Food and Feed (Regulated Products) (Amendment, Revocation, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Monday 10th March 2025

(3 weeks, 6 days ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I welcome these regulations, on several grounds. First, as the Minister mentioned, this is a deregulatory approach. There cannot be many regulations deemed to be deregulatory that have 104 pages, but 70 of those pages deal with revocations of existing legislation. That is to be welcomed.

I completely support that this will be a risk-based approach. I am conscious that consultations are ongoing on products being considered by the FSA under this approach. I am conscious that some may be concerned about removing the need for separate secondary legislation, which is a hangover from our days in the European Union, but this is perfectly routine.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, I am conscious that the Food Standards Agency is a non-ministerial department, with the DHSC leading on this in government and in Parliament. Can she confirm whether DHSC Ministers will be making these decisions or whether it will be open to Defra Ministers?

Secondly, an issue that arose during the passage of what is now the precision breeding Act was concern that the devolved Administrations would be reluctant to have any GMO in products sold in their countries. The purpose of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act and the non-discrimination principle was to make sure that, where something had been given the go-ahead in England, say, it could be sold anywhere across the United Kingdom, respectful of the devolved Administrations but nevertheless giving consumers that choice. Will the UK Government fully assert the non-discrimination principle in the sale of future products? As I said, I support these regulations.

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend and concur entirely. I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this streamlining and deregulatory process. However, I share some of the concerns put forward by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

My noble friend talked about GMO. I am personally very wary of GMO products: I would like to know if I were eating such a product or if such feedstuff was being fed to an animal that I may go on to eat. Can the Minister assure me that the removal of the renewals process will not lead to any information affecting the suitability of validation methods for GMOs being overlooked? Put simply, can the public and consumers rest assured that the processes that have been followed hitherto will be followed? How can the public be made aware of those processes and know that that is the case?

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Monday 3rd February 2025

(2 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

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 Portrait Baroness Coffey (Con)
- Hansard - -

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.

VAT on Static Caravans

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Wednesday 23rd May 2012

(12 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Coffey Portrait Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
- Hansard -

I present a petition on behalf of Suffolk Coastal residents. People have also sent me letters on this matter.

The petition states that

levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs

in the UK holiday industry, including on caravan parks, and for caravan manufacturing and its suppliers,

and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy will

reduce investment in these businesses and

lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of Residents of Suffolk Coastal,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001059]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
- Hansard - - Excerpts

I, too, wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Thirsk and Malton in similar terms to the aforementioned petition. In addition to the petition, I have received a vast number of letters. Normally, when such a radical tax change is proposed, one year is allowed from the date of its proposed introduction before its coming into force, if at all.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001094]

Peittions

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Wednesday 23rd May 2012

(12 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Coffey Portrait Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
- Hansard - -

I present a petition on behalf of Suffolk Coastal residents. People have also sent me letters on this matter.

The petition states that

levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs

in the UK holiday industry, including on caravan parks, and for caravan manufacturing and its suppliers,

and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy will

reduce investment in these businesses and

lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of Residents of Suffolk Coastal,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001059]

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I, too, wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Thirsk and Malton in similar terms to the aforementioned petition. In addition to the petition, I have received a vast number of letters. Normally, when such a radical tax change is proposed, one year is allowed from the date of its proposed introduction before its coming into force, if at all.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001094]