Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 2 June. I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 5 June in relation to the draft instrument. This corrected a typographical error on page 20, in Schedule 2, in the heading to the second table, “Table 1”, which should read, “Table 2”. This does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation. Copies of the correction slip have been made available to Members.

I probably should declare an interest as sheep are kept on our smallholding.

For years, industry has been calling for mandatory sheep carcass classification and price reporting. This instrument will bring the sheep industry in line with the beef and pork sectors, where mandatory carcass classification and price reporting has been in place for many years.

This instrument mandates sheep carcass classification and the price reporting of sheep carcasses for larger slaughterhouses—those which slaughter at least 2,000 sheep per week. Smaller slaughterhouses that slaughter at least 1,000 sheep per week can voluntarily decide whether the regulations will apply to them. The legislation will also provide a process for the introduction of a system for the authorisation of automated sheep grading methods for slaughterhouses that wish to use automated carcass classification.

The reason we are introducing this legislation is that slaughterhouses are currently able to set their own standards for preparing and presenting sheep carcasses for classification and weighing. As a result, carcass weights across the sector lack consistency due to variations in the way the carcass is prepared, trimmed and presented. This inconsistency leads to a lack of transparency across the industry, with non-comparable prices being quoted or recorded. Consequently, farmers often struggle to achieve the best payment for the quality of their sheep carcasses when they sell their stock.

We want to see a more transparent, productive and efficient sheep market. By addressing this long-running supply chain fairness issue, we will both encourage farmers to improve productivity and ensure that they are paid a fair price based on the quality of their sheep. Producers can then also rear lambs that will better fit the market’s specifications and consumer demand.

The legislation will also introduce a consistent and robust mechanism for the evaluation of the carcasses of sheep that are aged less than 12 months old at the time of slaughter; this encapsulates the prime lamb market. The instrument requires the use of the EUROP grid, as it is commonly known, to assess conformation—that is, the shape—and the degree of fat cover. The meat industry is familiar with this carcass classification scale through the mandatory schemes for pig and beef carcasses. Several abattoirs have already been using it when voluntarily classifying sheep carcasses.

The new system will require operators to ensure that sheep carcasses are presented in a consistent way post-slaughter, at the point of weighing and classification. Regulated slaughterhouses will have to use one of two specified carcass presentations at this point.

The regulated slaughterhouses will be required to report the weight of the carcass and its classification details, along with the price being paid for sheep sold on a deadweight basis—that is, where payment for the sheep is dependent on the classification and weight of its carcass. These carcass and pricing details must be reported both to the supplier of the sheep and to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will process the information under contract to Defra, as it currently does for beef and pork.

The instrument will apply a licensing regime to classifiers and to automated classification methods. The Rural Payments Agency, which will monitor and enforce the regulations, will assess and license carcass classifiers. This means that both manual classifiers and automated classifying technology in regulated slaughterhouses will need to be licensed for sheep classification. Provision is made for automated classification methods to be first subjected to an authorisation testing process, which must be passed before the automated equipment using that method can be put forward for licensing in regulated slaughterhouses. This will ensure that the method being used for automated classification can repeatedly and accurately classify carcasses. The Rural Payments Agency will be given the powers to inspect the regulated slaughterhouses and to take enforcement action where there are breaches to the regulatory requirements. The sheep industry, including farmers and meat processors, has been pressing us to create a mandatory carcass classification and price reporting system for sheep carcasses, which this instrument delivers.

I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for, and congratulate her on, introducing these regulations, of which I wholeheartedly approve. This must be the most consulted-on SI in the history of SIs; obviously, it is a brilliant piece of work, because it was started under the outgoing Conservative Government.

I declare my interest in that I own one lot of shares in the Thirsk Farmers Auction Mart. For the purposes of Hansard, that is one lot—a very small group—of shares, not a lot of shares. I am also a patron of the Huby & Sutton Agricultural Society Show, which is not happening this year, sadly, because of the animal diseases that were prevalent earlier in the year.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I welcome the fact that there is a de minimis rule and that small abattoirs will be excluded. Is there any crossover with the requirements of the BSE and foot and mouth provisions, or are these are entirely separate? This instrument is stand-alone in that regard, I think.

My concern is that abattoirs are reducing in number. It is not my fault but the first time that this happened was, I remember, when there was a European directive on abattoirs. It might even have been under a Conservative Government. We gold-plated it, over-egged it and implemented it in a way that was never intended. That was down to the Home Department, I am afraid, which thought that birds flying around an abattoir was not a good idea when, in fact, all the carcasses were washed before they were cut up.

Since that time, the number of abattoirs has greatly reduced. The NFU is, as I am sure the Minister is aware, very concerned about the implications of abattoir numbers reducing for livestock farmers generally. Has the department done an impact assessment on where we are with the current number of abattoirs? I welcome the fact that, for one thing, this SI applies only to small abattoirs; and that, as the Minister said, we are equating sheep with pork and beef.

If we are not careful, though, all abattoirs will be large abattoirs because there will simply be no small abattoirs left. It is causing great concern among livestock producers, as well as—dare I say it very softly—among the animal welfare lobby, because animals have to travel further to slaughter. Obviously, given the extreme heat that we have seen recently, that is not something to be commended.

With those few remarks, I endorse entirely what farmers and the NFU are saying: we need more smaller abattoirs. Are the Government likely to look at this? I know that there was a small abattoir fund up until 2023. Locally, a lot of the Thirsk livestock went to Kilburn abattoir, but that is now gone. This is not acceptable. It is not fair on farmers that they must have this additional worry and the cost of sending their livestock a longer distance. I therefore welcome the regulations and congratulate the Government. I know that there were a number of reasons for the delay, but I would welcome the Minister’s support for small abattoirs; it would be good to see where we are in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate and their strong support for these regulations; it is much appreciated. These regulations are important, so it is very good that we can bring them in smoothly.

The key issue raised in the debate is that of small abattoirs: every noble Lord who spoke mentioned the problem of the closure of small abattoirs. One of the reasons we wanted to exempt small abattoirs from the scheme, in order not to put extra administrative regulatory burden on them, is because we know what pressures they face. I am acutely aware that many small abattoirs have closed over, I would guess, the last decade. It is much harder for abattoirs to stay open, and I am very aware of the extra stress that that puts on farmers. Farmers like to know where their animals are going, and with abattoirs becoming more centralised and larger, they do not necessarily know the abattoir and the people running it in the way they used to. As noble Lords have said, animals have longer travel distances, often in hot vehicles, so it is not great for animal welfare.

When I was president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, we had a campaign around small abattoirs, so this is something I know quite a lot about; it is very close to my heart. In fact, last year, I chaired the Oxford Real Farming Conference session on small abattoirs and talked to people from the industry, as well as to the people running mobile abattoirs, who were represented at that meeting.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, talked about the small abattoir fund, which Defra was running at that time. That fund was for a fixed period, which has now come to an end. I have been talking recently to the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, about small abattoirs—I know that he has a particular interest in them—and what we can do next to support the industry, because we in Defra are extremely aware that this is particularly challenging in more rural areas. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is from Yorkshire, others are from East Anglia and I am in Cumbria, and we all have the same problem. Our nearest abattoir is probably a two-hour drive in a farm vehicle.

One of the issues we are coming up against is the skill set. It is an extremely skilled job, and there is a problem with staffing abattoirs. We need to look at that, because it is all very well having funds, but if we do not have people with the skills to do the job, and people who want to train to do that job in future, we are never going to solve the problem. We are looking at how we can encourage people to look at this as a career choice. It is not always an easy career choice to sell, but it is an important and valuable job and it can be very well paid.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising this matter, because I understand that part of the problem was Brexit—in particular, attracting Spanish vets and people who would have done the job. Are the Government planning to find a means of recruiting people to that role?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, the EU reset is looking at all sorts of different things and it is not something I can particularly comment on. What I can say, though, on the issue of vets being present, is that we have also been in discussion with the Food Standards Agency on the regulation of smaller abattoirs, the presence of vets, the level of inspection and so on. We are also working with the FSA on that.

The simple thing for me to say is that I do not have an answer to how we resolve the issue of the closure of small abattoirs. It is not just about them closing but about how you get them to reopen, because that is really important; the small abattoir fund was only to support existing abattoirs, not to open new ones. It is quite a complex issue, but I reassure noble Lords that it is very well recognised in Defra. We have officials who really know and understand the problems around this, and Ministers who are committed to try to do their best. If noble Lords have helpful information they would like to share with me, I will be very pleased to receive it.

On other issues, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked specifically about whether this instrument is separate from issues around FMD and so on. It is completely separate, just to reassure her on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked what happens if a small abattoir gets bigger. The answer is that, if it is then caught by the regulations, the abattoir itself has a duty to report it to the department so that it comes under the regulations properly.

Finally, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for recognising the broad industry support for these regulations, because it is really important to recognise how important they are for industry. He also mentioned the devolved Governments. We have worked very closely with the devolved Governments, and they are working to ensure that retrospective legislation comes into force at the same time so that we have consistency across the country, because farmers and food processors need to get the value that their products deserve.

This instrument is an essential tool in our efforts to increase the fairness of the supply chain. It will establish a much-needed scheme that will result in a more open, fair and transparent sheep market.

Food Allergens

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I applaud my noble friend for her dedication and passionate advocacy on this issue. As she said, we published the best practice guidance in March this year and, as noble Lords will appreciate, any new guidance requires time to embed and be adopted by businesses. We hope to carry out an evaluation one year after the implementation of the guidance to assess both its uptake and its impact, and to better inform Ministers on the need for any potential legislation. This means that our evaluation work is likely to begin in spring 2026, and the gap between the launch and when the impact of the guidance can be meaningfully assessed ensures that our evaluation is based on a representative and reliable picture of how the guidance is actually working in practice. This will be very helpful in our understanding of the need for and any potential impact of any future legislative options. We very much welcome the opportunity to meet and to review the new research, which we have not yet had sight of. It would be invaluable to examine these findings alongside the FSA’s research in this area.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, although the guidelines are very welcome, and I applaud the Food Standards Agency’s work in this area, does the Minister share my concern about whether local authorities have the resources to do the necessary work to visit the establishments concerned to ensure that the guidelines are being applied? I think most restaurants in my area ask whether you are allergic. Does she also share my concern about the increasing amount of passing off of one food substance as another? We had the horsemeat scandal some 12 years ago, and we do not want to see a repeat of that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we absolutely do not want to see a repeat of that. As she says, local authorities enforce allergen rules, typically via trading standards and environmental health officers. The number of trading standards officers has dropped, although staffing rose slightly in 2023, so we are looking at how we can improve that. The FSA has backed a level 6 trading standards apprenticeship, for example, and is training over 100 new officers in one year. The FSA will continue to monitor that, and will continue to support training guidance and the food law code of practice with local authorities.

Thames Water

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said previously, the Government are not going to be renationalising the water companies. The Government are not dithering. This is a private company that has some serious debt problems. It is not for the Government to tell a private company how to manage its finances. If it comes to it, we are prepared to ensure that customers continue to receive high-quality water through their taps, because that is what is really important, and that the systems stay in place.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the interim Cunliffe report was very clear that part of the problem is the short-termism of regulation and the high volatility in returns not being conducive to long-term, low-risk, low-return investors. Will the Government accept whatever the commission proposes in its final report and bring a Bill before this House so we can review the situation in the long term?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, the report we have in front of us is an interim one, so we are currently looking at it and considering the recommendations. Further work will then be done and as a Government we will then look at those recommendations and work with Sir Jon Cunliffe on how best to move things forward. Clearly, there are some serious structural issues in the way things have been managed and we need to take this very seriously if we are going to sort out the mess that many water companies have found themselves in. That may well result in a further water Bill in the future.

Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

I apologise to the House and to the Minister that in my earlier question, I did not declare my farming interests as set out in the register, and I do so now.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will the Minister undertake an urgent review of the Reservoirs Act 1975, which is the relevant legislation for safety in the event of a possible breach of a reservoir? There is a lack of competent panel engineers, as they are called, to undertake this work. I think the noble Lord who asked the original Question would accept that we are too reliant on large reservoirs. Will the Minister also review the de minimis rule in the 1975 Act to see whether we could build smaller reservoirs in a greater number of places?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will be aware of the Government’s pledge to build nine new reservoirs, and we are currently fast-tracking two of those, one in East Anglia and one in Lincolnshire. As we look at the future of reservoirs in this country, it is clear that the Reservoirs Act is a few years old now and it makes absolute sense to consider whether it is fit for the future. I will certainly take that back and discuss it with the department.

Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lord, these regulations use powers contained within the Agriculture Act 2020 which enable the Government to address power imbalances within agricultural markets. These fair dealing powers allow for regulations that impose obligations in relation to the contracts of those businesses—usually larger businesses—that purchase from smaller producers. The fair dealing powers in the Agriculture Act, and their first use in the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024, have previously been debated in this House, with important contributions made. I therefore know that many noble Lords will agree that these powers can play a significant role in promoting fairness in this sector and beyond.

I should first say that the pig sector is a British success story, characterised by effective relationships between producers and processors. It is a sector that delivers high-quality products, enjoyed across the UK and around the world. However, where power imbalances exist, relationships are not always as fair as they should be. As a result, farmers have too often felt that they bear a disproportionate share of the risk when market challenges arise.

A public consultation in 2022, seeking views on contractual practices in the sector, highlighted several challenges faced by producers. Defra has developed these proposals in response to the concerns raised and in close collaboration with industry, aiming to ensure fairness for producers while taking account of the practical concerns of processors. I am pleased to report that many stakeholders believe we have struck the right balance—protecting farmers while supporting existing good practice.

There will be opportunity for detailed discussion, but I would like to begin by outlining some key provisions. First, I will say a word on existing structures that already serve to protect farmers. We heard from many producers that the collective negotiation undertaken through marketing groups is highly valued. These regulations preserve this arrangement, allowing collective sellers, who purchase pigs from more than one farmer without processing them, the same protections as individual sellers.

At the heart of the regulations is the principle that written contracts should be the norm. While many transactions already use written agreements, this is not consistent across the sector. Establishing written contracts as the default provides a vital safeguard for farmers’ rights and promotes greater transparency in commercial relationships. Although industry supported this approach, it was also clear that not every transaction requires a protected contract. The pig sector includes a functioning spot market, where pigs are traded off-contract, an important mechanism for managing supply. In these cases, and others, the regulations allow producers to issue a notice to disapply the requirements for certain purchases. However, in most cases, both farmers and processors benefit from certainty. When no notice to disapply is given, farmers must be offered a fully compliant written contract, which cannot be varied without their consent. We heard clearly that farmers often felt that changes were imposed on them unilaterally, and this is not in the spirit of an open and balanced relationship.

One of the key priorities raised was the need for clarity around agreed volumes of supply. Clear terms in this area will support better planning and ensure that both parties fully understand their responsibilities and the consequences if those commitments are not met. In the pig sector, pricing is already often linked to published data or other shared information, offering a level of transparency that benefits both parties. The regulations encourage this approach by placing fewer obligations on processors who base their prices on such information.

At the same time, we were clear that flexibility must be preserved. It is for producers and processors to decide together how prices are calculated, reflecting what works best for their commercial relationship. However, when pricing mechanisms use data or factors which are not clearly accessible to producers, it is right that contracts include provisions to allow farmers to verify that pricing is fair and consistent with the agreed terms.

In addition to volumes and pricing, the regulations require that contracts clearly set out all terms relating to the purchase, as well as essential elements of the agreement that define how the relationship will operate in practice. These include matters such as payment terms, delivery arrangements, and how and when the contract can be terminated. While the specific details of these terms can be negotiated between the parties, this clarity helps protect farmers by reducing the risk of sudden or unfair changes, ensuring that both sides understand their rights and responsibilities throughout the contract. Importantly, all contracts must include a dispute resolution procedure. This will promote dialogue and help sustain the successful relationships already present in the sector.

The regulations extend the enforcement powers of the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator. The ASCA will investigate complaints about compliance with these regulations, as it already does in the dairy sector, on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Before I conclude, I should note that these regulations make an amendment to the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. After those regulations came into force, the Government were made aware of unintended consequences regarding tiered pricing in exclusive agreements. We received representations from businesses with shared ownership structures, explaining that exclusive supply is central to their model, and that the prohibition on tiered pricing was inadvertently penalising arrangements that actually benefit producers. These regulations therefore introduce a limited amendment to allow such practices in cases where a shared ownership structure is in place.

In summary, I hope I have demonstrated to noble Lords that these regulations represent a significant step forward for fairness in the UK pig sector. They respond directly to producer concerns, protect practices that work well, and will promote more balanced and transparent contractual arrangements. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the regulations before us this afternoon and thank the Minister for giving us the outline. It is an interesting backdrop, in the sense that pig prices seem to have been at their highest for a while now. I have come straight from a meeting with some Danish businesses—none of them farmers. While I am half-Danish, I wish to help only the British farmer, I should explain.

I am a big supporter of auction marts. How will this provision impact on sales through such marts? Will they be left pretty much as is allowed at the moment? Presumably, the regulations will come into their own at a different time, when the prices are particularly low and when the farmers, or pig producers, are not covering the full costs of their production.

Having been an MEP in an area with intensive pig farming and then having gone on to be an MP in another area with equally intensive pig farming, it was very sad to see the impact of foot and mouth disease on pig production. Many farmers will simply not go back into pig production again. Anything that we can do, like the content of these regulations, is very helpful indeed.

The Minister referred to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and I pay tribute to it. I still believe that we should go further and allow the adjudicator to look at the market and at particular supplies off its own initiative. If there is an imbalanced relationship that it is there to resolve—and overwhelmingly it has worked well—there is no way that someone is going to jeopardise it. That perhaps relates more to different sectors than to pigs, such as the dairy sector and fruit production. If you are in a contract and you are being unfairly discriminated against, it is difficult for you to jeopardise that contract by being identified as a complainant with the adjudicator. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the Government will continue, please, to keep that under review.

Mindful of the fact of movement—which I do not think is covered by the regulations, but perhaps the Minister could write to me about this—we have a number of agricultural shows coming up at this time of year, right through to the autumn, and they are immensely important to the agricultural sector. Again, this probably covers sheep and lambs—I have not seen too many pigs at the Great Yorkshire Show, I have to say. Will the department give advice on movement of animals? I know it is on the case as regards avian flu, but some imports have already been banned because of foot and mouth existing in parts of the European Union. Will she make sure that the department gives advice at the earliest possible opportunity, well in advance of the shows taking place? That would be very welcome indeed.

I cannot let this opportunity go without singing the praises of the Malton pig factory. Again, while not directly within this remit, we have a bed and breakfast for pigs in North Yorkshire, and they are just as well looked after as we are at the famous bed and breakfasts that many of us stay in. One of the outlets for the bed and breakfast pig industry is the Malton Bacon Factory. It exported a huge amount to China, which takes pig’s trotters and other parts of the anatomy that I will not go into, which we do not enjoy in this country. That was a multi-million pound contract, and that might have gone by the wayside. The regulations focus probably more on those that do not necessarily have an initial contract.

One thing that struck me in the regulations—I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 21st report—is that it seems very odd in this day and age that many contracts are still not made in writing. Will the Government insist on that through the course of the regulation? The committee highlights in paragraph 44 that the requirements will

“include that all contracts are made in writing, contain clear pricing terms and set out how the price is determined”.

That relates to my initial question about how this will impact—presumably, the auction marts will be left alone and this will relate just to those contracts that are done individually. I would be very interested to know what proportion of the market is intended to be covered by the regulations. I welcome the regulations this afternoon and the opportunity to raise those issues.

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always instructive to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I thank the Minister for her persuasive, well-informed introduction. I do not quite know how George Orwell—Mr Blair—would view these regulations, because he had it in for Napoleon. But the Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, and clearly Mr Andrew Powley has played a blinder in the department.

In another place, for some 31 years, I visited perhaps six farms a year, and one was hospitably received—bacon sandwiches were often on the farm menu. Indeed, I was once an Agriculture Minister in the lovely land of Wales. I cannot be the only one of your Lordships who regularly tunes in at 5.45 am to Radio 4’s informative farming programme. Pigs feature therein, and I am sure our Minister listens quite regularly to that programme—after prayers, of course.

Farming: 25-year Road Map

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, the first iteration will be published later this year. As we are still in the process of determining the content of the road map, and therefore the timetable of implementation, I am unable to give a detailed answer to my noble friend. We will publish more details in due course. I can assure her that we are continuing with targeted engagement right across the sector in order that we can agree a collective vision and shape the first version of the farming road map through discussion with stakeholders.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern at the loss of farmland, to the tune of 10%, through the proposed clean energy projects? Will she ensure that the road map rolls back this land grab and ensures that all grade 1, 2 and 3 farmland—the most productive land—will remain in farm production, putting food security and self-sufficiency at the heart of the road map?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure the noble Baroness that food production and self-sufficiency will be at the heart of the road map as it is developed. We work very closely with DESNZ around where energy projects are sited. With the land use framework also being developed, there is a lot of discussion about the best use of farmland, because we do not want good agricultural land taken out of food production.

Farming and Rural Communities

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate, and I welcome the Minister to her place today. I declare my interests as vice president of the Association of Drainage Authorities and a member of the rural interest group of the Church of England Synod; I also work with dispensing doctors in rural areas. I can testify to the inequality in access to healthcare, housing and transport in rural areas.

It is a matter of regret that Labour, having been elected on the promise of restoring trust and confidence in government, has achieved quite the reverse with its farming and planning proposals. First, it reversed its promise not to amend inheritance tax proposals affecting farms, or agricultural property relief; then there was the early closure of the sustainable farming initiative, with no promised six-week notice. How can any responsible farming business plan around such erratic policy changes without notice or time to prepare to make alternative arrangements?

The impact on the uplands has been severe. Farmers are stuck in less lucrative, higher-level stewardship schemes and are unable to switch. Early SFI closure has had a particularly devastating impact on family and upland farms. There is a long-term threat to livestock, which will simply disappear from the uplands, and there will be a consequential knock-on impact on lowland farms too.

I urge the Minister to find a better balance between food production and nurturing nature, and to recognise: who better to achieve this than farmers, who actively farm the land and tend the livestock?

The issues of food security and greater self-sufficiency in food must be addressed. We must learn from the invasion of and ongoing hostilities in Ukraine the lesson of how quickly the food supply chain can be upturned.

The economic impact of the international aspects of food and farming cannot be ignored. The free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand have been neither fair to our farmers nor have allowed them to compete. The very minimum demand in any free trade agreement should be that imports be permitted only if these agricultural products meet the same animal welfare and environmental standards as are demanded of our domestic producers. In addition, no meat should be allowed into the UK if produced with antibiotics or hormones or rinsed in chlorine.

Farmers play a crucial role in flood prevention and flood resilience. The noble Baroness will have seen this first hand locally in her time as a constituency MP. This role is exercised through internal drainage boards, as well as the regular maintenance and dredging of water courses, for which farmers and landowners are responsible. It is still not clear whether the temporary storage of water on land, by farmers and other rural businesses such as golf courses, will be rewarded under the ELM scheme. If so, how will the de minimis rules of the Reservoirs Act apply in these circumstances?

The role of auction marts should be celebrated. They not only set an economic and transparent price, but enable the animals to be seen live at the point of sale, and provide an essential social and support network.

Farming is a vital part of the rural economy. When farming does well, a market town flourishes. Children attend schools in a healthy and well-fed fashion, and farmers clear the roads of snow and ice in winter and play other such roles throughout the year, benefiting the rural community—at no cost.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill poses a further threat to rural communities with its proposals for building and developing on high-grade agricultural land. The Minister kindly promised to return to me on the vexed question of 9% of farmland being lost under energy proposals to build solar farms, battery storage plants and pylons on farmland. Has she had the opportunity to look at this and discuss it with the Energy Minister in this place? Farmers need certainty and stability, not these constant changes at short notice, which do not instil confidence for their future.

Farmers’ mental health is an issue of mounting concern. I pay tribute to the churches for their rural pastoral work, as evidenced by the outreach to rural communities such those in Thirsk.

When did the Government take their decision to end SFI? Will they recognise and reward upland farmers for producing food at a time when food security and self-sufficiency levels are being challenged? Will the noble Baroness address the issues of falling stock levels and tenant farmers, most particularly in the uplands; and what will the future be for graziers who want to graze in perpetuity on common land? Finally, where will the growth of the rural economy come from, if not from farming?

UK Fishers: EU Agreement

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I made quite clear, we intend to negotiate with the EU in the best interests of the fishing industry and to protect our fishing communities. However, due to the nature of the current negotiations regarding the EU reset, I am not in a position to give any further information about what we discussed at those meetings.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Does the Minister share my concern that fishers have lost 10% of their grounds through energy use, particularly through the Great British Energy Bill? How does she intend to address this spatial squeeze and ensure that the fisheries’ grounds loss is not permanent but will be compensated?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware—because we have talked about it in relation to other issues with Defra—that we are working closely with other departments in this area, including DESNZ, to address exactly the kinds of issues she raises. I will go back to the department and talk to my colleague the Fisheries Minister, Daniel Zeichner, specifically about the point that she just raised.

High Seas Treaty

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes a very good point. No law or agreement is worth anything unless we enforce it. That is why we are determined to do all that we can to achieve our 30 by 30 commitments at sea. These are challenging targets—it is important that we acknowledge that. Minister Hardy, who is responsible for this area in Defra, has confirmed her intention to continue working on this and push forward. Enforcement and ensuring that it happens are part of that important work.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern at the intense pressure that our fishing grounds are coming under with a spatial squeeze from marine conservation and 10% of fishing grounds removed through the GB Energy Act? Will she look carefully at this to see that our fishing grounds and future fishers’ livelihoods are ensured?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Supporting our fisheries is an important part of the work that Defra does. We must ensure that when we work on areas of conservation those who fish are also talked to and understand the implications—and that we understand the impact that any decision has on our fishing fleet. My honourable friend Daniel Zeichner MP, the Fisheries Minister, speaks regularly to those who fish so that we hear their voices as loudly as we hear others.

Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on bringing this instrument forward, which I wholeheartedly support. I want to press her on a number of issues arising from it.

In the last Parliament, the Minister had the grace and good sense to support an amendment of mine to what is now the levelling-up Act. It stated that there should be no homes at all built on functional flood plains after 2009. As the Minister will be aware, and as this instrument states, there is no insurance cover for homes built on functional flood plains after 2009.

At the time, I was delighted that Flood Re was set up, with the support of the present Government, by the then Conservative Government. However, the mapping is not as tight as it might be. As we discussed during the passage of the levelling-up Bill, we are dependent on local authorities to home in on the crucial area of zone 3b. If the Minister and her Government are committed, as they seem to be, to continuing to build on functional flood plains, which we recognise are not covered by Flood Re, can she tell the Grand Committee the average cost of insurance for those home owners to insure themselves, particularly where they may have been flooded on one or more occasion since they moved into a home which was built after 2009?

I believe that we should look at this in the context of Flood Re and the housebuilding programme. I know the Minister will probably tell me that I must be patient and wait for the planning and infrastructure Bill to come out—perhaps she could give us a date for when to expect it. That is my first and key point: what insurance cover there is, the cost for individual households and to what extent they might benefit.

Has the department done an impact assessment on the instrument as it stands? Is the Minister able to say what plans the Government have to extend the scheme in a number of ways—first, to cover homes built on flood plains after 2009 going forward, but also to extend it to cover businesses in particular? I am not entirely sure what the position is as regards farms, which are partly a business and partly a residence, but there are other businesses as well—many owner properties—where the business and the home are shared.

When will the Government have a view on what the future of Flood Re should look like when it reaches the end of its natural life? When this instrument was discussed in the other place, my honourable friend Dr Neil Hudson, who speaks for the party there, asked about the frequently flooded allowance, which was introduced by the last Government as a ring-fenced fund of £100 million to protect areas that had been affected by repeated flooding. Is the Minister able to say whether the Government are minded to continue that programme going forward?

I am sure that, when responding, the Minister will say that the Government have improved the resilience of properties and therefore are quite entitled to encourage local authorities to build on functional flood plains. She was, sadly, unable to attend the launch of the report by Westminster Sustainable Business Forum—Policy Connect—in which we looked at flood and coastal erosion risk management policy for the new Government. I do not know whether the Minister has had a chance to look at this, but will her department especially consider our recommendations to ensure the uptake of property flood-resilience measures, some of which come under Build Back Better, to which she referred—but they also go beyond that? Will the Government be minded to allow for the installation of both resistance and resilience measures as part of property flood-resilience schemes funded by the Environment Agency? Will she also review the eligibility criteria and distribution process for the property flood-resilience repair grant scheme to make it more widely accessible and streamlined? Further, will the Government align all property flood-resilience funding resources—including those from the Environment Agency’s property flood-resilience framework, Flood Re’s Build Back Better and Defra’s flood-resilience repair grant—to the same amount, so that all the funding resources would be aligned at £15,000, possibly as part of the forthcoming multiyear spending review? I realise that these are very technical recommendations and that the Minister may not have the answers, but they relate to the instrument and the forthcoming spending review.

Finally, the recommendation that I press to the Minister today would be to normalise the use of property flood resilience in both new and existing properties. Part C of building regulations should be updated to require the installation of basic property flood-resilience measures for properties at risk of flooding and the installation of very basic no-regret measures for all new homes, irrespective of risk.

These recommendations go to the heart of my belief that, if we continue to build properties that are not covered by Flood Re, we owe this to the people who will buy those properties. I find myself not needing a mortgage: I had sold a property, and I was in a position to have bought, and I almost did buy, a property without a mortgage—this is going back to the 2000s. No one would have told me that I could not be insured. I know the Minister will say that they can be insured, but I would be interested to know how affordable it is for these properties not covered by Flood Re and built after 2009 on flood plains. How expensive is that insurance? If the Government are going down this path, we must have more resilient houses built in those areas. That said, I welcome the opportunity to debate the instrument today. I hope it will have a fair wind and be approved.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this short but important statutory instrument. I was assisting on the Water Bill in 2014-15 when Flood Re was first debated to provide insurance to properties that were uninsurable due to constant flooding, the main insurance companies not being willing to take any of the risks on those homes and dwellings.

This SI is quite simple: it raises the levy that insurance companies can indirectly pass on to their customers from £135 million to £160 million. The £135 million level was set in 2022, when the levy was reduced from £180 million. The Explanatory Memorandum quite rightly states the importance of not having a levy that is higher than it needs to be, but I stress that there is a danger in setting it too low.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today. Personally, I was very pleased when Flood Re came in; I thought it was incredibly important legislation. Anyone who has lived in a house that has flooded, like I have, and in communities that flood, will know how very important it was that we had this insurance scheme come into place. I therefore thank noble Lords who have supported this small but extremely important SI today; it is important that the scheme stays viable and continues.

I would like to try to cover most of the questions that have been asked. There has been a desire for government to look at whether the scheme can be extended; that came across clearly from all who took part. Before I go into the particular individual responses and specifics, let me say that although we have no plans to make changes right now, we are continuously keeping all our policies under review, including those relating to flooding insurance. It is important that we discuss, debate and listen to others as we move forward in how we make those decisions around policy changes. If we make any changes to the scheme in future, it would be important that we secure the appropriate reinsurance for that, which would be challenging in the current market. To put it into context, this would mean that the levy we are talking about today would then need to be increased even further.

I know that noble Lords are aware that, currently, leasehold properties with three or fewer units, where the freeholder is living in one of those units, qualify for Flood Re building insurance. The problem with larger blocks not being eligible is that they are considered to be commercial businesses, and that is why they fall outside of the scope of Flood Re.

The Flood Re scheme as it is set up at the moment, and as it will continue to be set up through the statutory instrument in front of us, is funded by the providers of household insurance, not those who underwrite commercial policies. Buildings insurance is the responsibility of the freeholder and kept separate. However, I recognise that there is a problem.

When Main Street in Cockermouth flooded, for the second time in only six years, I held meetings with business insurance companies and high street businesses to look at ways we could move forward, because there are still alternative things that we can do and that the Government can look to support.

Having said all that, and with properties built after 2009 having been referred to—the noble Baroness knows that that is something that I was concerned with—we are planning to explore this further. Minister Hardy, who is the Minister responsible for this area, has asked Flood Re to look into the matter to understand the scale of concern and how industry might respond, to ensure that those living in properties that currently do not come under the scheme could be provided with appropriate insurance cover. Although it is not in front of us today and not something we are actively looking at, we have asked for this to be considered further. In the meantime, contents insurance policies can be applicable, so there is that potential as well.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister may be coming on to this, in which case I apologise, but do we know what the policy would cost? I visited Cockermouth and Keswick after the floods in 2009—I have suddenly had a nightmare that I did not tell whoever the MP was that I was there, but we will gloss over that. Many of those people could not afford contents insurance, yet they were clearly at risk of flooding. Does the Minister have a figure, or could she provide one in writing?