King’s Speech

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham of Droxford, who has so recently been released from his duties as what you might call the enforcer of policy on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It was a joy to hear his contribution. I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the humble Address, and I congratulate the proposer and seconder on their opening contributions. I was honoured to have coincided with the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, in our time together in the European Parliament, and pay tribute to her work both there and here. I was also hugely impressed by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Roe of West Wickham, who has served this country with great distinction both in a military capacity and, more recently, in the fire service. We look forward to many contributions from him.

I find myself in agreement with much of what was said in the last two speeches. I particularly want to build on the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, in particular, the challenge of the rural economy and the contribution that farming and food production can make to economic growth in rural areas.

This presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Obviously, we have seen the challenges of energy supply and the challenges to farming from the ongoing hostilities in Ukraine and the Middle East, and, more recently, the clean energy proposals put forward by this Government, which are primed to take 10% of some of the best farmland out of production. I believe they should be looking at alternatives such as nuclear, and I welcome the contribution nuclear will make going forward.

I would like to pause for a moment and look at the European partnership Bill. Like many others, I have been following the SPS agreement and the negotiations. I hope that this approach will lead to something more along the lines of the frictionless trade we were promised at the time of the referendum. Other promises, noble Lords might recall, included to “take back control”. In areas such as immigration that certainly has not materialised, but a lot could be achieved on an ongoing basis through the SPS agreement, and by building on that in the new European partnership Bill.

I ask the Minister whether we could look in particular at BTOM—the border target operating model—which was introduced relatively recently. Are the Government going to review and refine that as part of this agreement? We were very late in putting checks in place on imports of food and drink, plants and horticulture from EU countries, whereas our producers have obviously experienced delays and barriers arising from the checks and balances imposed on imports of our goods. I would be very interested to know whether there is scope for further welcome refinement of what is a relatively new development.

I would also like to understand the thinking behind the Government proceeding on the basis of dynamic alignment in an agreement with Europe, and whether other farming competitor countries, such as New Zealand, have achieved an agreement with the EU of equivalence on SPS and imports and exports. Our farming community would have greatly favoured that, and I hope the Government will keep an open door in this regard. There is a coalition of agreement across the House that equivalence is a better way to proceed. Dynamic alignment would mean automatically having to follow EU rules, which could retain barriers that it is the will of the Government and this House to remove; we do not wish to see new barriers put in their place. Therefore, I voice a vote of confidence in the Government’s negotiating skills—that we can look more to equivalence than dynamic alignment. That would greatly help our farmers and food producers.

In noting Government’s clean energy proposals—we are going to have another clean energy Bill—I hope that they will seek to protect the countryside as we know it. It is unacceptable that those who live in the countryside are going to face massive installations, such as in the very village in which my noble friend Lord Kirkhope lives, and where my goddaughter and niece also live. The little village of Scotton, and adjoining Lingerfield, are facing all sorts of horrors: two solar farms and a huge battery installation, married to the pylons and overhead power lines that will have to transport this into the grid. I make a plea to the Government in looking to the grid not to obsess about our national grid. Why are we not looking at a local grid, making sure that the electricity and energy generated can be consumed as close to the point of production as possible? That would be a much better way forward.

I turn to the water Bill. I welcome the Cunliffe review, the subsequent water White Paper and the proposals that were outlined in the King’s Speech. However, I add a word of caution: there are challenges in merging the economic regulation of the water sector and environmental regulation into one body. What I think is clearly missing since we left the European Union is the role of the European Commission, backed up by the possible referral to the European Court of Justice, which had real teeth in relation to underlying infringements by any water company. That, together with privatisation, has dramatically changed the way the water sector cleaned up the act of both our rivers and our seas in the 1980s. I am delighted that that took place under a Conservative Government; it is an achievement of which I, for one, am personally very proud.

I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of the water Bill also to give water companies the tools they require to do the job. I welcome the reference to looking at pre-pipe solutions—that is where it is going woefully wrong at the moment. All the emphasis seems to be on saying, “Let’s deal with the water—let’s call it sewage—coming out of these four- or five-bedroom homes”, whereas we should look at pre-pipe solutions. Planning applications should be granted only if there is capacity for the waste and sewage to be disposed of safely.

Let us give water companies the power to do the job. Let us make them statutory consultees, particularly in major planning applications of all kinds, including for data centres and major housing developments. Let us look at more natural solutions to flooding and water resilience and to making sustainable drainage systems mandatory. Let us have more slow-the-flow water schemes, such as we currently enjoy in Pickering, which has prevented Pickering and the downward communities from flooding.

I look forward to scrutinising these Bills as they appear before the House. I lend my support to what the Government are trying to do, but I believe that we need to look at, for example, areas of equivalence, rather than dynamic alignment, to make sure that we have joined-up thinking on farming, food production and energy supply.