Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, that was a helpful debate about animal welfare, and one with which I am familiar. It is good to have seen so many people here in the House to hear it, especially with the news that not just one but two Government Ministers are resigning today.

Livestock worrying is an issue of significant concern for farmers and rural communities. It causes much distress and cost to animals and farmers. It is already an offence through the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, but the police have sought greater powers to more effectively detect and enable the prosecution of such offences. That is why I bring forward to your Lordships’ House this Bill to modernise the said Act.

I start by congratulating Aphra Brandreth for seeing this through the House of Commons in her first year as an MP. I am already familiar with the Bill, as I navigated it through the Commons last year with the assistance of my noble friend Lord Hart, who was then Chief Whip. He will be making his maiden speech during this debate; I look forward to listening to it. Unfortunately, the Bill ran out of time just ahead of the general election in 2024. That is why I thank the Defra Ministers, who have recognised how important the passage of this Bill is. Candidly, they will be much thanked by farmers for doing so. I thank the Defra officials for their help too. I know that they have been working on this for some time—frankly, for several years. We are nearly there.

In essence, this Bill is an attempt at something of a simplification of the 1953 Act with some important updates, which are delivered through the Schedule in addition to the clauses. The Bill extends the area covered beyond the land to a road or path, to address attacks where livestock are moved to different parts of the farm. It provides powers of entry and search through warrant and allows dogs to be detained to avoid further attacks while an owner is awaiting trial for such an offence. It allows for more modern ways to gather evidence from a dog, including taking dental impressions and other relevant samples, and it also updates the fines that can be imposed. The Bill will include camelids—alpacas and llamas—in the definition of “livestock” for the purposes of the 1953 Act.

Clause 1(a) gives effect to the Schedule, which brings incidents on roads and paths within the scope of the offence. As anybody who has ever been to a farm with livestock knows, livestock do not sit in one field all their lives; they are moved around. We need to ensure that dogs do not worry the livestock as they are moved. That simplifies the situation. It not only makes it clear that dogs should be under the control of their owner or the person walking them, but gives assurances to farmers about what the limits are. Other provisions in Clause 1 ensure that offenders will pay the expenses arising from seizing and detaining the dog rather than those costs falling on the police.

The effect of Clause 1(b) brings camelids within the definition of “livestock”, as animals such as llamas are starting to be farmed considerably more and to be managed in livestock settings. This modest extension is an important element of Clause 1. Other jurisdictions have tried to cover every animal under the sun. Rather than doing that, these modest extensions are ultimately about keeping the Bill and the Act in line with what was intended, while ensuring that farmers can still be concerned with the safety of their animals.

Clause 2 updates the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to ensure that seizing a dog is more straightforward. This is split into two areas: dogs found without their owner or person in charge, and dogs considered to be posing a continuing threat. For the latter, new Section 2(8) is explicit:

“A constable may seize a dog if they have reasonable grounds to believe that … the dog has attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and … unless it is detained, there is a risk that the dog could attack or worry livestock again”.


The overall effect of the new section is to make it more straightforward for police to be able to grab a suspected dog in order to stop such behaviour happening and avoid the potential impact on livestock, without having to go to court or wait until an owner is convicted of an offence.

Clause 3 ensures that we can be more up to date about getting evidence—for example, in taking dental impressions. A dog bite can often be distinguished by what is happening with their mouth and what has happened to the animal, which is particularly important when an animal has been killed. From discussions with the police, I anticipate that most sampling should be quite straightforward, but a more detailed examination of a dog may be required at times in order to establish the connection to a specific incident. If it is deemed that it would be quite intrusive, the law requires a veterinary surgeon to be involved to ensure that the dog in question is handled appropriately.

Clause 4 extends powers of entry and search for an application to a justice of the peace. Frankly, there have been too many examples of people saying that they will bring in their dog but then they do not; the dog simply disappears, never to be seen again. The clause basically enables a quick element of justice to be applied in order to ensure that evidence can be seized quickly.

Clause 5 covers the extent, commencement, transitional provision and Short Title. The Act will automatically come into force after three months after the day it is passed. That avoids the need for any further regulations, which I believe is a good deregulatory approach in primary legislation.

I turn to the parts of the Schedule that I have not already addressed. Paragraph 1(6) amends Section 1(4) of the 1953 Act and talks about attacking or worrying, which ensures that the Bill covers what it is supposed to. Paragraph 1 of the Schedule updates the terminology used in the 1953 Act so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Attacking is legally part of what is more widely described as “worrying” in the 1953 Act. However, the term “worrying” can dismiss the severity of some offences. Reframing the Act so that attacking is distinct from worrying better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. To give a simplified view, this covers a dog attacking a sheep, a cow, a camelid or a pig directly, and many other animals that come under the terminology of livestock, as well as the sort of behaviour like running around these animals, which can cause distress and severe consequences, such as aborting. There is even a story about how a dog ended up chasing livestock over the edge of a cliff.

We need to ensure that not just what people would perceive to be an attack—direct contact with the animal by the dog—but worrying behaviour more generally is addressed. To be clear, though, this provision is not creating a new offence; it is clarifying the language throughout the Act. In effect, both attacking and worrying are already covered in the 1953 Act, but that is not clear throughout.

We need to send a strong message to dog owners right across the country. Your Lordships will be aware of some awful attacks that have happened around the country. Farmers are really frustrated that people are not in control of their animals, which can have a major impact and, frankly, too many people are often in denial about that. It is suggested anecdotally that quite a lot of the problems are caused by dogs escaping from their homes. Their owners may have no clue about it and would be mortified to know that their dog was on the loose causing such disruption.

People already have the power to shoot dogs that are worrying livestock, but not all farmers or shepherds want to do that. They want the owners to be responsible. That is why I am keen to ensure that the deterrent is sufficiently strong. In the current Act, the fine is capped at a maximum of £1,000. That will go up to an unlimited amount, which reflects the need for an effective deterrent. The reason why it is unlimited—it has become the trend in legislation to use the phrase “unlimited amount”—is that it is far more straightforward in practical terms to have an unlimited amount so that the Sentencing Council and the local courts can make the fine relevant to the impact and severity of the offence.

I hope noble Lords realise that the Bill is intended to be straightforward. I know there is a lot of detail in the clauses, and that is often the case when we are trying to amend other legislation, but I believe that these modest and, I hope, sensible changes will be important for our farmers and for the animals for which they care. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed today. It is good to have yet another Bill that has strong support from all parties, and those of no party, for this legislation to get through. I think the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned “One Man and His Dog”. I did watch that, even though I grew up in Liverpool—perhaps it was a substitute for not having a pet animal at the time. Nowadays, I prefer the TikTok of Sean the Sheepman, with the endeavours of Kate, Storm and Echo.

The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, asked about worrying by humans. This legislation does not apply to that; however, the under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, humans can certainly be prosecuted for any such concerns that he has.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, asked—I cannot quite recall whether in the debate, but certainly outside—whether this applied to donkeys. I am now delighted to tell him it does. The definition of horses includes asses and mules. Apparently, ass is the correct technical name for a donkey, which is a bit more informal. That, I hope, is there.

On the points raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the original 1953 Act mentions

“arable, meadow or grazing land”.

I say to her that this is really designed to be about farmers and farmed livestock, rather than perhaps a petting zoo. As the Minister outlined, some of this will depend on exactly where the particular facility is.

I note that the reason we are here is really that put forward by my noble friend Lord Colgrain in his striking speech and the very distressing, although measured, way he explained why this is so needed, from his own personal experience.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hart of Tenby. Perhaps this is a bit risqué for the Lords but, dare I say it, a Welshman talking about sheep-worrying could have gone down another avenue. Nevertheless, I know that he has a sense of humour, and we will continue to see that in the House.

I have not mentioned everybody who has spoken but I thank all those who have contributed. I look forward to the Bill making good progress, hopefully, through the House. This will automatically commence if this House passes it as it stands today, which would be good. I hope to get it in before the lambing season of 2026.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have covered most of the questions asked. As I have said, protecting and supporting those who need it most is a fundamental duty of public service and a principle that guides our approach to tackling fuel poverty. These regulations mark a significant step forward in our commitment to tackling fuel poverty by both expanding the warm home discount to cover more low-income households and ensuring that help is available when it is most needed.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. There were a few questions, which I believe her officials will have noted. I appreciate that UC and DWP are different, but the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that DESNZ assumes that 28% of people will not get this discount despite the other matter. I am sure that the Government will get the other Minister—the one from DESNZ—to reply, but I am grateful to this Minister for her responses so far.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that we can comb through Hansard and make sure that proper, detailed information is provided to the noble Baroness on the issues that she raised.

This scheme has been running for 14 years now. Over that time, more than £4 billion-worth of direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households. These regulations will build on that legacy by allowing support to reach more people this winter, including vulnerable households that were previously shut out of the scheme.

Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

The regulations must be welcomed; they are an intervention to help the small producers. They are given a voice and imbalanced commercial relations are addressed, and vulnerable primary producers are remembered. George Orwell would appreciate the itemisation in the Explanatory Memorandum of the highly consolidated businesses that are referred to. I say well done again to Andrew and to director Evered.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support these regulations but I have a few questions about them.

First, I give credit to the Government for bringing them forward. The gestation period of a sow is three months, three weeks and three days. This issue was first raised with me as an MP back in 2021 and the announcement was made in 2023, so heaven knows how many piglets have been born while we have been getting to this stage.

I want to get a sense of aspects of the contract and enforcement. So that noble Lords know, this came about during the Covid times, when we started seeing a shrinkage in the number of abattoirs. Farmers were starting to be constricted in which abattoirs were open. It was largely the large abattoirs, although not exclusively. As a consequence, farmers saw that, all of a sudden, prices changed, and it was take it or leave it.

There were further issues, and I will ask a question about size. Contracts were being written in a different way about the size of the pig that was being taken into the abattoir and whether it was slightly over in weight—obviously, while you are waiting for the pigs to go into the abattoir, they keep being fed. Farmers I knew were getting 10% of what they had expected, never mind the cuts that were being brought in.

I am conscious that it is very difficult to write the contract; we can see how long this one SI is in trying to reach the principle. On the review that is set out in the regulations, will the Minister perhaps share with the Farming Minister some thoughts on how the contracts are formed at the moment, to see how we start to accommodate for that? If we are getting into a particular situation, we might end up with the cancellation of the receipt of the pig in a way that forces a different way in which farmers are not properly compensated.

The first person who brought this up with me was the marvellous Jimmy Butler of Blythburgh Pork. I see my noble friend Lord Deben is here—we both know Jimmy well. Of course, there are other great pig farmers. On the Suffolk coast, there is Dingley Dell, with the Hayward brothers, and there are many more around the country, as we have already heard. The threat of blacklisting was very real, and it is why we went to Victoria Prentis—who will soon be introduced to this House—which brought about the July 2022 consultation.

Who will undertake enforcement of the regulations set out today? The powers are attributed to the Secretary of State, but, as the Minister will know, we have seen, sadly, breaches of animal welfare just in the last month in an abattoir the name of which I have forgotten, and in other abattoirs as well. Often, these abattoirs want help from the Government, who are not always listening when we go to them for help for farmers. Will it be the Food Standards Agency, which probably has more interaction with abattoirs than any other part of government, bearing in mind the regulations and the listening? It would be useful to understand who is lined up to do that.

I am also quite keen to understand this: at one point, there was consideration around referring the number of abattoirs that were there to the Competition and Markets Authority. I am sure that this will have been considered, bearing in the mind the regulations laid out today. I appreciate that the Minister is not formally responsible for farming but, if she has anything on that, I would be grateful to hear from her now or by letter.

I have a final point. The concentration of abattoirs has happened, as I say, for a variety of reasons, and I do not want to get into the animal welfare issues in that regard. It meant that the previous Administration set up a small abattoir fund. That came to an end in September last year. I would be grateful to have an understanding of that. Again, I appreciate that this is not directly in the regulations, but it could inform in due course the review that is under way on effectiveness of the provision of that funding. I am conscious that it was a difficult decision for the Farming Minister today, in an announcement made in a Written Ministerial Statement, to reopen SFI 24 for farmers who had started their application. I think that, in the review, it would be useful to consider whether the expansion of abattoirs has actually happened. It is vital that, whether mobile or small, we try to make sure that there is a healthy market in this country.

As I say, I applaud the Government for finally bringing these regulations forward. They will be much welcomed, but there are still a few details on which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, my thanks go to the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument, which we in the Liberal Democrats support. It represents a positive and necessary step towards addressing the deep-seated issues of fairness and transparency that have plagued our vital, world-leading pig sector. It is a welcome change in the wake of the painful crisis that gripped this industry from 2020 to the spring of 2023—a period marked by, as we have heard from other noble Lords, the Covid period, acute Brexit-induced labour shortages at processing plants, and soaring feed and Putin-induced energy costs outstripping farm gate prices and pushing producers to the brink. The statistics are stark, with losses exceeding £750 million collectively, as well as that awful period when more than 60,000 healthy animals were culled because they could not be processed.

Although the pig sector has a history of volatility, that particular crisis exposed a critical weakness at its heart: a risk/reward imbalance underpinned by commercially unclear and potentially harmful terms, especially for smaller producers, hindering their ability to budget, manage price fluctuation or invest for the future. These regulations are rightly designed to address this imbalance. They mandate written pig purchase contracts between buyers and sellers, setting out clear rules for pricing, contract duration and dealing with market fluctuations. This framework is crucial in rebuilding for them security, clarity and fairness.

The instrument makes necessary amendments to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, addressing the unintended consequence described by the Minister that impacts on businesses with an internal democratic structure—typically co-operatives—and allowing for volume-based or tiered pricing in that specific context. We urge Defra and the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, which will enforce these regulations, to monitor this amendment closely to ensure that it is applied in the true spirit of internal democratic structures. I thank the National Farmers’ Union’s dairy team and the National Pig Association for their valuable briefings on this issue, which have informed our understanding of it. They have asked for specific reassurances on this issue.

While these regulations are welcome and necessary for the pig sector, they highlight a broader need. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was introduced—we are very proud of this—by the coalition Government. It was taken directly from the Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto, but we regret that its powers to enforce were not sufficiently established when we left Government in 2015, and it still comprises only a handful of people.

Given the clear and continuing power imbalance between producers, processors, supermarkets and the food service sector, does the Minister have any plans to enhance the enforcement powers and capacity of the GCA, given that it is the potential referee in the supply chain? Indeed, will she consider the need for the GCA to be able to intervene in deals between farmers and processers, not just those directly linking to retailers? Producers must be able to raise issues, and we believe that anonymity is vital, given the potential fear of repercussions. We believe that third parties such as the NFU should be empowered to raise concerns and truly hold the more powerful parts of the industry accountable, so the adjudicator therefore needs some more effective tools.

As ever, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these matters. It would be interesting to get some clarification from the Minister on an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Pack, which was also in the committee’s report. It said:

“Defra has used a specific definition of what constitutes an electronic signature, rather than using or cross-referencing to what we understand is the more standard definition under section 7(2) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000”.


In other words, there is some kind of different use of electronic signature here. That is a technical query that it would be great to understand. The committee continued, saying that:

“The Department was unable to explain … the rationale”.


I am having a second go at that question, and I thank the Minister in advance for even struggling to find the answer.

Finally, we must avoid simply passing this SI and then moving on. Regulations such as these need to be subject to regular review to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. The flexibility within this SI must not be abused, and the Government must ensure that these regulations genuinely work for an industry of which we can rightly be proud.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the published register. I am torn on this matter. I am a scientist by background and, as such, I have welcomed progress that has been made by science, but I believe that, with the immense impact of that progress, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful and to take steps forward only when we are absolutely certain we are doing the right thing.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took me back to the early days of devolution in 1999, when the question of GM products was very controversial and caused immense difficulty—not least across the England-Wales border, in north-east Wales and in Cheshire. These are matters that need to be thought through in advance, otherwise we could once again get ourselves in the same sort of mess as we did around that time.

In responding to this debate, can the Minister clarify where exactly the discussions with the devolved Governments have gone? The responsibility for these matters lies with them, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Minister indicated that discussions were taking place, but by putting it in those terms the implication is that they have not reached a conclusion. Should we in this House be steamrollering an order like this through when that conclusion has not been reached, and many aspects of it may not have even been discussed at all? Why are the Government bringing this before the House before concluding the procedures to which they themselves have signed up—in the context of Wales—with their own Labour Government in Cardiff, who want to have the time to discuss this and come to a conclusion?

Therefore, I welcome the fact that there is a regret amendment, because I believe that we should move down this road if that is the consensus and it is agreed that it is safe, but only when we have gone through the proper procedures. If we are not going through the proper procedures with regard to the constitutional realities in these islands, how can we be sure that we are also going through the other procedures that are vital to the consideration of the substance of these regulations? Therefore, I ask Minister to think again, at least about the timescale, until further thought has been given to this matter.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these regulations. That should be no surprise to your Lordships, given that I was Secretary of State when we took the primary legislation through this House. I would just remind the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this measure has already been through this House, during which time amendments were tabled on marketing, labelling and so on, to which this House did not agree. Therefore, noble Lords have already had a say in the decision on how to take this technology forward.

I am conscious that there will be challenges about things like the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. I remind your Lordships that in the days when we were part of the European Union, the UK Government certainly listened to the responses and views of the devolved Administrations, but ultimately made determinations based on what was determined across the European Union as a whole, as well as relying on its votes. As a consequence, all that regulation was applied without any say from the House of Lords or the House of Commons at that time. We are now in an odd situation where we are trying to redo the arguments from just a couple of years ago. Those debates were intense, and it was right that they be had; nevertheless, they were had in this place. I am grateful to the Government for taking this forward.

I remind the House that 40% of crops are lost globally every year due to floods, pests and other such events. That is why it is important that agriculture and food security make the best use of our science. Today, we had a Question about the report from the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee. To my surprise, when it comes climate-resilient agriculture, the Adaptation Sub-Committee does not refer in any way to devices like this, or to how we could improve food security through this technology; it talks more about the use of land and so on. It is important that we embrace technology. The John Innes Centre in Norwich, which has been referred to already, is a particularly good example, but there are others.

As has been well said, gene editing is the acceleration of natural processes. We will see food productivity increase, which is particularly important given the climate incidents we have witnessed on our own shores in just the last few years. That is why drought-resistant and disease-resistant crops that reduce the use of fertilisers are an important part of what we need to do to help biodiversity improve across this country, instead of it remaining in current regrettable state. But it is also important that we respect the United Kingdom Internal Market Act.

I am very conscious there are 40 pages of this legislation. I appreciate that in my time as Secretary of State, I sometimes got a bit frustrated, once we had completed the primary legislation, with how long it took to get on with some of the detail. I commend the officials in the FSA and Defra for proceeding with this. It matters that we get sensible, science-based decisions right, and do not worry too much about—to be candid—the artificial concerns people have when those decisions are accelerated. We are already experiencing artificial intelligence in so many walks of life. There is a lot of concern about that, I accept that, but this is the scientists and our farmers speaking. That is why, if this is forced to a Division, I will be supporting the Government tonight.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister knows how much I respect her, and I also respect Daniel Zeichner in the other place. Daniel, in particular, has spent many years in that portfolio, and I am conscious that these may not have been their decisions. That aside, that is the joy of collective responsibility.

The transition that has happened as a result of leaving the European Union was set out under then Secretary of State Michael Gove, who will shortly be coming to this place. I am not pretending otherwise: I was Secretary of State and inherited a plan that was unpopular with a lot of farmers, going from certainty of income to something a bit more uncomfortable. But it was the right thing to do to have a transition, recognising, as has been pointed out by the Minister—and here I disagree with my noble friend who just spoke—that just 10% of landowners were receiving half the funds. It was important to make these changes towards a more positive environmental aspect to our agriculture, recognising a lot of the harms that had been done—not intentionally—without that understanding of what some agricultural practices had started doing to biodiversity right across the country, including polluting rivers.

Back in 2018, when I was a Minister in Defra, I signed the farming rules for water to try to make sure that we began to turn circle, so that we started to see improvements. Indeed, we have seen improvements in pretty much every river across England in the last five years, none of which, however, are necessarily meeting the ecological or chemical standards. By the way, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not adopt these regulations. Nevertheless, there has been progress: the slurry grants, for example, helped by SFI payments more recently, will continue to bring rewards.

I appreciate that there are many Liberal Democrat Peers here to support their fatal amendment. I am not going to get into the constitutional rights and wrongs of that, but I gently point out to them that when the Agriculture Act was debated in this House, they put forward an amendment to reduce the transition period from seven years to five, so as to accelerate the transition, because they wanted more money to go into the environment a lot quicker. I am really pleased they have had a damascene conversion regarding the importance of how we support farmers, but I wish they had not put forward that suggestion back in 2020, during the design of the very schemes we are discussing today.

During my time in Defra, I was concerned. When I arrived, the first option involved soil, which, by the way, is critical not only to the future prosperity and productivity of farmers and the profitability of farming, but to the prosperity of the planet. It was right that the initial focus of Defra was treating soil well and making that the fundamental cornerstone of bringing about improvements in a variety of ways.

One of the things that concerned me was that, as we started to see the escalator—or perhaps the see-saw, if you like—moving from one to the other, we saw that although many farmers could participate, we needed to offer farmers a lot more as their income from BPS fell and we eventually transitioned to delink so as to get away from the EU rules. We needed to open up the number of options more quickly to allow more farmers to look at how those options could help them achieve the outcomes that we wanted to achieve through the environmental land management scheme.

I can honestly that say a lot of thought went into this. I had been in the department from 2016 to 2019 and when George Eustice was the Agriculture Minister. We started discussions early on about how this would work, and this is where we ended up with the seven-years proposal. Not only that, in the Agriculture Act we included a power to be able to extend beyond seven years. When considering some of the options when I was Secretary of State, I deliberately chose to act against the advice of officials, who wanted to set the taper all the way to the end of the seven years. I was concerned even at that point that it was not clear to the department or to Ministers, and I was afraid that the analytical capabilities of the RPA seemed not to be up to it. I was considering extending the transition period for delinked payments beyond the seven years, to make sure that we were not in a situation where the 10% of landowners and farmers who were getting the money were getting even more of the 50%. We wanted to make sure that farms were still viable. That is why we did not set at a particular time the final few years. It was to give us flexibility, so we could see what was going on and see whether farmers were taking up the options.

As the Minister has accurately reported, we now have more farmers involved in these agricultural environmental schemes than ever before. In the times when the UK moved part 2 of the BPS up to 15%—the maximum allowed—we had even more, and that was a good thing. But it was important that we had that flexibility, which is why I am concerned. Having got farmers to look into this, we put money in to allow them a payment to consult to help them think about how they were going to use their land. We knew that that could not just come from their own pocket. That is why we initially put in a £1,000 payment and then £2,000 in order to access that.

We changed the rules, so that you did not have to have received BPS before. Many farmers around this country were not getting any BPS at all; they were actually doing environmentally friendly things but were not getting substitution income. I choose as an example Suffolk, because that is where I used to represent, where many free-range farmers were not eligible for BPS. We changed the scheme for, for example, the pig industry—the entire pig industry was not eligible. We changed that rule because we recognised that, if we wanted to reach the environmental targets that both Houses had voted on, we needed to make sure that as many farmers and landowners as possible would get involved.

We cannot expect them necessarily to do that for free. There are plenty of rich landowners who, out of the goodness of their heart, might want to do it, but as my noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out, and as I have pointed out in farming debates before, there is sadness in where we are today. I have already seen it: farmers I visited when we were discussing how to make some of these things work are now busy ploughing up the cover crops that they planted which are no longer viable to keep the family business going. That is a huge sadness.

I am conscious that the Minister today will probably share in that sadness. It is a real sense of regret. The Government must take away the fact that, for all the talk of food security, and despite the fact that more food will be produced—as I am sure it will be—that will be at the harm of having a combination of what ELMS was seeking to achieve.

Candidly, there has been a lot of talk about underspends, but I have to say that it is quite pathetic. We always knew that this transition would be a bit like a see-saw—there would probably be a bit of an underspend, though not that much in terms of the percentage of the overall budget—but, as we opened up more options, we knew that more SFI money would be needed. That is why it was carefully managed. I am concerned that we are in this situation today, as has been pointed out, despite assuring farmers that they would get six weeks’ notice of when a scheme was going to close. Ideally, we would move to a rolling option so that it would not close, but I appreciate that this was not the practice of previous years. That was designed, again, to recognise the different seasons and the different demands on farmers. To suddenly shut it was really poor—really shabby. That is why I have advised members of the NFU and farmers locally that they should first complain to Defra and then go to the parliamentary ombudsman, because I have no doubt that this is maladministration.

I am also concerned that, in the Explanatory Memorandum to the SI, the Minister has stated that there was no problem in terms of the ECHR. Under A1P1, the expectation of receiving grants is an asset, and I have no doubt that, if people were to make a legal claim against that, they would certainly get compensation too.

In terms of where to head, there is a real issue for farming. It is not just about the inheritance tax but about the agricultural APR, the BPR and all the things that farmers spend, thinking of the long term; yet all of that is being taken away. I used to think that Labour cared about the countryside, but it does not feel that this is the case. It does not feel like it cares about rural communities, which I am sure will be looking at those Members of Parliament who voted for the SI at the other end of the Corridor.

There is a bit of a trend here. I was concerned to read in Hansard that, when the Commons debated this, the impact assessment statements were not updated because they were done in 2020 with the Agriculture Act. However, the plan was very clear then: it was set out in the Bill that there would be seven years of transition. That was the expectation set by the Government at the time. It is a true matter of regret that no impact assessment was updated.

Many of us will have spoken to farmers. According to the transparency, sadly, the Agriculture Minister did not meet any farmers between October and December 2024, when this change in policy would have been considered. However, as I said, I respect Daniel. He has been a considered shadow Minister and now Minister, but we should not be in a situation where farmers are hitting a wall. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will be killing off things such as the biodiversity metrics, which my noble friend referred to, and we will see intensification.

For those reasons, I support my party today in expressing regret. I am conscious that Members in the elected House have already made this determination, but they should do that knowing that they need farmers and landowners to produce food and that, without them, we will not achieve the environment and climate targets that have been set. It is for that reason that I support the regret amendment tabled by my noble friend.

Farming and Rural Communities

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Roborough for having introduced this debate. His eloquent speech at the start was full of detail and excellent suggestions on how things could be better if the Government listened. I try not to get too political in these debates, but I am conscious that, while the Minister is from a very rural area—a magnificent part of the country—it is worth noting that all the Commons Ministers represent urban areas. That is why I feel that there has been a lack of consideration and true understanding of some of the impact of recent decisions that have been made on the farming community but on rural communities too.

There is often an assumption that rural communities are wealthy, but that is simply not the case. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about rural strategy. A couple of years ago, the previous Government produced something called Unleashing Rural Opportunity. It was the one time I was able to get a map into a particular document showing that contrast and challenging other Ministers at the time but also the country as a whole to see how stark the variation is.

So what can be done? Unfortunately, confidence is now trashed by not only the actions but by the proposals to be made—particularly in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I am sure that we will debate it at length when it arrives in this place, but I hope noble Lords understand quite how bad this has got. When we think about the relationship—the unfortunately regrettable relationship—that Natural England has with a lot of our farming community, for it to be given powers to compulsorily purchase land means not only putting it in the wrong hands, because, if anything, it should be done by the Secretary of State, potentially delegating, but it completely destroys the nature markets framework and the approach of bringing private finance into the sector. Just last week, Steve Reed, the Defra Secretary, was right to praise the standard that has come out to open up this market, building on work from two years ago. It is great that we have finally got there, but the Government do not see the irony that giving powers such as this begs the question of why farmers should be bothered to get involved now in the first place.

When we come to debate the SI in a couple of weeks’ time, after the Recess, we can get more into how the money is being spent—and I am conscious that, with the change in paying farmers away from the guaranteed fixed payments there was always going to be a sort of see-saw when that moved over. People might not initially take up the proposals but they would understand, learn and commit—and we have seen the huge level of commitment. I genuinely hope that farmers are making complaints to the department, because I believe that serious maladministration has been done by pulling the plug against an expectation—and not by going through judicial review but by going straight to the department and the ombudsman.

We need farmers. We need landowners and rural communities to help not just with food production but with the future of our planet. It is about the topsy-turvy difficulties with which they are living—and our farmers are the original friends of the earth. Yes, there have been some really poor farming practices, which we have later recognised, which have now been changed. But we need to bring those people with us.

On one other point that I wanted to make, on housing, I am concerned about the proposal to adjust some of the planning decisions. Noble Lords will find that most councils are not nimbys, but when they are faced with an 82% increase for housing in east Suffolk and no changes in London, where the housing demand is really strong, that will put pressure on not just the fields but the villages and those small communities. By the way, at the same time, housing associations are flogging off the houses in those villages so that they can release capital to build more houses, they say, but they are doing that 60, 70 or 80 miles away—very close to the new areas of growth. It is just ridiculous.

There are other things that worry me about council officers taking decisions, when local plans have already set the housing densities and all of a sudden developers come along and say that they do not want to build at that density any more. What councillors and Ministers are not realising is that as a consequence even existing targets are going to take two or three times the amount of land to build the houses that are already there—so just imagine now being expected to double it.

We are in a difficult time, and I know that the Minister is very much a champion of rural areas. I genuinely hope that she can persuade the rest of the Government to be so too.

Sustainable Farming Incentive

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

We will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and then from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s question references a lot of the longer-term work that Defra is doing to get these things right. Regarding solar farms, the land-use framework is designed to look at things such as where we put energy, where the best-quality agricultural land is, where we put housing and so on. The land-use framework looks to address much of that.

Regarding what farmers should be doing, whether their first priority is to produce food and so on, we are developing the food strategy and the 25-year road map for farming. Both are looking at how we address this and how we ensure that we have high-quality, sustainable food production in this country for us to become as self-sufficient as is practically possible. These are important long-term pieces of work that the department is doing. We wanted to move away from short-term decision-making that did not deliver in the long run. A big criticism of what has happened with the sustainable farming initiative is that it was too short-term. Taking that bigger picture view, to give farmers certainty for the future, is a really important piece of work that the department is doing.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister is a friend of farmers and recognise her experience in Cumbria and her previous time as a Member of Parliament. She will know that farmers are disappointed. The money that is available through SFI was always intended to increase over the five years of the agricultural transition, so it is no surprise that more and more farms have come in. A record 65,000 are now in agri-agreements. I am really worried in a different way about the intensification of food production, which will actually hamper the progress that had been made in getting farmers signed up to nature. Let us be candid: the ambitious but practical nature targets can be achieved only with the help of farmers and landowners across our country.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really good point about the increasing intensification of farming, and that is something we do not want to see. Our focus has to be on high-quality sustainable food that we can buy locally, and on farmers being able to support the country. We said in our manifesto,

“food security is national security”

and that is very true. It is incumbent on us as the Government to look at how we deliver on that promise.

High Seas Treaty

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The UK will continue to be proactive in preparing for implementation and entry. We are committed to partnering with others, in particular the global South and the Commonwealth Secretariat, to ratify and implement the agreement. We are actively engaging in that. The first meeting will take place at the UN in New York this April. We very much support this, and we are working with others to move forward.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, as Environment Secretary, I visited several marine protected areas in 2023. I accompanied my noble friend Lord Ahmad when the United Kingdom signed the agreement in New York. I am really concerned, given that officials had shared with MPs and Peers last year that a Bill would be ready by the end of 2024. I am sure that there is sufficient agreement on both sides of the House to get this legislation through in time for the conference to which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, referred. It would be really embarrassing for the United Kingdom not to be a full member of the first UN ocean COP in June.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Let me confirm that the Government are completely committed to ratification of the BBNJ agreement, in line with our determination to re-invigorate the UK’s wider international leadership on climate and nature. We are working on the measures needed to implement the detailed and very complex provisions of the agreement before we can formally ratify.

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the regulations before us, which I broadly support. I will direct my questions to two specific areas.

The Minister mentioned that guidance will be given to councils on the separate collections. My concern is around what guidance will be given by councils to households in particular. I remember chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the time of the “horsegate” scandal, where people found that they were eating prepared foods—usually lasagne—made from horsemeat, not beef. It ended, I think, a lot of people’s desire to carry on eating these pre-prepared, highly expensive, undernutritious, highly salted foods. However, if you are a householder and you have one of these trays in front of you, it normally goes, I assume, in your food waste because it is highly contaminated—or the packet that the lasagne I have eaten was in will have to be rinsed sufficiently to ensure that it is not contaminated.

Who is going to guide households on what to do with such prepared food, where it is difficult to get rid of the residual food waste? How does the Minister intend to ensure that, if it goes into the paper recycling, which will now be a separate collection, this will not lead to greater contamination? How will guidance be given to households to ensure that there is no cross-contamination? How does the Minister plan to ensure that there will be no increase in cross-contamination because of the contaminated stuff going into the wrong recycling bin or plastic bag—whatever it is called—that we are going to be issued with?

I would also like to press the Minister on ensuring that a strong message will go out from the Government to councils that there will continue to be a mandatory weekly food waste collection. Anything less frequent than that will lead to vermin and a lot of highly undesirable threats to households, through no fault of their own.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I made my maiden speech last week simply to make sure that I could speak in today’s debate. I congratulate the Minister on bringing these regulations forward; it is fair to say, I think, that they have been a long time in gestation. I recall, back in 2018, the resources and waste strategy setting out the idea of trying to get consistent recycling. I have to say, when I became the Secretary of State a while ago, I worked quite hard on this issue to try to get simpler recycling to achieve the outcomes that the Minister has set out.