant and mentioned ELMS, but that also looks at flood relief schemes for farmers that take more land out of food production. The increase in climate change and the storms we have been seeing have really worrying implications for food security, and I genuinely do not think that measuring food production constants is going to solve the problem. We need a long-term food security plan that takes account of the implications of future storms and flooding.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be very well aware that there is a trade here between the environmental gains we are looking to enact and protecting our food production. One of the main aims of ELMS is to improve productivity, and a lot of the funding through ELMS is driving better productivity—higher yields from smaller areas of land—so that we can then allow land to be available for nature and improve our biodiversity.

Food Security

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My noble friend is correct. There is a presumption against planning on grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 land. He is entirely right that solar energy and any other developments need to be appropriately sited to achieve the right result.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the NFU has asked the Government to identify opportunities to increase our market share of foods we can produce sustainably, including a commitment to source 50% of food into the public sector from British farms. Public procurement can support our food producers, so what are the Government doing to support farmers through procurement?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. This month the Environment Secretary appointed Will Quince MP as an independent adviser to support our ongoing work to improve food procurement in the public sector. His review will look at how we can increase the impact and reach of the existing government buying standards for food and catering services and promote our high standards in places such as residential care, hospitals and schools.

Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing for this long-awaited statutory instrument. Other noble Lords have made positive comments on supporting dairy farmers, and the detail of this statutory instrument. I am grateful to the NFU for its briefing.

Since the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts was introduced in 2012, nearly 12 years ago, purchasers have been able to change contract terms and pricing mechanisms, even, in some instances, introducing retro-spective penalties and price cuts without negotiation. The Covid-19 crisis saw this happen many times: farmers were hit with price cuts at no notice, and there was a lack of transparency over pricing and delayed payments, resulting in significant pressures on producers. Farmers got a very poor deal.

This SI will introduce mandatory minimum terms for dairy contracts which must be adhered to. As the noble Lord has said, these contracts will cover price, cooling-off periods, notice periods, variations, exclusivity and farmer representation. All these should make a huge difference to how farmers are treated and ensure that they get a fair price for their milk, which is essential for the survival of the dairy-farming industry. It will also bring a level of transparency into milk contracts not previously present.

I fully support this SI and have a point to raise. The Government conducted a call for evidence at the end of 2016 on the remit of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and whether it should cover all primary producers. This concluded that it would be better for primary producers in the dairy industry not to be covered by the GCA. That was eight years ago. Similarly, the consultation on the issue took place between June and September 2020, nearly four years ago. It would seem that the Government, although concerned about an unfair pricing system for farmers, were not in a hurry to do anything about it.

There are large parts of the instrument around termination of contracts, including where the business purchaser becomes insolvent and where there are disputes and enforcement. I welcome these sections, as they give farmers access to redress when things go wrong.

I understand that the debate on this SI in the other place was very short indeed, and I have no wish to prolong the debate here this evening. This legislation, while long in the making, is a positive step forward in addressing the imbalances that we have seen for too long in the dairy supply chain. I also hope that it will lead to support for farmers going forward, as they look to create the right structures to make the best use of the issues in this legislation.

Finally, I place on record my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many others—the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to this—to Michael Oakes, who has been the chair of the NFU Dairy Board for eight years. Without his tenacious work over the past decade on this issue, I doubt that we would be debating it this evening. It seems that, without an advocate continually pushing, progress can be painfully slow. Let us hope that progress now speeds up considerably, and that this SI becomes law and is enacted without further delay.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for his introduction and saying how impressed I was to watch him pouring a glass of water at the same time: he is clearly channelling his feminine side by doing two things at once.

These draft regulations, as we have heard, propose to introduce minimum standards for the contracts that businesses use when purchasing milk from dairy farmers. We fully support the aim to improve fairness and transparency in the UK dairy sector, which, according to Defra, is characterised by small, fragmented dairy producers. We have heard a lot about the unfair commercial terms on which farmers have had to go into contracts, so we very much support this SI. Like other noble Lords, I thank the NFU for its work on this issue. The NFU has made it clear that it strongly supports the regulations, as unfair milk contracts have unfortunately been an area of concern for many years. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford talked about the voluntary code of practice for dairy contracts, which came in in 2012. This has clearly not been working, so we very much welcome the regulations in front of us today.

While I have said we very much support the regulations, I have a number of questions for the Minister. The proposed requirements include that all contracts should be made in writing and contain clear pricing terms, through either a fixed or variable price, setting out how the price to be paid is generated and establishing a means for producers to challenge variable price calculations. We are very pleased that unilateral changes to contract terms will be prohibited and that the Secretary of State is going to be able to impose fines. The Minister said in his introduction that this is only the first and that further legislation will cover other agricultural sectors. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned how long the regulations have taken. It has dragged on. Can the Minister say why it has taken so long? It is four years since the Agriculture Act was passed. Although he mentioned pigs in his introduction, does he have any idea when we are likely to see the SIs for the other areas we are expecting—pigs, eggs and fresh produce?

The agricultural supply chain adjudicator and the Groceries Code Adjudicator have been mentioned. Transform Trade sent an interesting briefing expressing its concerns around departmental fragmentation and the sectoral siloed approach that it feels the Government are taking by addressing the problems in only four sectors, and only at the farming stage. Its concerns include the fact that risks and costs will continue to be passed on to all supply chains; and that while the adjudicator may be able to address farmers’ experience of unfair trading practices, where the cause of that unfair trading practice originated with the food retailers, the retailers will continue to get away with passing unfair trading practices. I would be interested to have reassurances from the Minister on this concern.

Of course, not all farmers work in the four sectors that are covered. How does Defra intend to keep an eye on what is happening in the other sectors that are not protected? Will the adjudicator appointed to enforce the milk codes be able to share information relevant to the GCA’s ability to assess whether the 14 largest UK food retailers they cover have breached the Groceries Supply Code of Practice purchasing code? We need to be sure that this is working effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked about the scope of the GCA. This is a really important question. When I was in the other place, we did a lot of work on the GCA when it was established, and it really needs to be seen to be working effectively, including within this new regime.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester talked about food waste. He mentioned that there is little waste within the dairy sector, but the design of regulations under these powers is potentially a missed opportunity to implement the Government’s stated policy of using them to reduce farm-level food waste, as was said during the passage of the Agriculture Act. As we are expecting further SIs to come forward in a similar way, I would be interested to hear why the Government’s consultation on using the powers did not make explicit reference to, or explicitly invite evidence on, how the powers could be used to reduce food waste. Food waste prevention may well be on the Government’s radar, but it is not clear from the consultations that were carried out, so my final comment is that further elaboration and confirmation around that would be very welcome.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 14th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, set out clearly his reasons for this amendment. At Second Reading, many noble Lords taking part in the debate raised the issue of increasing the number of species covered by this short Bill. Many also made the case for ensuring that the Bill got on the statute as quickly as possible, and certainly before the end of this Parliament.

Increasing the number of species covered by the Bill should be done through affirmative secondary legislation, rather than specified species being added to the Bill. Many issues could come along which might make it wise to add a different species to the Bill. I support the view that, in future, the Secretary of State should be able to make adjustments to match the circumstances at the time, and I believe that this amendment would allow that to happen.

At Second Reading, it was suggested that deer were added, among other animals. I would be reluctant to see deer added to the list unless there were exceptional circumstances to support this. Our country is currently overrun with deer, which are doing immense damage to our trees and woodlands, and in some cases domestic gardens. If we have a surfeit of deer here, we should deal with the problem ourselves, internally. Exporting the problem for others to deal with does not seem sensible or humane. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, but I generally support the aim of these two amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for bringing forward Amendments 1 and 8. I was pleased to add my name to them. As he said, this was discussed at Second Reading and had a lot of support in the Chamber. We know that trends in the types and number of animals being exported can change quite a lot over time, so it is practical and sensible to ensure that the legislation can be kept up to date by revisiting the banned list in future. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, talked about the fact that changes can happen, and we need to be prepared for that.

It does not make any sense to me that if a future Government wanted to increase the list, they would have to go back to primary legislation. By putting it in the Bill, it can be done easily through affirmative secondary legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. These amendments would allow that to happen. Taken together, we believe that Amendments 1 and 8 are a sensible measure that allows for future flexibility, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider adding it into the Bill. I cannot see why it is an unacceptable request.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Hayman, for their interest in this Bill and for seeking to ensure that the ban on live exports for slaughter is comprehensive.

This is indeed an important question, which we carefully considered when developing this legislation. We consulted on the ban on live exports in 2020 and received over 11,000 responses. I reassure noble Lords that we received no evidence then, and have received none since, that a ban on any other species was necessary. The definition of “relevant livestock” covers all species for which there has been a significant slaughter export trade. In the 10 years prior to EU exit, the live export trade for slaughter and fattening mainly involved sheep and unweaned calves.

Several noble Lords noted in our earlier discussions that poultry is not within the scope of the Bill. We have had no exports of poultry for slaughter in recent years.

Noble Lords have also discussed this amendment in the context of alpacas, llamas and deer. The 2021 June agriculture census reported records of around 45,000 farmed deer, 12,000 alpacas and 1,000 llamas kept in the UK. These numbers are extremely low compared to the numbers of animals for which a significant slaughter export trade has existed in the past; for example, around 33 million sheep and 10 million cattle are kept in the UK.

Deer, llamas and alpacas are kept for a range of reasons, such as for venison and for alpaca fleece. We have no evidence of any of these species being exported for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU, nor, indeed, that there is any demand for a trade in live exports from the EU or elsewhere. As the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, pointed out, Compassion in World Farming, an organisation that has campaigned to ban live exports for 50 years, has said that it is

“not aware of any alpacas, llamas or deer being exported for slaughter”.

The RSPCA has also said that

“only sheep, calves and horses have been exported from Britain for slaughter in the last 10 years”.

I understand the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that the ban will apply to all relevant animals, both now and in future. However, when considering the data that we have on the past slaughter export trade, I firmly believe that the current definition of “relevant livestock” is already sufficiently comprehensive. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the various reviews set out in these amendments. I shall concentrate particularly on the first of these, on the import of livestock. It goes some way to deal with worries about lower welfare standards, but it asks only for a review. In other words, the Government could have the review and ignore it completely. One would hope that that would not happen, but I am a cynic, and unless something is written into the law I am not happy that anything will happen.

I would be interested to know from my noble friend the Minister what regulations there are, or what advice is given regarding the welfare of livestock imported from the continent. I have the impression that nothing happens at all. Perhaps he can confirm or deny that point.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to the import of eggs raised under conditions that would be illegal here, but I am not sure whether they are regarded as livestock. I hope that they are, but I would like to hear from the Minister himself whether this is the case.

I support these amendments and the reviews, but I would like to see more teeth.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments ask pretty important wider questions about the Bill’s impact on imports, trade and farming. Some extremely good questions have been asked about how we can ensure, when we trade with other countries, that we receive imports that meet the high standards we set for our own farmers.

I turn first to the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 2. We need to look at reciprocal arrangements with the EU around imports. The noble Baroness gave a really good example of how farming standards are undermined by imports; she talked about eggs and pigmeat in particular, as well as the fact that, although battery cages are banned here, we can import from countries that still use them.

Poultry is not within the scope of the Bill. As for the livestock trade, I am not sure whether eggs would be included—meat is certainly not included, only livestock—so I am not sure that these amendments fall within the scope of the Bill. However, this is an incredibly important issue that needs to be addressed by both the department and government. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said, a review is not a big ask. In thinking about when the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about imported livestock and the fact that the Minister did not have the numbers at Second Reading, I wonder whether the numbers are known at all—or, indeed, whether there is a guesstimate as to how many. It would be interesting to know whether those figures actually exist.

In speaking to her Amendment 3, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, mentioned breeding stock. I tried to put down an amendment on that but was told that it was not within the scope of the Bill, so I imagine that the noble Baroness’s amendment is not either. However, again, the points that she made about sanitary and phytosanitary checks on imports are incredibly important, whether we are looking at animal diseases that may reach our shores or that have already reached our shores. It is incredibly important that we are very aware of those border checks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, tabled Amendment 4. As she did at Second Reading, she raised concerns about the movement of animals in Northern Ireland and their potential onward movement through Ireland to, as she said, wherever; we do not know where animals could end up and what conditions they could be held in. Again, in her amendment, she is asking for a review, in this case a review of the Bill’s impact on trade between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU. To me, that seems a reasonable request.

In speaking to Amendment 5 in her name, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, clearly laid out farmers’ concerns regarding trade agreements. We are all very aware, I think, of the concerns that have been raised over the last few years while different trade agreements have been agreed or, sometimes, not agreed. The issues of animal welfare and standards have always been at the forefront of those discussions.

I conclude by saying to the Minister that, although some of the debate we have just had on this group is not within the scope of the Bill, these are issues that need addressing.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock, Lady Hoey and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their engagement on this Bill and their contributions to this debate.

The proposed reviews of the impact on trade between Great Britain and the EU—or Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU—are not necessary, for several reasons. In the first place, there have been no recorded exports for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU since 2020, and this Bill makes that permanent. In these circumstances, putting an end to this trade cannot on its own have an impact on the current trade balance between Great Britain and the EU. We also have full clarity on the subject of livestock trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Movements of animals within the UK internal market are out of scope of this Bill. Slaughter and fattening movements will therefore be able to continue between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, although there have been very few movements of this kind.

The Bill will not apply in Northern Ireland to ensure that farmers in Northern Ireland have unfettered access to both the UK and Republic of Ireland markets. As a result, the Bill will not have an impact on the trade of livestock between Northern Ireland and the EU. The final destinations for the vast majority of livestock exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland are in the Republic.

Taken all together, I can understand the concerns that, despite this Bill, there will be loopholes for livestock movements from Great Britain to the EU via Northern Ireland. I assure noble Lords that the requirements on moving animals to Northern Ireland would make such a slaughter trade uneconomical. Livestock transported for slaughter from Great Britain to Northern Ireland must go directly to the slaughterhouse. It would be an offence to take them anywhere else. When livestock are moved for other purposes, they must be moved directly to the holding of destination and remain there for at least 30 days. Failure to do so is an offence and may result in prosecution.

To address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, my colleagues in Defra have a close working relationship with their counterparts in DAERA. They meet regularly to discuss issues related to livestock movements, and share information and developments where appropriate. As part of this mutual exchange, volumes of livestock movements in and out of Northern Ireland are closely monitored using data from the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the TRAde Control and Expert System.

I turn now to the subject of imports. First, I assure noble Lords that there are no, and never have been, significant imports for slaughter or fattening. According to our records on imports to Great Britain from the Republic of Ireland, since the beginning of 2021, around 1,800 pigs and 500 cattle have been imported for fattening while around 900 cattle have been imported for slaughter. The total number of livestock imports into Great Britain for fattening and slaughter from other EU countries is smaller still. This very small number of animals imported into Great Britain does not in any way constitute a comparable trade to the previous live export trade and is in stark contrast to the 44,500 sheep that were exported for slaughter or fattening from Great Britain to the EU in 2020.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about the impact assessment for the ban. Our impact assessment received clearance from the Regulatory Policy Committee and was published in July 2021. It estimated the direct cost to businesses to be around £5.2 million across the 10-year appraisal period, or around £500,000 a year. The Regulatory Policy Committee agreed that no further assessment by it was required. As there have been no recorded live exports for slaughter or fattening since the assessment was published, the impact will have further decreased.

The noble Baroness also asked about veterinary capacity for the European health certificate, in particular whether there are any issues relating to the certification process in Europe at the moment. My Defra colleagues are in close contact with their European counterparts. I would put the overall assessment on that as being negligible. There were one or two small incidents, particularly around 24-hour cover in some areas, but they seem to have been addressed and we are not receiving any further issues there.

A number of noble Baronesses asked about the reciprocal arrangements for border control posts in Europe. This is a commercial issue but we are sympathetic to the concerns of the businesses involved. As such, the department has been active in doing what it can to support a satisfactory outcome. Defra officials have continued to track progress on this issue and have met regularly with the NFU and others who represent the wider industry. It is disappointing that, despite all these efforts, the companies seeking to identify an appropriate solution have not been successful in securing a border control post to serve their preferred routes.

I assure noble Lords that welfare standards for livestock imported into Great Britain remain unaffected by this Bill. All of the very low numbers of livestock imports into Great Britain come from EU member states, primarily the Republic of Ireland. This means that the animals are reared in conditions that are comparable to the animal welfare standards that apply in Great Britain. We do not foresee any reason why this would change.

A number of noble Baronesses asked whether eggs are included in this. As eggs are not livestock, no, they are not. Furthermore, all imports of live animals must be transported in accordance with our animal welfare in transport regulations. Every consignment of livestock imported into Great Britain must be fit for transport and have a journey plan approved by the Animal and Plant Health Agency prior to arriving. Transporters must make all necessary arrangements in advance to minimise the duration of the journey and must comply with the rules on journey times and rest periods.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

6: After Clause 6, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of impact on welfare standards(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the impact of this Act on welfare standards of livestock for export.(2) The review under subsection (1) must recommend whether further legislation should be introduced in response to the review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the impact of the Act on welfare standards for livestock for export.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord de Clifford (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for this amendment, which I would support. Concerns have been raised in the equine world that there is fear that horses will be exported under the guise of competition but will then immediately go to slaughter. Do port authorities currently track the movement of livestock for breeding or competition out of our ports?

I also support the point made by the noble Baroness about the veterinary situation. There is still a shortage of veterinary staff. It is getting better but it is still an area that we are concerned about—certainly, with veterinary staff at ports. Certainly, we would welcome European veterinary staff on the other side of the border, and an animal import area in the French ports would be welcomed, if we could pressurise the EU for that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have spoken for their support. The purpose of putting down this amendment was to be able to be able to talk very broadly about standards right across the piece, to make sure that no movement of animals was permitted to be below really high standards. The wording came about after a number of attempts; this was the one that was considered to be in scope, so that I was able to debate these issues. I am aware that this is about export and not about movement in this country but, again, we need to keep this on the radar and the Government need to look at it, particularly as the EU has toughened up its rules.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, just made a really good point—it was also made at Second Reading— about the potential misuse of the Bill when it is enacted: for example the illegal transport of animals under the guise of them being for breeding but them then being slaughtered. I know that some equine charities have raised concerns about the potential for that to happen. What will be put in place to ensure that it happens absolutely as minimally as possible?

Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

The noble Baroness might like to hear the Minister speak before she withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sorry. It is terribly important that I listen very carefully to everything that the Minister has to say.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I am not quite sure where to begin—or, indeed, where to finish now.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At least I did not mention the railways.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I know that everybody is in a hurry to catch their trains. As I speak, I am trying to work up an interesting story on abattoirs at the same time. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and others for their engagement on the Bill and their proposals as to how this legislation might be refined.

I will touch on the issue of horses and equines first because it is a good point that has been raised with me on a number of occasions. We are striking a fine balance here to make it possible for people to go abroad with their animals—in this case, their horses—for breeding purposes and to go to events, shows, et cetera. My personal observation is that it is blindingly obvious when you are taking a horse to a race or a show and when you have 15 scruffy-looking horses in a scruffy vehicle and you say, “Yeah, we’re just going to the gymkhana over in France. We might be back later”, but this is not always a clear-cut thing. I appreciate that there is the possibility that something nefarious could happen in this space but I believe that the controls we have in place will arrest 99.999% of that space, which is about as much as we might expect.

Let me crack on with some of my other answers. The impact that this Bill will have on the welfare standards of exported livestock is clear, I hope. The Bill will stop the export of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses for slaughter and fattening. The impact on the welfare standards of these movements will be that these unnecessary journeys will stop entirely. Export journeys for slaughter or fattening are unnecessary because the animals could be slaughtered or fattened domestically. The animals that would have previously been exported for slaughter and fattening will now go on domestic journeys that are shorter in duration and less stressful than any equivalent export journey.

A number of questions were asked about internal journeys. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about drivers. We have a driving course and a certificate of competence that are required here. All drivers in attendance are expected and supposed to undertake this training; that is checked. I hope that that helps but I take the wider point that was made on that.

I also take the wider point on abattoirs, which are an issue and link to many other issues in this space—in particular, the issue of vets. I am currently in extensive discussions on vets with the wider veterinary profession, with noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have an express interest in this matter and with the Chief Veterinary Officer. We have a little working group working on that at the moment to explore what we might do.

I was pleased to see earlier this week that two smaller abattoirs are opening and one, in Yorkshire, is reopening. There is a concerted effort here to make this a reality but I appreciate that it is a problem. I suspect, although I do not know, that the nature of the work is probably a large part of the problem here: if you have spent five years training to be a vet, standing in an abattoir and signing off certificates is probably not the most exciting thing that you thought you might be doing; I am guessing that, in the wider context, working in an abattoir is not an exhilarating experience. The point is well made and the matter is in hand.

Let me turn to some of the other issues that cropped up. Welfare issues for animals in transport came up, not just for exports but for domestic transport. This is principally governed by Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005

“on the protection of animals during transport and related operations”,

which is assimilated legislation. This is supplemented by domestic orders in England, Wales and Scotland. I have referred to a couple of issues on that.

Transporters have a legal duty to protect the welfare of the animals in their care. This means that contingency plans must be in place to ensure that animal welfare is not compromised—even in the event of the disruption of a journey, for example. These plans should include identifying control posts and emergency lairage facilities that can be used to provide animals with appropriate rest periods; using alternative routes; or postponing the journey until sea conditions or other conditions are suitable for it to take place.

Turning to the second part of this amendment, I assure noble Lords that we already keep welfare in transport policy more generally under review. This Bill is an example of that and follows the Farm Animal Welfare Committee’s 2018 report, commissioned by the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which examined animal welfare during the transport of livestock.

We discussed one of the Bill’s most crucial measures during this debate: the species within scope. I have set out why the current definition of “relevant livestock” is sufficiently comprehensive.

To conclude, I appreciate the noble Baroness’s wish to ensure that the Bill’s impact continues to be kept under review following Royal Assent. Given that the impact of the Bill on the welfare standards of livestock for export is clear and we already keep the wider policy areas under close review, it is not necessary to add these further requirements to the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, may I say how much I enjoyed listening to the Minister’s response? I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is rightly concerned about what is happening in Northern Ireland. Previous amendments have made reference to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol has implications for animals. The number of animals moving through Ireland was listed in previous amendments.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for raising this so that we can have this short debate. I have listened to her and am concerned that the passage of some animals may lead to unacceptable journeys. The WTO rules must be adhered to but there are ways to inject flexibility. I await with interest the Minister’s comments especially in relation to bluetongue, which he wrote to me about; perhaps he could now share that with the rest of the Committee.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing her amendment. She made some important points on Northern Ireland and on the transport between Northern Ireland and the Republic and onwards. It is a really complicated area and we have to take the concerns around it very seriously. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response but there are probably more discussions to be had around this issue.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others for their engagement on this Bill.

Let me first address the issue of the stepping stone from Europe to Ireland. What I would prefer to do, if I may, is take that outside of this discussion and the Bill today because it is not entirely connected. Perhaps I could come back to the noble Baroness separately on that.

I am very aware of the strength of feeling here and of the wider political issues so I shall stick to my script on this and not ad lib it, otherwise I shall get myself into terrible trouble. The Bill will prohibit the export of livestock and equines for slaughter and fattening from Great Britain to destinations outside of the UK and Crown dependencies. As the noble Baroness knows, none of the provisions affect Northern Ireland so there is no need for the Bill to extend to it; that is why the extent provisions are drafted as they are.

I understand the noble Baroness’s desire, through this probing amendment, to debate the implications of the Bill’s extent in relation to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply in Northern Ireland because of the vital importance of livestock movements for slaughter and fattening to the Republic of Ireland. Farmers in Northern Ireland routinely move animals in this way. The noble Baroness recognises this fact and has queried why we are not proposing a ban on exports from Northern Ireland with a targeted exemption for movements ending in the Republic of Ireland. A range of international agreements—I am waiting for a list of them—and their core principles, including World Trade Organization rules, would prevent an exemption of this kind, as the noble Baroness said.

The noble Baroness asked whether exceptions to the WTO requirements, such as that for measures to protect public morals, could apply in this case. Crucially, those exceptions cannot apply in a manner that would constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail. Any measure based on the exception must be applied in a consistent fashion to comparable trading partners. It is therefore not possible to make an exception for the Republic of Ireland on animal welfare grounds without extending the exception to other comparable countries outside the United Kingdom.

I understand the noble Baroness’ wish to explore whether the Bill could be extended further so that it applies across the United Kingdom. However, any such proposal would be either damaging to the Northern Irish economy or incompatible with our international agreements. The provisions that this amendment seeks to remove are necessary to set out the territorial extent of the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Land Use Framework

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord and to the other members of his committee for their excellent report. He rightly points out that this is an iterative process; we are not going to do it just once to put it into a file where it will sit for ever as a rigid structure. I do not yet have the exact details as to how this process will be updated. I very much hope that this will form part of the final report when it comes from the Secretary of State shortly.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the delay in the publication of the strategy is disappointing. Previously, the Minister has assured us that we would be seeing it “shortly”. It is interesting that “shortly” has now become “before the Summer Recess”. I thought I would look up the definition of “shortly” in the Cambridge dictionary; it is “soon”. The example given is:

“We will shortly be arriving in King’s Cross Station”.


Does the Minister agree that it is a jolly good job that he is not in charge of our railway services? Can he guarantee that we will see the strategy before the Summer Recess, or will we be seeing the use of “shortly” shortly?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

As a frequent user of the train service between here and Edinburgh, I appreciate that “shortly” can mean lots of different things. When the Secretary of State took up his position at the beginning of December, he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, saying that that was a really important subject. It is crucial that the Secretary of State is completely happy with a report that will go out in his name. It is right that he takes the time to reflect on the report that was being formulated at the time, put his own stamp on it and make sure that he is entirely comfortable with it when it comes out, before the Summer Recess.

Environment Agency

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The most reverend Primate makes a very good point about public access. The Government are committed to everybody being within a 15-minute walk of a green or blue space. On the water environment, the designations for our bathing sites have never been in better condition. Just last week, we consulted on creating 27 new water designation bathing sites.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister about air quality. The European Environment Agency has estimated the number of attributable deaths that could be avoided if extra air quality measures were implemented. It has also attempted to quantify the health burden associated with specific diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution. Does UK equivalence exist in this? For example, what work is our Environment Agency doing with international equivalents to share ideas and best practice on how to tackle public health?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises a really good point on air quality. It is the single biggest pollution problem that we have. Per the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, the Environment Agency regulates larger industrial installations, medium combustion plants and a range of other industrial areas. I am not aware specifically of the consultation we do with our European colleagues, but perhaps I can write to her on that in due course.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his clear introduction. Previous speakers have asked the questions I am particularly interested in, so I shall be brief. We support any measures aimed at promoting better use of our natural resources and increasing reuse and recycling. Establishing correct base data is fundamental to the success of the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, so we welcome this instrument.

We appreciate the reasons behind the instrument, which the Minister explained very clearly. However, I have a question about paragraph 10 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which deals with the consultation outcome. Paragraph 10.5 say that a third consultation on PEPR ran from July to October 2023. Paragraph 10.6 states that the response is being reviewed and that a summary is expected to be published in the spring of this year, which is only a few weeks away. Is it expected that anything in the outcome of that consultation might have been useful to have ahead of this legislation? It seems a bit odd that the Government did not finish the consultation before introducing this legislation. If there is something useful in it, are we likely to see a similar SI in the near future?

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions. I am not sure that I grasped the nub of my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s question. I wonder whether I might chat to her afterwards about it, or I can write to her, or both.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked when producers are going to get clarity concerning fees for the extended producer responsibility packaging scheme. Producer fee rates will be set and published by the scheme administrator. Rates for the 2025-26 financial year will not be known until spring 2025, once all the producer packaging data has been received and checked. In the meantime, to support producers we aim to publish illustrative fees as soon as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about stakeholder concerns about EPR. We continue to listen to feedback from all stakeholders throughout the development and delivery of this policy. The 12-month deferral of producer fees from 2024-25 has given producers an additional year to prepare for them, while also giving us the opportunity to consult producers on the deliverability of the draft regulations. Some of the amendments to this SI are in direct response to the feedback we have received from the consultation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about the planned consultation. I think it would be best if I wrote to her on that. I am not aware of anything that is likely to come out of that which would require us to do another SI.

I hope I have covered most of the questions; if I have missed anything, I will write. I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for this instrument, which will make crucial changes to the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023. These changes will ensure that drinks containers supplied in Scotland pick up an obligation in the same way that drinks containers supplied elsewhere do. The amendments will also widen the provisions that allow some primary and shipment packaging to become exempt from being defined as household packaging.

I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions and support today, and I commend these regulations to the Committee.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of this statutory instrument. Waste enforcement is clearly an important issue, so I do not intend to make any throwaway comments. However, I have some questions for the Minister.

First, am I correct in thinking that this SI was laid, withdrawn and laid again? If so, was there a problem with it? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that I have not confused it with another SI.

In his introduction, the Minister referred to some of the key statistics in the Explanatory Memorandum. The figures from the Environmental Services Association’s research spell out the problem, and that it is increasing. The estimated annual national cost of fly-tipping was £209 million in 2015, and just three years later it had increased to £392 million. That is pretty appalling, so it is important that we have legislation that attempts to deal with the problem. Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum gives the results of the recent survey, which again demonstrate that this is a really important and concerning topic to the public, of whom

“49% thought that fly-tipping was a problem”.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, made some excellent points about fly-tipping on private land, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, talked about farmers. I know from where I live in Cumbria, as I am sure the Minister does, the huge costs associated with sorting out this problem on farms, particularly for small farmers, who simply do not have the ability to shift it. This is becoming a real problem, so I hope the Minister heard what the noble Baronesses said and that, if this is not the appropriate instrument to deal with it, something else can be done to address it going forward.

We have also heard about the involvement of local authorities. There is a commitment to limit the use of FPN proceeds to expanding or improving councils’ enforcement functions and cleaning up the consequences of this anti-social behaviour. As the Minister said, this was set out in the Prime Minister’s anti-social behaviour action plan last March. Can the Minister say why it has taken a year to bring this forward? It should be straightforward.

According to paragraphs 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the revenue from FPNs is generally spent on street-cleaning activity rather than enforcement. My understanding is that this SI will mean that more revenue is spent on prevention, which is very welcome, but how do the Government see councils plugging the gaps in their general street-cleansing budgets through this instrument? The Minister talked about the amount councils can charge being increased through this SI, but there is still a cap on fixed-penalty notices for fly-tipping, littering and graffiti. Will the Government consider removing the cap and explore whether more stringent court fines for the worst offenders could help councils investigate and prosecute fly-tippers and deter repeat offenders? We know that some people make a living out of doing this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, gave the Committee an extremely good example. In our own communities, we have all heard about instances of people saying, “We’ll take that away for you”, taking a fee and then dumping it on someone else’s land. These repeat offenders need sorting out. The noble Baroness also talked about CCTV. CCTV is now being used in some areas of the Lake District National Park, because people are dumping rubbish even in some of the most beautiful areas of our national parks.

The enforcement actions include employing officers who are authorised to issue the fines. Have the Government any figures on the average number of officers employed by each local authority in England, in order to get an idea of the number of people currently involved? It would be interesting to know whether these are full-time posts or part of the officers’ wider responsibilities; if the latter, how does the ring-fencing work? If they have different responsibilities and this is just one of them, how is the ring-fencing guaranteed?

Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the consultation that took place with local authorities, and states that there were no responses from the West Midlands, which seems a bit odd. Why did the West Midlands not take part?

[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.

Pollution in Rivers and Regulation of Private Water Companies

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for bringing this debate forward today and for her excellent, thorough introduction to this issue. As she said, we have had this discussion a number of times over the past 12 months or so.

Noble Lords have mentioned the data from the Environment Agency showing that only 14% of our rivers in England have a good ecological status, with no rivers in England having a good chemical status. The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee said this in its 2022 report, Water Quality in Rivers:

“Getting a complete overview of the health of our rivers and the pollution affecting them is hampered by outdated, underfunded and inadequate monitoring regimes”.


Monitoring has been mentioned a number of times by noble Lords. The report also suggested that the current range of pollutants being monitored is “too narrow”, focusing on nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia but not routinely monitoring other substances that contribute to poor water quality, such as metals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals and plastics. Will the Government consider monitoring those other substances?

I thank the Rivers Trust for its excellent recent report, to which other noble Lords have referred. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, hosted a meeting at which we spoke to the trust. It is an incredibly important report; I hope that the Minister will take account of what it says. It draws attention to the fact that, as noble Lords have said, sewage and urban pollution, agricultural pollution, industrial pollution and chemical pollution are all contributing to this problem. According to Defra, agriculture is the main cause of river pollution incidents in England with intensive livestock farming being the major reason for the complete collapse of the River Wye, as we have often heard about in this House. Untreated waste from chicken, pig and dairy units is routinely spread on land, adding to the problem. Such has been the growth in the intensive livestock industry in recent years that soils across England are receiving significantly more nitrogen and phosphate than they can cope with and absorb; that excess is contaminating our rivers and having an impact on our wildlife.

Looking at the River Wye, it is so concerning that the group River Action has brought a judicial review saying that a loophole in the law is allowing poultry waste from 25 million chickens intensively farmed in the catchment to poison the river, and that the Environment Agency and the UK Government have failed to protect it from catastrophic decline. We all await the outcome of that judicial review with great interest. In his speech to the recent NFU conference, Alan Lovell, chair of the Environment Agency, said that pollution from agriculture and rural land is “roughly equal” to that coming from the water industry. Farmers, who need to play a really important role if this is to be resolved, say that they need help with both expertise and financial support. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in particular, talked about the help that farmers will need if they are to tackle this.

The outgoing president of the NFU, Minette Batters, has said that farmers need better access to funding through the environmental land management scheme, which the noble Duke mentioned, in order that they can create buffer strips along waterways. They also need much faster planning permission for slurry storage and incentives to grow the right crops in the right places. Will the Minister look at ELMS in light of these comments? Our transition out of the EU common agricultural policy into ELMS has been pretty challenging for farmers, with too much uncertainty. This has also added problems.

The complicated current system has made it difficult; it is not easy for farm businesses and land managers, who can feel lost in the system. It has also been harder for them to make long-term strategic plans. We need to look at cross-sector regulation; we cannot just regulate the water companies or the farmers. We need a fair and transparent system in which everybody understands what is happening and what role they have to play in reducing the pollution going into our rivers. We are still waiting to see the promised land use framework, to help balance all the demands on our land, and that includes land use to help with water quality and biodiversity targets. Does the Minister have any update, or is it still going to be published “shortly”?

Chemicals, of course, cause a lot of the problems around pollution in rivers; they can come from cleaning products, medicines and even the food we eat. Using chemicals clearly has a number of benefits, but we know they can cause some really appalling damage when they leak into the environment. We also know that they can persevere in the environment for weeks, months or even years, causing significant harm to wildlife, particularly in fresh water and the sea.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the Rivers Trust report. I pick out of it the work the Rivers Trust has done in collaboration with the Wildlife and Countryside Link chemicals task force. They have recently analysed Environment Agency data on levels of just one of the many toxic for ever chemicals: perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS. They looked at that within English fresh water fish, and their work revealed that the PFOS levels in English fresh water fish are on average 300 times higher than the levels considered safe by the European Union. Is the Minister aware of that? If not, this really needs to be picked up.

We have also heard that much pollution comes from urban environments, such as the amount of plastic that we throw away—you only have to look at your local river to see how much plastic can end up in it. We know that plastics break down into toxic chemicals and harmful microplastics, and then rivers become a major pathway for plastic reaching and polluting our coasts and oceans. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about road run-off, which again is very problematic. You get oil, diesel and petrol spills, plus the particles from tyres and the roads wearing down, getting washed into our rivers and drains. This is a really important area that we need to deal with. We know that urban wetlands, reed beds and other nature-based solutions can help intercept this run-off and reduce the pollution, and it is really important that the Government properly invest in these mitigations. What investment are the Government making? Perhaps the Minister can give us a clue.

We have also heard an awful lot about the problems around regulation and enforcement. The poor quality of our regulation enforcement in recent times has compounded all the pollution that is coming from several different sectors, making things even worse. In her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked a lot about England’s sewerage system being not fit for purpose, as did other noble Lords, particularly the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. We have heard again how, over the past few decades, Ofwat has simply failed to ensure that water companies have invested sufficiently to upgrade, or even just maintain, our water infrastructure. Delivering the necessary improvements to save our rivers now, at speed and at scale, has become a truly enormous task.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sikka on his forensic analysis of the water companies’ finances. The work he did was very important, and I encourage the Minister to have a good look at Hansard, because I expect he may need to write to my noble friend at the end of this debate.

We need more enforcement from the Environment Agency, but we have heard that the Government have cut the protection budget hugely—in half—in the last 10 years. With the failure to monitor and investigate pollution incidents, and the failure to enforce the legislation and rules that are supposed to protect our water environment, it is particularly worrying that this has included instructing EA staff not to attend low-level pollution incidents, requiring water companies to self-monitor and self-report. This is simply not going to get the change that we need. We need a strategic direction for water regulation.

The Government’s Plan for Water was published with great fanfare in April last year. The plan included creating a new water restoration fund that would use money from water company fines and penalties taken from their profits—not from their customers—to support local groups and catchment projects such as re-meandering rivers and restoring habitats, which are really important. Nothing has appeared on this since. Can the Minister provide an update on when we are likely to see this? If the Government are to make great announcements and publish lovely plans, they are no good if what they say is going to happen does not then actually happen.