Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 May be approved.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July.

Motion agreed.

Bycatch Risk Prioritisation Framework

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to publish the Bycatch Risk Prioritisation Framework.

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

My Lords, a report on the bycatch risk prioritisation framework will be published by the end of the year. The framework will identify where we expect bycatch risks to be greatest across the UK. This will help us to target monitoring and mitigation efforts on the species, areas, fishing gears and fisheries that need the most attention. The report will provide a snapshot of current understanding, while the framework will be updated over time.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. At the moment, every year, fishing boats are catching—this is an underestimate because not all boats are monitored—at least 10,000 seabirds, 1,000 cetaceans such as harbour porpoises, common dolphins, humpback whales and minke whales, and around 500 seals. That is absolutely appalling. Will the Minister take that back to this new Government, who want to do the right thing? When will the Government publish bycatch action plans for seabirds, cetaceans, seals and protected fish species? When will the Government require remote electronic monitoring on all fishing boats in UK waters, including those under 10 metres in length?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am aware of the impacts on sensitive species. The noble Baroness outlined that very well. We recognise that different action plans can help towards progress in reducing bycatch by bringing co-ordination and structure, and targeting the species that are being impacted. It is important, however, to notice that these plans are complex. They require significant time investment to ensure that they are evidence-based and deliverable. The seabird bycatch action plan will be designed to provide a valuable template to build on for future plans. However, it is important that we ask whether we should be focusing on the action that this plan will enable us to take or spending all our time on writing different plans. We need to get this plan off the ground and working, and then we can use it as a template. On REM, we are now working towards making it a statutory requirement in the pelagic fishery. That will apply to UK and EU vessels. We are planning for it to become mandatory in other fisheries, in due course.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, when we left the European Union, we were told that one of the benefits of Brexit would be that we could manage our fisheries sustainably. However, the report from Oceana UK published last October showed that of the top 10 commercial stocks fished in UK waters, half are either overfished or in critical condition, and scientific advice on sustainable fishing is being ignored. When will the Government implement a sustainable plan for managing our fisheries that takes into account scientific advice?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am aware of the report that the noble Lord refers to. It is important to raise this, because we need to continue to work on it. Through the negotiations that we have, we always want to achieve the very best possible outcomes for the UK’s fishing industry. However, at the same time, we must recognise that we need sustainability alongside that. There are always challenges that we need to work through. We will continue to work closely with the industry to improve our scientific understanding and to have a better understanding of management measures to protect fish stocks and improve sustainability.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I note what the Minister said in her earlier answer about the complexity of this issue, but I want to ask about transparency, which is very important here. Will the Government publish the underlying evidence and risk assessments alongside the framework, so that Parliament, scientists and stakeholders can scrutinise how priorities have been determined?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As we move towards publishing the frameworks, I am sure that we will be taking into mind the request that the noble Baroness has made.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on remote electronic monitoring, the Minister talked about where it might be mandated but not the size of vessels. One of the issues in bycatch and discards is that smaller boats fishing in our waters are as responsible for that. Can she comment on mandating boats of all sizes?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are looking to start with the larger vessels because that will make the biggest difference and have the biggest impact. From that, we will look at a mandatory rollout. We will look across vessels of all sizes, because we need to make the biggest difference.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the English Atlantic salmon is also a victim of bycatch, yet it is on the IUCN red list of endangered species. The salmon is an easy to monitor species that is a key contributor to and indicator of the health of our native ecosystems. What progress has been made on rolling out the bycatch initiative to UK vessels and EU vessels, where this Government have given another 12 years of access to our fisheries? Will EU vessels be managed under this plan? I declare my interest as the owner of fishing rights in England and Scotland.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Perhaps I should declare my interest, as I have fishing rights in England for salmon and brown trout.

A lot of these issues are tied up with the negotiations that we are doing with the EU around fishing rights and what access the EU will have, so it is difficult for me to comment on that in any detail. On the salmon bycatch, this is an important question. We have some real issues with numbers of salmon, as the noble Lord knows. Defra has been exploring the different options to improve the data collection for salmon bycatch. That includes monitoring, using REM on vessels, so that we can have a clear picture, get more data and look at how best to target the problems that this is causing to salmon stocks.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that some of the best fishing is around the Falkland Islands? Will she also confirm that, as far as this Government are concerned, the Falklands are, always have been and will remain for ever British?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I think the answer to that is yes.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Will the Minister confirm that the Government still intend to meet their legal duties to achieve good environmental status for UK seas, given that bycatch is repeatedly cited as a key barrier to this? Can she tell us what quantified time-bound targets this framework will contain to try to get us to that aim?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My understanding is that the framework will be ongoing: we get it set up, we get it working, we collect the data and we monitor. It will also inform further frameworks going forward.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest, as I took the then Fisheries Bill through your Lordships’ House. All that we have heard today very much chimes with what we heard when we had that consideration. I would like to ask the Minister what progress we are making on the redesign of nets, which was a subject we discussed because of the bycatch issue. There is also the imperative, with which I hope the Minser will agree, that we work with the fishing industry—alongside it—so that we make progress on maximum sustainable yields, which we all desire.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. We have to work with the industry if we are going to resolve this, because we need a balance between sustainable fishing and supporting the industry, while ensuring that we do not have bycatch that causes huge problems to some of our most threatened marine species. He makes a good point regarding nets. I know there has been work done on what nets are made of, what they look like, the size of the holes and all sorts of things like that. That work is ongoing and I am happy to keep him up to date with it.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we need more patrolling and monitoring of our inshore waters and exclusive economic zone, and that perhaps it would be a good idea to actually have some more ships and a slightly larger Navy?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would never want to disagree with my noble friend about the requirement for more ships.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, one of the points I was trying to make was that we do not actually know how large the bycatch from all the fishing ships is. We cannot make plans or solve the problem if we do not know how many other species are being killed. That is why the remote monitoring is so important. As the noble Baroness said, it is about all ships and all boats, not only the larger ones.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is also about the greatest impact, which is why we start work with the ships that have the greatest impact. I gently say that, 10 years ago, I was the shadow Fisheries Minister, and we were talking about REM coming on board ships then, and it had not happened. We are actually starting to do this, and it is really important that we are finally starting to do something that is going to make a difference and will start to provide us with the data that we need in order to target in the way the noble Baroness suggests.

Natural England: Gamebird Release Licensing

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare my farming and land management interests as set out in the register.

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

My Lords, Natural England is the licensing authority for most wildlife management issues in England and has the necessary delegated powers to grant game bird release licences on behalf of the Secretary of State. It has the required expertise, experience and technical management to fully assess the potential impacts of game bird releases, including direct access to specialists in this area.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the Minister for her hat-trick of Answers. The former Prime Minister promised to cut quangos and end regulators running riot. Instead, we have more of them, and Natural England has just been found by the High Court to have acted irrationally and beyond its powers. Wales is now heading down the same road, with Natural Resources Wales pursuing a licensing regime that risks ignoring the conservation case for shooting altogether. Does the Minister accept that unaccountable quangos are out of control on both sides of the border? When will the Government match their rhetoric with action?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Dan Corry did a review of the different arm’s-length bodies in Defra. That report has gone to the board. I have been at meetings where it has been discussed. We are actively looking at how we can make the arm’s-length bodies in Defra much more efficient.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the technicalities of this Question—I congratulate my noble friend on doing three out of four—why do I get the impression from the past couple of years that Natural England seems to be opposed to any rural activity and any aspect of the rural way of life?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I disagree with my noble friend. Natural England gets a lot of attention in certain areas, but it also does a lot of work that is not properly recognised.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister explain to Natural England that game crops put out tend to lead to a vast number of songbirds? It is not by chance that they go there to feed. Will she explain that to it so that it can perhaps stop trying to assault people who put down birds?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware of Natural England assaulting anybody. However, I do not think this Government have ever said that they are against high-quality shooting. I think we have said quite clearly that we support well-managed estates. In fact, I am going to be visiting one on Friday.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

It has been estimated that shooting contributes more than £3 billion to the United Kingdom economy. Is that a figure that the noble Baroness supports?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very aware that there is information about the importance to the rural economy of the shooting industry. That is why the Government support well-managed shooting estates.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Given that the avian influenza risk has been rated high or very high continuously since October 2024 and that licensing conditions were designed specifically to limit transmission to protected birds, can the Minister confirm that the Government feel that this approach is working given that, currently, as I understand it, only one special protection area is expected to receive standard approval this season? Perhaps I may just say that I am very much looking forward to continuing to do lots of Defra Oral Questions with the noble Baroness in September and hopeful that we will do so.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I jolly well hope that too; I am waiting to find out. She raised the important issue of avian influenza. It has caused some serious problems. This year was worse than last year—not as bad as a few years ago—and it is not going to go away, so the way we manage avian influenza is incredibly important. That has to include the way that we manage and release game birds.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, pursuant to the question from my noble friend Lord Rooker, is it not time that the Government looked at all these quangos, at whether they are value for money and add to public life and at whether issues should really be taken in for proper ministerial decision-making? Is it not time for a cull of the quangos?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned earlier, the report carried out by Dan Corry looked specifically at all the arm’s-length bodies in Defra—and there are a lot of them—to see whether the work they are doing was efficient and necessary and whether we could work more effectively and efficiently by reviewing the way they operate.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the highly critical judgment against Natural England in this court case is the latest in a long list of failures: Ebbsfleet jumping spiders, fish discos, bat tunnels, pony culls and, even as we sit in this Chamber today, dangerous wildfires in upland areas following Natural England policy. Will this Government, under their new leadership, ensure that Natural England follows science, not prejudice, and focuses on delivering the best outcomes for nature and for our economy? I declare my interests as a farmer, landowner, developer and sporting rights owner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, we have not been culling ponies. A lot was written about that, but I am not aware of any ponies that were culled or that are going to be culled. The Dartmoor pony is an important species in that part of the country. As for the other issues, we will obviously be looking at the judgment and analysing it, and we will respond to it in due course.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am sure that the Minister will recall the report of September last year from the coalition of wildlife organisations which noted how wildlife habitats around England are continuing to decline. The Government have a legal obligation to protect 30% of land and sea in the UK for nature by 2030, a pledge made in 2020 by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, yet only 2.83% of England is well protected for nature, and that is a decline year on year. As Natural England has said, it plans to appeal this court ruling. However that turns out, will the Government ensure that there is an adequate legal framework for Natural England and other bodies to meet the protection for nature that the Government are legally bound to provide?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness said, that target was put in place some time ago, which is why, since we came into government, we have tried to make changes and crack on, because it has become more and more challenging to meet every year that passes. It is why we revised the Environmental Improvement Plan and why we have been investing more in sustainable farming and small farming. If we are genuinely going to meet these targets, we will have to be very ambitious in what we are doing.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

My Lords, local shoots are important to many local rural economies. I would be interested to know the view of my noble friend the Minister on the position that National England takes in doing economic impact studies on the effects of its policies on local farming communities.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not aware of the specific policies to which my noble friend refers, because there are lots of different areas where Natural England is involved. If we are talking about shooting licences, which is where this started, Natural England will look at each licence on its own merits and make a decision thereon.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, further to the comments from my noble friend Lord Roborough, Natural England is confused as to its role. Is it regulator, adviser, operator, competitor or pricer? There are multiple conflicts of interest. When will the Government help Natural England understand what its role truly should be?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I feel like saying, “I refer to my previous answer”. This comes back to the fact that we are reviewing the roles and responsibilities of all the different arm’s-length bodies in Defra to ensure that there is clarity about what each is responsible for, that there is no overlap and that they are as efficient and as best value for money as they can be.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to the current chair of Natural England, who was appointed for his third consecutive term last year, is it the normal process and procedure for people to have three terms in office, and does the Minister still have confidence in him?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm that I have confidence in the chair of Natural England. My understanding is that he was appointed for a third term because there was a new Government and it was decided that continuity was important.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, to play in what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, I think that what has broken down is trust; that is, trust on the part of so many in the rural communities in relation to what has appeared to be imposed upon them. I encourage the Minister, with her rural credentials, to seek to rebuild this sense of working together rather than against communities. It is all very well saying that this is not happening; it is happening. That is the feeling of rural communities. I ask and, indeed, implore the Minister to ensure that Defra, in the work that it is doing, really drills down with some of these bodies that they are meant to be working for people, not against them.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that I always believe in working together and constructively. When I am involved in issues in Defra, that is an approach that I always encourage, because people get better understanding of what is important and what is needed if they work together. We have a new Secretary of State, as I am sure noble Lords are aware. She was a Minister in Defra before, which is helpful, and I shall make sure that she understands the concerns of this House.

Farming and Food Production: Land Use Framework

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the land use framework strengthens our commitment to maintain overall food production in England. A resilient food system requires a thriving natural environment. The vast majority of agricultural land will continue to prioritise resilient food production alongside nature and climate benefits. The framework sets out how we can use land more efficiently, using a mixture of productivity improvements, multifunctional land use and the safeguarding of our most important agricultural land.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister is aware, England is now the only UK nation no longer receiving direct farm payments, leaving an enormous gap to be filled between the direct farm payments and the environmental payments coming into play. In that regard, the land use framework is a wasted opportunity. There should have been a greater focus on profitability and productivity. Instead, land is being taken out of food production, with livestock losing out to greenery and rewilding. She need look no further than her own area of Cumbria and Northumbria. Will the Government put the top priority on food production and food security?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can absolutely reassure the noble Baroness that the land use framework makes a clear commitment to maintain overall food production in England. Analysis shows that this is achievable alongside the proposed land use changes. Also, food will be produced more sustainably from less land if we have a proper combination of multifunctional land use. We need to safeguard our most important agricultural land and look at how we improve productivity. We also know that many of the improvements that are coming through sustainable farming, such as improved soil quality, increase that productivity.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the current crisis over our defence budget and the fact that feeding our population will be as important to our nation’s survival as the efforts of our defence forces, I wonder whether the Minister considers it sensible land use planning to allow large tracts of our best agricultural land to be used for solar panels—sometimes 3,000 or 4,000 at a shot. When we have so many roofs, reservoirs and lesser-quality land available, it seems unwise, unstrategic and against all the best principles of the land use framework agenda.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The recent global instability has shown that we need to be more self-sufficient and strengthen our energy independence. Doing so can also help to lower costs and tackle climate change. In addition, farmers and landowners can choose to diversify their income through solar projects on their land, which can also increase the resilience of their farming businesses. I agree with the noble Lord that solar installations on rooftops and reservoirs are important, but on their own they cannot deliver the scale and capacity required to meet the nation’s needs. The land use framework demonstrates how we can safeguard our most productive agricultural land while adapting land use to support nature recovery, climate resilience, housing and infrastructure. Expanding land use for renewable energy will not come at the expense of our best agricultural land, and solar developments will need to be located in the most appropriate places.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister say more about the promised reforms to the farm tenancy forum and what it will actually deliver? Tenants manage a third of England’s farmland yet have little say when landlords respond to new environmental or energy incentives. Can she confirm whether a tenant farmer commissioner, as recommended by the Rock review, remains under active consideration?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I cannot confirm that question specifically—I would have to go back to the department and check—but I can say that the department is keen to work very closely with tenant farmers. That is why we have a tenant farming commissioner: we want to do everything we can to support more tenant farmers to become profitable and more secure.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend knock this nonsense about solar development on the head, once and for all? Is it not a fact that, if you were to take all the schemes that have been proposed to develop solar energy on agricultural land, it would amount to a very small percentage of agricultural land?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that it is a very small percentage. People sometimes think that solar panels are on agricultural land when in fact they are on brownfield. A very large solar development near where I live has just been given permission; it looks like it will be built on a lot of fields but, actually, it is an old mining site and brownfield.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the land use framework identified the need for greater intensity and yields from our best farmland to compensate for the loss of production elsewhere. Market prices for agricultural commodities do not currently support an incentive to intensify this production and underpin our food security. Can the Minister clarify what support is given to farmers with this land through ELMS to meet the Government’s goals and enhance our food security? I declare my interest as a farmer.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are supporting farmers through a number of different schemes. For example, we have committed at least £200 million through the farming innovation programme to support productivity improvements. We are also supporting skills development, farmer collaboration and adoption of innovative land management practices. There is a lot going on and a lot of options for farmers who are looking for support.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the solutions to food production and the use of land lies in the agritech sector? The sector can produce a lot of food under glass, et cetera, which will reduce the carbon footprint of imports, use less land and help provide food security. The problem is the cost of energy, which defeats the business plan of the agritech sector. Are the Government prepared to look at this?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

This comes right back to the beginning: if we are to bring down energy costs, we need to be more self-sufficient in energy, and, if we are to be more self-sufficient in energy, we need to invest in renewable energies and nuclear.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, if the vision of the land use framework is realised, 9% of utilised farmland will be removed from food production for nature restoration. We will therefore be asking British farmers to farm efficiently on the remaining land while meeting our high standards of animal welfare and environmental stewardship. Does the Minister agree that it is both economically and ethically important that imported food meets equivalent standards? If so, what consideration have the Government given to establishing core welfare and environmental standards for imports so that we do not simply offshore the environmental costs of food production?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point. In our trade agreements, we have been very clear that we will not have food that is produced to lower standards than those in this country. That has always been a red line for Defra during trade agreements. That will continue. The environmental aspects are also really important, because there is no point in us increasing our standards if that gap is then filled with lower standards. I am certainly very keen to continue to promote this within Defra.

[Baroness Rock (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a tenant farmer. I am pleased that the Minister recognises that any strategy for multifunctional land must include strong protections for tenant farmers. That is because tenure will impact on how a farm business can engage in land use change. Currently, the design of agri-environment schemes can result in perverse incentives for landlords, including the end of tenancies. We must also ensure that government policy does not incentivise landlords to remove farming tenants in favour of solar developments, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, alluded to, which would undermine farming businesses and domestic food security. Has the department done any assessment on how the land use framework will impact the tenant farmers who are responsible for managing and farming 32% of England’s agricultural land, often in areas that the land use framework views as having high potential for change?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The land use framework will work in tandem with the farming road map, which very much recognises the important role that tenants play and the support that they need. One of the things we also need to really work with is looking at lengths of tenancy. Years ago they were 20 or 25 years long, and now they are down to five years. It is much more difficult for tenants to invest and look forward to a profitable future when they have such short tenancies. That is absolutely key to recognising many of the challenges faced by tenant farmers.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of the former Devon land use framework under the previous Government. Does the Minister agree that, in the past, decisions about land use were too often made in silos; that the land use framework will encourage thinking about combinations and multifunctionality; and that it has made a very good start?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. The whole point of the land use framework was to bring things together so that decisions were not being made without taking into account other pressures on that land. I think it is a very important piece of work. It is just a framework; what is important now is that we take it forward in a way so that it will do what it is designed to do.

Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[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 the House on 20 May 2026. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its review of this statutory instrument. The committee’s scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind secondary legislation are clear and well-founded.

Waste crime blights our communities—across our streets, fields and woodlands, criminals dump waste illegally. This an eyesore and causes damage to our environment. A light-touch registration system for those who transport and deal in waste has been exploited over the years by waste cowboys who dump waste and leave a huge clean-up bill. This system is not fit for purpose. Today we seek to reform it, introducing stricter checks and requirements, closing the loopholes that allow illegal operators into our waste system.

We will bring those in England who control and transport waste within the scope of the 2016 environmental permitting regulations, while repealing the current carriers, brokers and dealers’ registration system. These regulations will introduce permits for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site-based waste activities. Permitting will mean that those who apply will need to undergo a stricter range of background checks, including criminal record checks, as well as demonstrating that they are technically competent to do the job.

The new system of permitting will be managed the Environment Agency, which will be responsible for managing applications and ensuring compliance. The Environment Agency will be able to suspend and ultimately revoke permits where conditions are breached. It will be able to prosecute, leading to fines or up to five years’ imprisonment. The fees introduced for permits will mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for compliance work.

These regulations will make it easier for the public to trust the people they hand their waste to. Alongside permits being able to be checked online, we are requiring that waste controllers and transporters include their permit number on advertising. Whether this is a Facebook ad or a branded van, the public will be able to spot and check on the operators they work with.

This reform is one of a number outlined in the Government’s Waste Crime Action Plan, published in March, which together strengthen the regulatory framework and the Environment Agency’s ability to prevent, detect and act against waste crime. We have taken further legislative action by replacing outdated paper-based methods for monitoring waste movements with digital waste tracking. We will also be tightening the waste permit exemptions system by removing three exemptions and tightening the conditions of seven others that have long been abused by waste criminals.

Alongside the reforms, it is important that we provide those responsible for tackling waste crime with the tools needed to effectively stamp it out. We have committed an additional £45 million for the Environment Agency to spend on waste crime enforcement over the next three financial years to support this. This funding will mean that there are more boots on the ground to expand its enforcement activity and ensure waste criminals face the consequences.

I want to acknowledge the strength of support from the industry and its patience over the years as it has been developed. These regulations represent a significant change for the waste system and will help level the playing field for operators, as well as protecting our communities and the environment from waste criminals.

Alongside the reforms to the carriers, brokers and dealers’ system, the regulations also bring the Environment Act 2021 into the scope of primary authority by adding it to Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanction Act. Primary authority is a means for businesses to receive assured and tailored advice on meeting regulations such as environmental health, trading standards and fire safety through a single point of contact. This amendment is particularly necessary to enable primary authorities to play a role in effectively supporting retailers in undertaking their obligations as required in the deposit return scheme. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly want to congratulate the Government and to say, well done. I think this was first put forward eight years ago, and it is finally happening. I appreciate it is not happening until next year, but we need to recognise the long amount of time it took to get here. I hope the results will be very rapid.

--- Later in debate ---

We all want to see a crackdown on waste crime. All I am asking of the Government is, will Defra and the Minister please consider carefully, with the extra money they are giving to the joint unit on waste crime, putting the National Crime Agency in the lead in this regard in tackling waste crime, keeping the Environment Agency working there as second-in-command? The National Crime Agency is the only one capable, in our opinion, of handling a £1 billion criminal enterprise. With these few little quibbles, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion and all noble Lords for their strong support for the measures being brought forward. As noble Lords have said, this has been a long time coming, so it is really good to see that we have finally got this in front of us today. One thing that has come across really clearly, not just today but in a number of questions and parliamentary debates, is the huge problem of criminal waste activity that now blights so much of our countryside. There were a number of questions asked. I will do my best to cover them off, and if there is anything else I have missed, I will make sure I get back to noble Lords in writing.

First, on evaluation and monitoring, we recognise that tackling waste crime requires sustained effort and a willingness to adapt as circumstances evolve. Delivery of the waste crime action plan will be accompanied by a process of continuous review and improvement. We will also regularly assess the effectiveness of the measures that are introduced. We will consider any new evidence as it emerges and, importantly, identify opportunities to go further where existing interventions are not achieving the desired outcomes. This is designed to ensure that our approach to tackling waste crime remains agile, responsive and focused on achieving lasting change.

The Environment Agency is also developing improved indicators for 2026-27, including measures on larger-scale offending, response times and deterrence. The current Environment Agency scorecard metric covers only a narrow proportion of illegal waste activity. Waste crime is hard to measure as it is deliberately hidden: only around 27% of incidents are actually reported. Defra is working closely with EA to deliver new indicators, improving visibility of the problem and getting a better grip on it.

Defra is leading the delivery of the waste crime action plan, working closely with the Environment Agency as the national lead for waste crime. That is being done alongside HMRC, the Home Office, police forces and local authorities, because if we are going to successfully tackle this, we need co-ordinated cross-government action. As I mentioned in my speech, we have committed an extra £45 million over three years, and an extra £5.6 million uplift in 2025-26, designed to increase front-line enforcement, intelligence and operational capacity, so we have more officers, specialised units and multi-agency activity.

We are also bringing in structural reforms, including CBD reform, digital waste tracking and exemption reforms. They are being implemented to design crime out of the system so that prevention and compliance are integral, rather than relying on reactive enforcement alone. We are also driving through other concrete operations measures: earlier interventions, permit action, restriction notices, prosecutions, use of advanced technology including drones and satellite imagery, and strengthened intelligence via the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, which I will come on to shortly. On monitoring effectiveness, we will deliver improved metrics but also review the multi-agency waste crime response and adapt its delivery so that the action plan remains live and responsive.

The noble Earl asked about digital waste tracking. It will work by requiring information to be submitted to a central system of all movements of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, with a few pragmatic exemptions, from the point the waste is produced to the point it arrives at the waste receiving facility. It will replace paper processes with consistent, near real-time data, improving traceability and highlighting any unusual movements linked to misdescription, diversion or illegal export. That is one of the ways in which we will tackle the illegal export issue that the noble Earl asked about. The first phase started in April, and it will be mandatory from October. The second phase will cover the whole waste movement chain. It is planned that that will be available for all relevant operators to use voluntarily from spring next year, with a mandatory rollout from the following October.

The noble Earl raised the exemptions. We need to reform the waste exemption regime because we need to stop criminals having the opportunities they currently have to hide illegal activity behind permit exemptions. That is why we are removing the three most abused exemptions and tightening up conditions on the others. Exemptions allow low-risk waste activities to operate without a permit, but we know that some have been widely abused by criminals. We will also bring in limits on quantities, tougher operating conditions and stronger record-keeping. We need to remove the weak points and protect the permitting regime. We are currently working on what the necessary legislative amendments would look like for that. Again, when doing that, we will take into account some of the issues that the noble Earl raised, as we do not want to cause problems for people who are legitimately doing their work.

The noble Earl also asked about businesses and people working in the system. Clearly, when designing regulations such as this, we have to work with those who will use them, to ensure that they work in the most effective way and we do not end up realising that they are not practical when we start monitoring. It is all about how things will practically make a difference.

On the Explanatory Memorandum, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the Environment Agency and efficiency savings. The new controllers and transporters system will mean that operators are required to submit more detailed information as part of their permit applications. This information will be used by the Environment Agency to more efficiently identify high-risk operators and conduct monitoring and compliance work.

The noble Lord referred to the £1 billion cost of cross-county organised crime. The way that we will try to work with the National Crime Agency, which is the point the noble Lord was speaking to, is that the Joint Unit for Waste Crime will provide the crucial collective operational capability. To ensure that the wider system for tackling waste crime remains effective in the face of an evolving threat, Defra is working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office to undertake a review of the end-to-end multi-agency response to waste crime. That will cover areas such as information sharing, local-to-national co-ordination and prosecution capabilities. The review will also identify opportunities to strengthen how agencies work together and ensure that the overall system remains effective, resilient and equipped to meet future challenges. The existing capabilities, including the JUWC, will continue to play a key role within this strengthened framework.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I take that to mean that, although the National Crime Agency will not be put into the lead, it will have an enhanced role. Is that what the Minister said?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Defra and the Environment Agency will be the lead, but we will work absolutely hand in glove with those other agencies to make sure that they effectively tackle the problem we have. As I say, we will monitor anyway so, if we find that it needs changing in any way to strengthen that, we will be able to do that once we have continued to review and monitor. We are bringing all these changes in because we want to make a difference and we want to stop what has been happening.

I have mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that I would be very happy to meet her to discuss her Private Member’s Bill, and I hope we can do that in the not-too-distant future.

I appreciate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, coming in to offer her support for this SI. As she said, this has taken a long time, and I am sure she did quite a bit of work on it, so it is important to see that work started by one Government has been completed by another. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Farming Practices: Sustainable Farming Incentive

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Willis of Summertown]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they are assessing whether farming practices such as regenerative agriculture align with the sustainable farming incentive payments.

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

My Lords, the sustainable farming incentive is largely aligned with regenerative agriculture. There are actions for cover crops, no-till farming and providing insect-rich habitats. Furthermore, SFI includes actions for precision application of crop nutrients and pesticides.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her response. It is good to hear that the Government will move towards increased SFI funding, with a focus on regenerative agricultural practice. However, much of the scientific evidence suggests that adopting these techniques can reduce crop yields in the first three to five years. Can the Minister reassure the House that the SFI agreements are sizeable and have long-term certainty, beyond the current Treasury settlement, so that farmers know that they will be supported through this critical five-year transition period? Without that, I believe there will be very low uptake of the SFIs.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

When we brought in the new offer, we wanted to take away the uncertainty as to what was happening with SFIs in the longer term. We have made it clear that we will keep the main SFI offer largely stable from now until the end of this Parliament to provide certainty to farmers that we are going to continue this kind of SFI offer.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, common land is excluded from both the SFI and the countryside stewardship higher tier. When will the Minister ensure that owners and graziers on common land can apply for SFI and the higher tier? She will be aware that most of these people are in the uplands and are really suffering at this time.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very aware of the issue the noble Baroness refers to; we have discussed it in Parliament. The issue is that common land and shared grazing are in principle eligible for both SFI and CSHT—the higher tier—but, for technical reasons, it is not currently possible for common groups to apply for SFI or to enter the new higher-tier grants, as the noble Baroness so rightly said. The RPA is engaging with the different external stakeholders, including the Foundation for Common Land, to discuss what can be done to ensure that they can apply for grants and get the support they need. We are looking to introduce the ability to apply in respect of common land under the stewardship higher tier later this year. We will be trialling applications before we spread it out more widely.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that species-rich grassland is one of the clearest examples of regenerative farming in practice? Why, then, has support for it been removed from SFI 2026? How does that sit with the Government’s commitment to regenerative agriculture?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have tried to bring SFI into new areas because it is really important that smaller farms and different types of farms have the opportunity to get the grants to do regenerative farming. Alongside that, we are looking at other ways to support the kind of things the noble Baroness is talking about. It is also important to remember that, when there is a grant for something, it does not mean that is the only thing you can get a grant or support for. I would encourage landowners to look broadly at what we have to offer.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government consider looking back at the criteria on which the ELMS payments are made? If you farm regeneratively, you not only improve the soil by cover crops—growing beans and legumes—mob grazing and not tilling, but you improve every single thing in the ELMS. It would be a way of transferring money to farmers, who get far too little out of the food system, and of encouraging them to move their farming practices over ASAP.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are looking at the uptake of the current round of SFI, which has been very encouraging. We recently said that 50% of the SFI budget has been allocated, and we will be reviewing that. It is also important to look at the changes that this is encouraging, because much of it was designed to make the biggest difference. We work very closely with farmers who do regenerative farming, such as Martin Lines. It is important that we target what we see as making the biggest difference the quickest.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the introduction of sustainable farming incentives under ELMS remains something we on these Benches are particularly proud of. They were intended to be part of a transitional scheme preparing farmers for greater private finance involvement in restoring nature through sustainable farming practices. The 25-year farming road map contained aspirations on this but very little detail, so could the Minister give us some real-world evidence of private sector finance creating incentives for sustainable farming?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is important to assure noble Lords that, just because something is not specifically in the farming road map, that does not mean that it will not be part of this long-term plan. The whole point of the farming road map is that it is not specific and dialled-down—it is a 25-year look ahead. On the basis that it is a long look ahead, you would not expect all the detail and information to be in it, because that will be developed as we move forward, and things will change a lot over 25 years.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that, for too long, rich farmers have been getting far too much subsidy? Is it not good that this Government are introducing a system that will help smaller farmers and hill farmers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The new SFI, which we announced fairly recently and which runs through to September, was very much aimed at smaller farms and those that do not already have an agreement. The fact that 50% has been allocated already shows that that was a very popular decision.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

What are the Government doing to encourage food production?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Our encouragement of all sorts of farms that did not already have grants and support demonstrates that we are keen to look at food production. We also have a farming innovation programme that supports agrotechnology for farmers, which can help with food production as well. The whole picture is about supporting food production, because, as we have said, we believe that food security is national security, and we take that very seriously.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my farming interests. One should not be provoked by comments, but it is important that we feed the nation, and I am worried about this concern that, if you are a medium or large farmer, somehow you are the enemy. We need all farmers to ensure that we are well fed and have national security through that, as well as enhancing our environment. It is important that farmers have clarity and certainty; the Minister has touched on that, but farmers need far more of it.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that farmers need clarity and certainty, which is why we have brought in the 25-year farming road map. With regard to larger farmers, that is also why, from September, the SFI will be open to all farms. We are trying to encourage farms that had not previously taken part to come forward and be supported by the Government.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

We certainly do not see larger farmers as the enemy, but we are aware that small farms have particular problems in accessing these grants. So I kindly ask the Minister: what further measures are the Government taking to make sure that smaller farmers have the skills and the ability to access these grants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is an important question. We do not see large farms as the enemy; they are incredibly important if we are going to meet our food security targets. I really understand what the noble Earl is saying, because I have a small farm. I did not apply for the new grants a couple of years ago because it was too complicated. My farm was not of a size that would employ a land agent to help with the application. So we have tried to work with the RPA to simplify the process and offer targeted support to smaller farms.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, many of us on these Benches are supportive of British farming and congratulate our farmers on their excellent work in food production. But I have a question for my noble friend the Minister. It is entirely possible in the current system that multiple SFIs will be applied to one farm. Can she say more about the process of moving to one SFI for the farmed area of a farm without losing out on financial support?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am not sure how many SFIs one farm would ever get; it depends on what it is looking to support, for example. There are different things—there is catchment-sensitive farming and different tiers—and each of those will be looked at on its own merits so that it achieves the outcomes we want.

REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 March and 3 June be approved.

Relevant documents: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26 and 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the first instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motions agreed.

Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the clean water Bill was announced in the King’s Speech in May, to be introduced during this Session. We have set out our ambitious programme of reforms in the water White Paper, which was published on 20 January, and we are protecting chalk streams, including by reducing the risk of harmful abstraction, by modifying water company abstraction licences and ensuring that chalk streams are prioritised for improvement in our storm overflows discharge reduction plan.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. Does she regret that, despite repeated assurances that chalk streams were an urgent priority during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, they still do not have statutory protection? Can she assure the House that they will not be left out of the clean water Bill, or indeed the final National Planning Policy Framework, especially if there is any danger of that being published in a rush over the next few days due to a change in the senior management team in the House of Commons?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are very aware that chalk streams are an important ecological resource and we are doing a number of things that will make a difference, which is what we have to do. We are holding water companies to account. We are working within the environmental land management scheme to provide incentives for farmers; for example, six of the ELMS-funded landscape recovery projects are being developed in chalk stream catchments. The Environment Agency is working, as I said, to tackle the impacts of harmful abstraction. We made a number of changes to the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill to ensure that chalk streams feature in local nature recovery strategies so that they can be embedded into any legislation. There are also actions embedded in the water White Paper, which we will discuss as we take forward the legislation.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

One of the opportunities we have to protect our chalk streams is to prevent off-flow from farms. One way of doing that is to create a biodiversity break between a chalk stream and farming activity. When the Minister looks at these issues, will she examine whether financial support could be provided to farmers through the existing schemes to encourage the creation of that kind of biodiversity margin to protect chalk streams?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I just mentioned, there are encouragements through the existing ELMS, but I take the noble Lord’s point. As we develop our support for farmers going forward, it is important that important ecological parts of our environment, such as chalk streams, are fully supported.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, I am extremely supportive of the creation of a new single regulator for the water industry, which will be in the new Bill. Admittedly, however, I am slightly disappointed that it is taking quite some time to bring it into effect. When does she think the new single regulator will become operational?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have said that we will create a powerful new regulator. We will abolish Ofwat and bring together the different functions of Ofwat, the DWI, the Environment Agency and Natural England into one new body so that we no longer have a fragmented system. That will be part of the clean water Bill when it comes forward. We have said we will do it in this Session. We are currently working on it, and as soon as we find a suitable legislative slot, we will crack on with this.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, Wessex Water, Thames Water, Southern Water, Anglian Water and Yorkshire Water have terrible records of dumping untreated sewage into chalk streams. None has had its licence to operate revoked. Can the Minister explain how many criminal convictions these companies need before the Government will listen to the people and revoke their licences?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend is aware that, as a Government, we have created the ability to hold the directors and higher-up members within the water industry to account, including through criminal charges. That is an important step forward. The key thing is that we cannot carry on as we are, which is why we have pledged to bring in the clean water Bill this Session to tackle all the issues that he and other noble Lords are so concerned about.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, we have a unique responsibility to protect our chalk streams, given that we possess 85% of the world’s total stock. These chalk streams have suffered mistreatment, given that they are located in some of the most densely populated areas of our country. They suffer from creaking sewage treatment systems, industrial and agricultural run-off and pressure from development. The Minister mentioned that in an earlier answer, but is it not time now to encourage true catchment-level restoration projects through landscape-scale recovery schemes that can deal with priority issues for each individual river and stream? Will she take an early opportunity to stress that to the new Prime Minister?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are investing a lot into chalk streams. As well as the £2 billion that water companies are investing over the next five years into targeted actions towards chalk stream restoration, which is part of our plan for change, we are investing £1.8 million through the water restoration fund and the water environment improvement fund for locally led chalk stream clean-up projects across affected regions. Much of that will be catchment led, because a lot of local projects are worked on right across catchments.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does not the state of our chalk rivers demonstrate what problems were caused by a Government who did not care about the state of the rivers and a regulator that turned its back on them?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a long-term problem that has been going on for many years. Unfortunately, the water industry has simply not been held to account in the way that it should have been, and that is why we are bringing in the clean water Bill and changing the regulator.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Can the Government give us their estimate of the cost and the timetable for putting in the extra pipes and processing capacity so that we can clean up our rivers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is probably a cost for the water companies to assess.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that the Government are on the verge of planning the NPPF. Does the Minister agree that it is more important that this is got right than got out quickly? She talked about making sure that we do something about the run-off from roads. Can she add any more detail to that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

When the NPPF was revised fairly recently, for the first time it included a lot of positive actions on the environment—for example, about how it needs to be taken into account during planning. In fact, sadly, I keep a copy of it in my drawer so I can refer to it if I need to. I am pleased that we are continuing to revise it and to look at how planning and the environment work together rather than against each other. The noble Earl raises an important point about run-off from roads, and we need to look at that in more detail.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I think this is the first time the noble Baroness has said that the Bill may not reach Parliament in this Session. Where there is no need for primary legislation—for example, the proposals in the Cunliffe review—will she look to bring these in through secondary legislation where that is appropriate?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness must have misheard me. I absolutely did not say that the Bill was not coming in this Session. It is absolutely our intention to fulfil the pledge made in the King’s Speech that we will bring in the clean water Bill this Session.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I do not understand the Government’s reluctance to take Thames Water into special administration when it so clearly behaved appallingly and refuses to clean up the mess it has made of not only our chalk streams but the rest of our countryside.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Very strict conditions have to be met before the Government are allowed to do that. However, we have said that we will keep all options on the table if it comes to that.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

In terms of our desire for clean water, can I ask that the Government work very closely with the champions of clean water—the fishing community, who are often the eyes and ears on early signs of pollution? It is important because, although we have the desire to do this, we need volunteers and others to ensure that this comes into effect. I very much hope that Defra and the noble Baroness will work extremely effectively with the fishing community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. In fact, much of the damage and the problems that have been caused by the water industry were first flagged up by fishermen and people such as Surfers Against Sewage—those who use our waterways, seas, rivers and lakes. It is incredibly important that we work with them constructively as we now move to clean the situation up.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

That concludes Oral Questions for today. Those who wish to stream out of the Chamber can do so quickly and quietly.

REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26 (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[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 24 March. They will amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain. EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. UK REACH retains the core approach and key principles of the EU system, including its fundamental aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I want to be clear from the outset that nothing in the instrument changes those aims or reduces those protections.

The instrument will make two key changes. The first change will extend the deadlines in Article 127P by which registrants, namely manufacturers and importers, must submit information on their chemicals to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE.

At EU exit, transitional measures were introduced to support a smooth and orderly transition to the UK REACH regime, including deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current legislation, those deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances must be registered first. This SI will extend the deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. I recognise that these deadlines have been extended previously. Indeed, this is the third extension since UK REACH replaced EU REACH in January 2021. I therefore want to address directly why a further extension is necessary.

In 2023, the previous Government extended the deadlines in response to transitional challenges. Chief among these was the estimated £2 billion cost to industry of acquiring the information required under the existing registration model. That extension allowed exploration of an alternative transitional registration model, known as the ATRm, with the aim of developing a fairer, more proportionate and workable system. Following the general election, this Government reassessed their broader approach to chemicals regulation while completing the exploration of the ATRm. This work reflects our improved relationship with the European Union.

There was a consultation in 2024 and we then published our proposed approach to the ATRm on 30 March 2026, providing long-awaited clarity for industry. The ATRm will reduce the information that businesses must submit for transitional UK REACH registrations. It is expected to reduce the one-off costs to industry of those registrations by around 70%. At the same time, the model will maintain the important protections provided by UK REACH. It recognises that companies placing chemicals on the Great Britain market remain responsible for understanding and managing the risks that those chemicals may present to human health and the environment. Registration will therefore remain central to ensuring that businesses meet that responsibility and properly manage the risks arising from the hazardous properties of chemicals and how they are used in Great Britain.

The Government are acting decisively by bringing forward the legislation on the ATRm so that industry knows what it needs to do in good time for the extended deadlines. However, the ATRm cannot be implemented in time for the first existing deadline of 27 October 2026. It is therefore necessary to extend the deadlines once more to ensure that we put in place a robust and effective policy framework. Extending the deadlines will provide the additional time needed to finalise and implement the ATRm in a proportionate and workable way. It will also provide businesses with the certainty that they need to plan for compliance and help to maintain continuity in important supply chains. Without this extension, businesses would have to meet the existing deadlines and submit the full registration information currently required by UK REACH, despite the Government’s clear intention to replace those requirements and reduce the £2 billion cost to businesses by around 70%.

I turn to the second change introduced by this instrument. The regulations amend the deadlines by which the HSE must complete compliance checks on 20% of registration dossiers. These dates must remain aligned with the revised registration submission deadlines. Otherwise, the HSE could be required to complete compliance checks before the relevant registration information had been submitted. Under these regulations, the compliance check deadlines will move to 27 October 2030, 27 October 2032 and 27 October 2036. The time available between each registration deadline and its corresponding compliance check deadline remains unchanged.

As with the previous amendment to UK REACH made using powers in the Environment Act 2021, we have followed the safeguards set out in Schedule 21 to that Act. We have worked closely with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have both consented to this instrument. We conducted a public consultation to ensure that stakeholders could provide their views and evidence.

We have also published a statement confirming that the amendments are consistent with the overarching aims of UK REACH, including the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. We have published an impact assessment that demonstrates that extending the deadlines will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses while maintaining an effective regulatory framework. The impact assessment builds on the options assessment published in March 2026, which the Regulatory Policy Committee rated fit for purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this measure to extend the transition period for businesses to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under the UK REACH regulations. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee.

The UK’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals replicated the EU REACH regime. To manage the transition, requirements to submit further information were phased, and the deadlines were extended twice by our previous Government, in 2020 and in 2023. This statutory instrument extends the deadlines to submit information to the HSE for registrants, downstream users and distributors that continue to import chemicals from the EU. This will allow the compliance costs of registered businesses in the chemicals sector to be spread more evenly. It is worth noting that 98% of registered businesses in the chemicals sector are small, medium or micro businesses.

In addition, the SI will provide more time for the Government to introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of Brexit. This is expected to reduce costs for industry significantly, so can the Minister update the Committee on when this new model will be introduced?

The Minister might be pleased to hear that I do not have many additional questions, given that so many have been asked. But I highlight the Government’s response to concerns submitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about divergence from the EU in this policy area. The Government stated—the Minister was kind enough to repeat this—that

“divergence only occurs where there are compelling reasons, for example to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we will retain full control of our regulatory decisions”.

If that is the case, why will the Government not take the same approach to the SPS regulations soon to be determined by the EU, in particular on the role of precision breeding?

I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask one question on something not directly related to this SI: the chemical Asulox. Emergency authorisations for its use ended a few years ago, and we are already seeing the impact of the withdrawal of Asulox from the market, as bracken moves further and further up the hill, outcompeting grass, outcompeting degraded peat and undermining our habitats. Will the Minister commit to take that away and see whether anything can be done to reintroduce Asulox to the market? I very much look forward to her response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their important contributions and for the careful consideration given to the regulations. I will go through some of the questions and issues raised.

Noble Lords asked about the deadline extension. Clearly, this is now the third time. The deadlines were first altered when we were still preparing for EU exit, to allow businesses enough time to compile and submit the full required information, given the complexity and scale of the task. As I mentioned, there was a further extension in 2023 to address transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to business of acquiring the additional information. This Government wanted to reassess their broader chemicals policy, and it then became clear that we could not implement the ATRm in time for the original deadline. We want to get a robust and effective policy framework for the future, which is why we have extended the deadlines.

My noble friend Lord Stansgate in particular asked what guarantee we can give that we will not extend it again. Clearly, we really do not want to do that. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that businesses need certainty, and continually moving the goalposts and changing dates does not help, so we have absolutely no intention of extending the deadlines further.

We published our policy conclusions on the ATRm back in March, and that set a firm path forward for government. On the questions around timetables, we are looking to consult very quickly on the legislation in order to bring the model into force next year so that businesses have ample time to prepare for the new deadlines. As I said, we do not plan to bring in any further extensions.

As I said, in March we published the timetable for implementing the alternative transitional registration model. By consulting quickly and then bringing in the new regulations next year, we want to ensure that industry has sufficient time to prepare its registrations so that it is ready to comply with the first revised submission in an orderly way, which is what we want. Now that we have said this is what we will do, we want to consult as quickly as possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the Swiss style and why we could not take that approach to chemicals registration rather than developing a separate UK model. One of the core principles of UK REACH is that it is industry’s primary responsibility to understand and manage the risks of its chemicals, and registration is how it demonstrates that it is doing this. That means submitting data on hazard conclusions and classifications and how it is using chemicals in this country. We need to assure the public and consumers that chemicals are managed safely.

This “no data, no market” approach remains a central part of UK REACH, and that is not embedded in Switzerland’s system in the same way. However, we are exploring whether elements of a Swiss-style approach could help improve the speed and efficiency of UK REACH restriction decision-making, particularly where many GB businesses already comply with EU restrictions and there is no compelling reason to diverge. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, as we are still looking at the options around that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am very grateful, but the problem is that the data already exists. The point is that they are having to register the same data twice, so there is obviously a conflict of views here.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That was the problem with leaving EU REACH; that was going to have to take place when we set up our own system in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the gift of Brexit—it just keeps giving. That is unfortunately one of the outcomes of that decision. But, as I say, we need to understand better the use of chemicals. Part of the reason why we want to explore better relationships with the EU is to help with many of these things. We are obviously not in a position to rejoin EU REACH, but better working relationships will help right across the board.

On costs, as I said in opening, they will be reduced by 70% with the ATRm. The estimate for the separate UK registrations is around £2 billion, instead of the previous figure. Intellectual property barriers were also brought up; companies already have legal duties to classify hazards and provide safety information through the supply chain. We assume that they are meeting those duties, so if industry is managing intellectual property issues in those contexts, we would ask why REACH registration would be any different. We also think that registration dossiers should be developed through substance groups, as those groups can draw on different sources of evidence. Clearly we cannot comment on every source, but if industry has legal advice showing that intellectual property is a real barrier to the ATRm then we would absolutely welcome receiving and hearing about that evidence.

SMEs were mentioned. The consultation response showed clear support for extending the deadlines, one reason for which is that it reduces pressure on smaller and micro-businesses. The options assessment recognised that smaller businesses are less able to absorb significant upfront compliance costs and would benefit from greater certainty and more time to prepare. The extension means that firms will not have to incur costs under requirements that we intend to change—that is one key reason—while maintaining the strong protections that we need. It is also important to note that SMEs will mainly be covered by the final deadline, so they will have the longest time to prepare.

On moving the dates for compliance checks, they need to align with the revised registration deadlines. Under UK REACH, the HSE must carry out compliance checks on at least 20% of registration dossiers. That safeguard remains unchanged. The checks can reasonably take place only once the relevant information has been submitted. Again—this is one of the key issues—if we do not bring in these changes without the amendment, the HSE could be required to complete checks before the dossiers have been received.

My noble friend asked how the alternative transition registration model will work in practice. It will provide a more proportionate route for registering substances that were already on the market under EU REACH before EU exit. It will reduce unnecessary duplication by removing the need for businesses to submit full EU hazard data packages up front, while still requiring key information such as hazard conclusions, classification and use and exposure data. This will still provide the means for business and regulators to assess and manage risk. The “no data, no market” principle will remain in place and the HSE will retain powers to request further hazard information where needed. My noble friend asked some very specific questions about a number of chemicals, so I will need to get back to him on that specific point.

Finally, on divergence, we are committed to drawing more from other trusted jurisdictions such as the EU by taking their regulatory decisions as a starting point and aiming to ensure that divergence occurs only where there are compelling reasons—for example, to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we retain full control of our regulatory decisions. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which divergence may be considered for UK REACH and we intend to publicly consult on those proposals as well.

I hope I have addressed the questions raised by noble Lords. If I have not been able to provide a full response—for example, to my noble friend—we will come back in writing. I will check through Hansard, as there were quite a lot of questions flying around and it is quite a complicated area. I recognise the concerns that this is the third time we have had an extension, about the time it is going to take and about certainty. As I say, the important thing is that we have published our intended approach and we expect to legislate for the new model next year, because we absolutely need to give an assurance that we will not be in a situation where businesses do not have the certainty that they need to do this.

One final point I have just realised I did not respond to was from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about Asulox and bracken. I am happy to take that away and discuss that further with the department.

We believe these regulations strike the appropriate balance. They will preserve strong protections while providing industry with the time and certainty needed to prepare for a more proportionate and effective registration model. I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Could the noble Baroness also respond to the point about the possible compromise to intellectual property rights? I will send her the briefing, because it is all there.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness sends me the briefing, I would be happy to pick it up. Perhaps we can meet to discuss it further.

Motion agreed.

Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny 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 the House on 3 June. They will give effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that power generation using the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is justified in the UK under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation. This decision has been taken within that regulatory framework. It is a step towards enabling a new form of reliable, low-carbon power generation in the UK, supporting our energy security, reducing carbon emissions and delivering economic opportunities, including for UK jobs and supply chains. It also has the potential to provide dependable baseload power for a more resilient electricity system, while supporting the development of a domestic nuclear supply chain.

The statutory framework, in place since 2004, requires that any new class or type of practice involving ionising radiation is assessed before it can be introduced. The key question is whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure. In this case, the Secretary of State has concluded that they do.

It is important to be clear what this decision does and does not do. This is a generic, non-site-specific decision. It does not authorise the construction or operation of any reactor. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s independent system of scrutiny, including the need to secure environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent before it could proceed. These processes involve detailed assessment by independent regulators, including bodies such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the relevant environmental regulators, to ensure that safety, security and environmental protection requirements are met.

The decision underpinning the instrument follows a thorough and proportionate evidence-based process. It draws on advice from independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation, which was held in late 2025 and received 50 responses. Most respondents agreed that the Rolls-Royce SMR represents a new class of practice and that sufficient information had been provided to inform a decision. Taken together, the evidence provided a proportionate and transparent basis to support the Secretary of State’s conclusion.

The issues raised, including safety, radioactive waste, environmental impacts, cost and energy security, were considered alongside expert advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision. The assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR is expected to result in a low level of potential radiological health detriment, that the design can meet the UK’s requirements on safety, security and safeguards, and that radioactive waste can be managed within existing UK arrangements. Environmental impacts are considered manageable within established regulatory frameworks. Taken together, this provides a clear evidence base for concluding that the benefits, including reliable low-carbon power and support for energy security, outweigh the potential risk to health and radiation exposure.

Finally, I emphasise that this is only one part of a wider regulatory system. Any proposal to construct or operate a reactor would remain subject to detailed scrutiny by independent regulators at every stage. The instrument will give legal effect to a decision required by the statutory framework, while leaving decisions on siting, design and operation to the UK’s regulatory, planning and wider governmental processes. It is a proportionate step within a well-established system of independent regulation. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in the debate. As was said earlier, it is important to point out that the matter before the Committee is this particular instrument, which is narrow in what it does. It gives legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that this class or type of practice—power generation using the Rolls-Royce SMR—meets the statutory test. A few questions were broader than that, particularly the noble Lord’s on woodland carbon capture and so on. I will focus on the questions on the statutory instrument, and we can perhaps pick up some questions more broadly. Quite a lot of work is going on in that area within the department and in other Ministers’ portfolios, and it might be easier for us to pick up some of those particular questions around carbon capture and so forth on another occasion.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the time it takes to bring in a new nuclear build. I understand why there is nervousness about timescales when we talk about building new nuclear energy, in whatever form. I have the scars on my back from working on the Hinkley Point C project—we initially had it coming online in 2019—so it is very problematic sometimes with these really big nuclear power stations.

I will make two comments on that. First, SMRs are a lot smaller and quicker to build. They can be more flexible in what they are, what they look like, how much they supply and so on. So it is an approach that is different from the traditional large power stations that we are used to seeing built. We fairly recently did the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which looks at bringing in nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—of which nuclear is part. So we are doing what we can to speed up the planning process to ensure that we can build these smaller and smarter nuclear power stations more quickly.

I reassure the noble Baroness that renewable energy is an absolute priority. I do not think anyone here would think that the Secretary of State for DESNZ does not have renewable energy as a priority. But we need a proper energy mix in this country, particularly if we are to meet our carbon targets, and nuclear energy plays an important role in that. As the noble Lord said, we want to move as quickly as we can on this, but that is not the purpose of the statutory instrument; it enables Rolls-Royce to take those SMR projects forward. As the noble Lord said, Wylfa is likely to be the first.

On the economy around this, one thing that Rolls-Royce SMRs have the potential to do is provide reliable and always-on low-carbon power, with a view to complementing renewables—you do not have to worry about the wind not blowing and so on. So it supports our energy security and it supports UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains. We have some really skilled people in the nuclear sector here, and we need to support them as well.

On cost and value for money, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we assessed the economic aspects of this, and that assessment considered economic and socioeconomic factors and concluded that the benefits outweigh any potential detriments.

On the public funding for Rolls-Royce’s SMR, the assessment also concluded that the socioeconomic benefits would outweigh the public funding associated with the delivery. But further decisions around funding for the Rolls-Royce SMR are taken separately from this justification decision; as I say, this is a very narrow statutory instrument.

Cost effectiveness is not determined through the process we are looking at today; that is considered separately as part of wider government decisions on energy policy and investment and what the priorities are.

On carbon reduction in particular, the assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR would provide low-carbon electricity across its lifecycle, and by doing that it would make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thereby supporting the UK’s net-zero targets.

When bringing in this kind of legislation, you have to look at safety, waste, environmental impact and wider policy. Taking all that together, the evidence provided a clear basis for concluding that this class or type of practice meets the statutory test of justification. I therefore very much thank noble Lords for their support in bringing this forward so that we can move forward and build some SMRs, I hope in the very near future, because this has been an awfully long time coming.

Motion agreed.