Deforestation

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the consumption of forestry commodities in the United Kingdom is not driving deforestation abroad.

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

My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forest and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering our approach to addressing the impact of the use of forest-risk commodities in our supply chains, and we will update the House at the earliest opportunity.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility is a flagship project of Brazil’s COP 30 presidency. It is a global financial initiative designed to provide large-scale, predictable and performance-based payments to tropical forest countries for conserving and expanding forest cover. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that the UK will show strong support for this important initiative by speeding up pending legislation to ban illegal forest-risk commodities in UK supply chains?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK welcomes the strong focus on forests from the Brazilian presidency at COP 30, and we will continue to shape our approach for putting forests at the heart of the climate agenda at COP 30 in Brazil. We are working at pace to move forward in this area.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, it is not just forest commodities per se that are driving deforestation in, for example, Brazil and Australia; it involves the production of other agricultural commodities such as beef. Beef imports to the UK are rising while our indigenous production is falling, yet we produce 1 kilogram of beef for a fraction of the global average greenhouse emissions, without deforestation. What are we doing to support our British beef farmers? In particular, what are we doing to ensure that imported beef is not being produced from deforested land?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have a new Farming Minister in the other place who is very keen to support farmers. We want to ensure that farmers become profitable, and that includes beef farmers. It is important that we support our food security in this country, and that we work with farmers to help them do so. We also do not want imports that are below our own standards and that have a negative impact on the environment. It is important that we find the balance between providing sufficient choice in the food on people’s plates and supporting local food production and our own farmers.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of Cool Earth, which tries to do precisely this work in the areas of forests. I wonder whether the Minister can help us. There are some things for which only forestry products can be used. If we use them for things for which there are alternative products—for example, the generation of electricity—we will not have enough of this material for the things for which it is uniquely designed. What are the Government doing to ensure that we make the best use of that material which is real waste, from forests that have been properly looked after?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is a very good question. We have to look at what waste from forest is used for. We are supporting the timber industry in this country; that is important, because at the moment we import an enormous amount of timber. It needs to be easier, quicker and more financially viable to grow trees in this country, so that is one aspect of reducing the waste that comes from importing. At the same time, we need to ensure that we manage the waste from our own imports and our own homegrown timber effectively. We relaunched this year the Timber in Construction Roadmap. We need to be able to meet demand, but at the same time manage the waste issues to which the noble Lord refers.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, successive Governments have facilitated deforestation abroad. A good example is Drax, which has received billions in subsidies for burning wood pellets to produce electricity that is twice as expensive as electricity produced from gas. Drax has a record of lying about the use of primary forests for burning wood. The company reported a profit of over £1 billion last year, paid out £97 million in dividends and another £300 million in share buybacks to shareholders. Can the Minister explain why this company continues to be subsidised?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Electricity generators—and that does include Drax—receive subsidies only for the electricity they generate from biomass which has demonstrated compliance with the Government’s sustainability criteria. We have strengthened the sustainability criteria for large-scale biomass generation by increasing the proportion of biomass that must be obtained from a sustainable source from 70% to 100%, excluding core material from primary forest and old growth areas, and by tightening greenhouse gas emission requirements in line with European best practice.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests, in particular as a forest developer and owner. According to the latest data, this country imports 73% of its forest products, despite having one of the best tree-growing climates globally, and yet we continue to miss the Government’s planting targets. What steps are the Government taking to accelerate the rate of tree planting in the UK to restore our natural environment, reduce our net carbon emissions and reduce that level of imports?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We absolutely agree that forests in the UK are part of our critical natural infrastructure. To complement the international efforts I have referred to, we are taking significant steps to protect and expand domestic forests. Key achievements include setting a legally binding target to increase tree cover to 16.5% of England’s land area by 2050. Tree planting in England is at the highest level on record in over 20 years. In 2024-25, the total area of tree canopy established, and the number of trees planted, was over 7,000 hectares, or over 10 million trees. We are also creating three new national forests. The first was announced in March, the Western Forest, which will see 20 million trees planted across the west of England in the coming years.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, how do the Government plan to address continuing concerns about UK-linked supply chains that drive deforestation? Unlike in the EU, these trades remain legal here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, as part of our approach to deforestation and trying to reduce our impact on a global level, supply chains are critical—working with supply chains to look at how we can manage that, and how deforestation is promoted by the way purchasing and procurement happens in this country. Supply chains are a critical part of that.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, scientists in Oxford are producing lab-grown beef and other meats. Do the Government have a view on this, and what assessment have they made in terms of climate change?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As part of the good food strategy and other ways to ensure that we have high standards of animal welfare and people eat healthy diets, we are also looking at what are called novel foods. But clearly, we have to ensure that they are properly produced and are a healthy alternative.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, while I greatly welcome the Minister’s wish to increase tree cover, what steps are being taken to make sure that this is done sensitively and that appropriate types of trees are planted, whether in forests or in urban areas, and not just any old trees, particularly in the light of climate change? One needs to see that the right sort of trees are planted.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks a very good question. It is terribly important that the right type of tree is planted in the right place. We know the impact that climate change is having on many of our native species, and we have to take a long-term view of that. There is no point in planting an awful lot of trees that are not going to survive the climate changes we are seeing. Getting the right trees planted in the right place is an absolute priority.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, given that the UK is the 15th largest contributor to tropical forest deforestation and that the Environment Act was passed in November 2021, can the Minister explain why there is such a delay in bringing in the Schedule 17 regulations? Is this an impact of lobbying from big business or from foreign countries?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

No, it is not an impact of either of those issues. We need to get this right, so we are looking at the best regulatory approach to address deforestation, including in the supply chains that the noble Baroness referred to. We also need to look at the compatibility and interoperability of the forest risk commodities approach, which is enshrined in Schedule 17 to the Environment Act and the EU deforestation regulation. The issue is that there are significant differences between them, with the EU approach introducing a strict zero-deforestation standard in customs controls, whereas the Environment Act addresses illegal deforestation but would not impose any import or export checks.

There is also uncertainty as to whether the EU is going to introduce further change to its regulation. The DBT is conducting an ongoing review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct, including within this context. We are actively working on this to get our final approach and decisions out as soon as we can.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to several amendments in this group concerning environmental delivery plans.

I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Lucas, both for introducing this group and for tabling Amendment 242B. This amendment seeks to ensure that the EDP process has time to bed in within uncontroversial areas, and that its further development is not rushed. As we have learned, EDPs are themselves controversial, so we are of course sympathetic to this amendment and to other noble Lords’ words on nutrient neutrality. Elsewhere, we have offered amendments that could immediately release 160,000 units of housing stock from Natural England advice, which is blocking those developments. Can EDPs deliver that? Can they release 160,000 units from this Natural England advice once the Act commences?

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for tabling Amendments 271 and 272. These seek to ensure that, when preparing an EDP, Natural England must have regard to all the plans listed in Clause 58(2)(a) to (c) rather than only those it considers to be relevant. These are serious points, and I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on them in response. In light of these amendments, are the Government minded to clarify how Natural England is to weigh these existing plans?

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for Amendment 344, which would require plan-making authorities to notify Natural England when they allocate potential sites for development where an EDP would be needed. This strikes me as a completely sound and practical amendment which would help to ensure co-ordination between local planning and Natural England’s role.

I turn briefly on my noble friend Lord Swire’s amendment, kindly introduced by my noble friend Lady Coffey. I have to say that I am impressed by my noble friend’s ingenuity in returning to one of his favourite topics. I am not convinced that Natural England has the bandwidth for the existing initiatives in the Bill without adding further burdens to them.

To conclude, we look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s own amendments in this group. They appear to be minor and technical, and we are grateful for the drafting corrections, particularly Amendment 346E. Clause 58 already sets out matters to which Natural England must have regard when preparing an EDP. This amendment would extend that duty to the amendment and revocation of EDPs by both Natural England and the Secretary of State. It would also add further matters to which they must have regard. It would be helpful to understand how these additional considerations are expected to operate in practice. We would welcome this clarification, and I hope the Minister can reassure the House that the Government’s approach will match the scale of the responsibilities being placed on Natural England.

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

My Lords, before I respond to the debate, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her comments. I also remind noble Lords that our civil servants across all departments work extremely hard. They bring valuable support to Ministers, and it really is not appropriate to question their intellectual ability during a debate.

As we set out in Committee on Monday, the Government remain firmly of the view that, when it comes to development in the environment, we can do better than the status quo, which too often sees both sustainable housebuilding and nature recovery stall. Instead of environmental protections being seen as barriers to growth, we are determined to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature, and that is why Part 3 is important.

Following the introduction of this Bill, we have taken seriously the concerns expressed by those who were not yet convinced that the provisions in Part 3 provided the necessary certainty that the nature restoration fund will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits that it offers. So, with a view to ensuring that everyone has confidence that the nature restoration fund delivers those improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model, we have continued to engage with expert stakeholders. Having done so, the Government have developed a comprehensive set of amendments for consideration. Taken together, we are confident that the package will provide reassurance that the nature restoration fund will restore, not harm, nature, while at the same time ensuring that housebuilders benefit from the same streamlined process to discharge their environmental obligations and get Britain building.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her reply to my amendment. Would she be prepared for me to open a discussion with her officials on the subject of my amendment? We need to do something to increase developers’ understanding of what it will be like under the new regime. If we are to get development going, we need to have the confidence generated.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course. To all noble Lords, I say that, between Committee and Report, my noble friend and I are very happy to sit down and discuss amendments or any concerns further with officials.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am grateful for that, but I am not surprised; that has been the way the noble Baroness has conducted herself through all her time as a Minister.

I wanted to go back to one of my earlier amendments on biodiversity data. Since she has her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, sitting next to her, might she have a conversation about unblocking the flow of biodiversity data generated in the course of planning permissions and getting that through to the local environment record centres, so that it is available to become part of the scientific information, which Natural England can draw on in making an EDP? Her department, or parts of it, and Natural England are active in this area. I would really like to know that this is an area where the Government are determined to make progress.

I am encouraged by the Minister’s nodding. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 285AA is about the way in which the Secretary of State approves EDPs. As currently drafted, the Bill says:

“The Secretary of State may make the EDP”—


that is, approve it—

“only if the Secretary of State considers that the EDP passes the overall improvement test”.

The “overall improvement test” is the key test of whether an EDP is sufficient and should go ahead but the Bill does not make it clear on what basis the Secretary of State will make his consideration. If I understand it correctly, the Secretary of State who will do this part of the process is the Secretary of State at MHCLG and not Defra, unless I have misunderstood what the Minister has just said.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I apologise. The noble Baroness had not misunderstood, but we have had further discussions and I clarified in the previous group that the Secretary of State referred to is the Secretary of State for Defra, unless there are good reasons for it to be otherwise.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her clarification. That is a bit of a relief, to be frank, because most MHCLG Secretaries of State are not appointed for their depth of ecological knowledge, nor indeed are the civil servants in that department.

However, that does not overcome the principal problem that the way it is drafted rather implies that it is based on the Secretary of State’s judgment and consideration, rather than the evidence. Existing environmental law is effective because it requires that, if an adverse effect on the integrity of an internationally important site cannot be avoided, then changes that would impact it would be consented to only where there are imperative reasons of “overriding public interest”. That is a technical term which is well-based in case law, and there is long-standing case law as to the evidence base required to demonstrate overriding public interest.

Clause 63 seems to make the new overall improvement test a much more subjective decision of the Secretary of State for Defra, in that it is about his or her consideration, and the test is passed solely on the basis of whether or not the Secretary of State considers that it is passed. Therefore, it is not a requirement in the Bill for the opinion to be underpinned by evidence. We understand that, frankly, it would be crazy for the Secretary of State to make some wild, unevidenced decision, but the way the Bill is currently framed means that the decision is unlikely to be legally challengeable if they did.

My amendment proposes deleting

“the Secretary of State considers that”,

which would remove the subjective element and, I hope, establish that the Secretary of State’s decision on the overall improvement test would be more about objectivity and evidence. It would give scope for the Secretary of State’s decision to be challenged in court if it is clearly flawed or runs contrary to the scientific evidence, whereas, at present, the drafting of the Bill places the Secretary of State’s judgment in primacy over the evidence.

I repeat that this is, thank goodness, going to be done by a Secretary of State who may have a sporting chance of knowing what they are talking about, but it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister as to the basis of the evidence on which the Secretary of State will make the decision about the overall improvement test in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 60.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall start by introducing my Amendment 346DF and, in the interests of brevity, will avoid detailed comments on the other amendments in the group.

My amendment is, by its nature, probing. It would require the Secretary of State to report on the potential benefits of removing distance from the biodiversity metric when measuring the biodiversity value of registered off-site biodiversity gain under paragraph 4 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This is important because the current system rightly places a heavy weighting on proximity. My amendment does not necessarily fit so well in this group, but there was no sense in having a separate group for just one focused amendment with a specific request. It simply poses the question to the Government: if proximity carries limited weight in designing EDPs, why should it continue to carry so much weight in the BNG market? This risks handicapping the private market for these services versus EDPs.

Currently, developers pay far less for BNG and nutrient neutrality units when further afield than when local, which translates to lower prices per unit and lower incentives for landowners to develop BNG units. We on these Benches remain convinced that the proximity of the offsetting actions’ location to where the damage is being done remains an important principle, which we will defend. However, if the Government were to insist that this is not the case in the EDPs, this amendment would seek to protect the ability of private developers of BNG units to compete. There is an argument, which holds weight, that if mitigation actions cannot be done locally, further afield may be acceptable. But in that case, it holds that the choice should be made based on guidance and availability, not price.

I turn to the arguments raised in this group of amendments, which we support. We are proud of the work done in the Environment Act 2021 to enshrine the mitigation hierarchy in law through biodiversity net gain. It has taken some time to implement but now works better every day. Developers are increasingly comfortable with it. Supply of BNG units is increasing, providing valuable income to landowners and funding for environmental NGOs. Given that, it is hard to understand where the problem is in planning that Part 3 is trying to fix. Perhaps most importantly, nature restoration is already happening at increasing scale around the country through the current system. Why undermine it? By not protecting the mitigation hierarchy within the application to the nature restoration fund and the design of EDPs, the Bill continues to represent a regression in environmental law in this country. It also undermines the competitiveness of BNG developers in providing solutions for housing and infrastructure developers.

In conclusion, the amendments we have discussed today reflect a common desire to protect the mitigation hierarchy and ensure it is embedded into all aspects of the NRF and EDPs. I hope the Minister will support this and offer encouragement.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate on the mitigation hierarchy. I have listened carefully and very much recognise the concerns that are being raised. These amendments seek to add provisions that require Natural England and the Secretary of State to apply the mitigation hierarchy when considering whether to produce an EDP, and in its production and implementation. By introducing a more strategic approach to addressing the impact of development, the Bill deliberately provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to Natural England to design conservation measures to deliver improved outcomes for the environmental features that are subject to an EDP. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when he introduced his amendment, noted that the NPPF includes consideration of the mitigation hierarchy in respect of individual planning applications. I was not going to mention it, but because he did, I thought I had to.

As we have set out, the NRF is a strategic model. While I want to reassure noble Lords that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model and is integral to the model we are trying to get across, it cannot be considered in the same way as an individual planning application. Again, I stress that the NPPF is a statutory model. You cannot just ignore it. It is part of the application process. So, we would expect Natural England to consider this throughout the process and use tools such as the ability to request planning conditions to avoid and reduce impact as key elements of an EDP. In preparing an EDP, Natural England will always be mindful of the benefits of avoiding impacts before they occur. Taking action locally which benefits the same protected feature that is being impacted by development will be the default under an EDP. This places a kind of ecological lock on the use of network measures, which can be used only in cases where it is clear that taking action elsewhere would be more beneficial to the environmental feature.

In addition, when making the EDP, the Secretary of State will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. This will ensure that important principles, such as the precautionary principle and the rectification at source principle, are considered. Ultimately, the overall improvement test will require that each EDP demonstrates how the conservation measures will secure an environmental uplift that goes beyond the offsetting that is achieved under the current system.

Returning to Amendment 245, as I said, the principles are already incorporated into the existing provisions and further reinforced by the amendments we have tabled. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Natural England can request that planning conditions be imposed on development, ensuring that impacts are minimised. As I have explained, network measures can be implemented only when doing so would lead to greater improvement. The noble Baroness asked for future information. Let us get together before Report; I will get that information for her and share it with noble Lords.

Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP, and the Secretary of State may make one only if it meets the overall improvement test. Therefore, the additional flexibility provided for by the nature restoration fund can be used only to deliver better outcomes for the environment.

I turn to Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who is not in her place. These amendments would require a developer to demonstrate that they have applied the mitigation hierarchy before Natural England can accept their request to use an EDP. The clear aim of the nature restoration fund is to deliver a win-win for both development and the environment. A fundamental element of delivering this is to reduce the amount of time and money spent on individual environmental assessments and refocus these efforts on strategic action to improve environmental outcomes at scale.

The EDP itself is required to consider the impact of relevant development on the environmental feature and propose appropriate measures to address and materially outweigh this impact. The plans will be underpinned by the best scientific evidence and will include actions to avoid impact, as well conservation measures to address and outweigh impact. As such, requiring developers to undertake individual assessments risks eroding the value of the EDP, adding costs to individual development, which we think would reduce the utility of relying on EDPs. Where an EDP is in place, the overall improvement test ensures that outcomes for the environment will be better than the existing system, so it is vital that we embrace the opportunity to streamline the process in order to deliver this win-win.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled Amendment 275, which seeks to require that Natural England may decide to prepare an EDP for a protected feature only if two conditions are met: first, that Natural England has followed the mitigation hierarchy; and secondly, that the EDP would contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale. I have just addressed the first condition, so I will focus on the second.

The existing provisions in the Bill already require the Secretary of State to consider whether the overall improvement test is met once a draft EDP has been prepared and presented. Requiring Natural England to consider that same test at an earlier stage would not be possible because neither the detail of the proposed conservation measures nor the environmental impact of the development it is intended to address would be known at that stage. We think that the correct point to apply the overall improvement test will be after the EDP is drafted, not before.

The amendment also proposes a modification to the overall improvement test to require that conservation measures significantly and measurably outweigh the environmental impact of development. This was addressed previously, so I will not repeat it here, except to say that the Bill requires that conservation measures must address the environmental impact of development and, additionally, contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status. We have clarified that with the amendments we have tabled.

Turning to Amendment 256ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government’s amendments to Part 3 make it clear that network measures may be taken forward only when Natural England can set out how the approach will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than an on-site measure. We are clear that the flexibilities will not come at the expense of action to avoid impact, and the Bill provides powers to address such actions and secure that they are taken through the use of planning conditions. There is also the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed conservation measures, including actions proposed to avoid impact, during the consultation on each EDP. The Secretary of State will also have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, and see that other important principles are considered.

Turning to Amendment 340, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the overall improvement test is central to the nature restoration fund. I have gone into some detail about how that is supposed to work, but the proposed requirement to apply the mitigation hierarchy rigidly would restrict an EDP’s ability to meet the overall improvement test strategically. As I said, an EDP cannot be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it will meet this test. Any flexibility in applying the mitigation hierarchy should be seen through this lens. The nature restoration fund does in limited circumstances allow Natural England to propose conservation measures which benefit the environmental feature in a different location.

Turning to irreplaceable habitats, the Bill does not amend or disapply the NPPF. Therefore, the existing policies remain unchanged. An EDP could be applied to an irreplaceable habitat only where it was also a feature of a protected site. Even then, an EDP could not allow for the loss of irreplaceable habitats, as it would simply not be possible to satisfy the overall improvements test in these circumstances. Finally, it is not clear what the proposed requirement to consider enhancing biodiversity would add, as the Bill is clear that an overall improvement must be achieved in relation to the protected feature to which the EDP relates.

Finally, on Amendment 346DF, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we have recently concluded a consultation on improving the implementation of BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development. Among the options is a proposal to streamline the BNG metric process. We might be interested to pick this up and discuss it further, because the Government are currently considering their response, and we will be publishing our outcomes in due course. New legislation requiring government to lay a report on this matter is therefore not necessary at this stage, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

This has been a really important debate. It has raised a number of issues which I am aware that noble Lords would like to discuss further, and this is something we should specifically pick up in discussions ahead of Report. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to that group, not least the Minister. I apologise for incorrectly prejudging what I thought she would say—I obviously got it completely wrong, and I apologise.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, got it right when he said that this group and the previous one are the nub of the problems with the EDP Part 3. I am not saying there are other things, but this goes to the heart of how we try and make the Bill a win-win for both development and nature. I do not want to dwell too long. I am grateful that the Minister said that we will come back to that. It is worth our coalescing and having another shot at it, if we may, but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

245A: Clause 55, page 92, line 7, at end insert—
“(3A) An EDP must set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of the conservation measures by reference to the development to which the EDP applies.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require Natural England to include in an EDP an indication of the sequencing of the conservation measures vis-a-vis the development.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this group has government and non-government amendments, so I will introduce the government amendments at this stage and then respond to further amendments at the end of the debate, once I have heard what people have to say.

The further government amendments speak directly to the matters raised by environmental groups and the Office for Environmental Protection, which, along with those in other groups, present a comprehensive package that addresses these issues, as well as picking up wider matters raised during parliamentary debates on how the nature restoration fund will operate.

Government Amendment 245A will require Natural England to set out the anticipated sequencing of conservation measures set against the development expected to come forward under the EDP. This amendment provides transparency as to when conservation measures are proposed to come forward, to address the impact of development. By including the proposed sequencing of conservation measures in the EDP, this will provide further assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development and will allow communities and developers to see how environmental benefits will be delivered over the EDP period.

Although back-up measures provide greater certainty of outcome, we also propose to reframe the duty on the Secretary of State to deliver remedial action in the unlikely event that the conservation measures and back-up conservation measures do not deliver as originally foreseen. Government Amendment 295A creates an explicit requirement for midpoint, endpoint and revocation reports to set out whether the EDP is still likely to pass, or has passed, the overall improvement test.

Should the endpoint report contain an assessment that the conservation measures are not likely to pass or have not passed the overall improvement test, the Secretary of State will be under a duty to take proportionate action to address any shortfall in environmental outcomes. These measures will need to be set out in a report containing a clear assessment of the effect the Secretary of State expects those actions to have. The Secretary of State will then also need to review the effect of these measures two years later.

These new reporting requirements will remove the need for Natural England to conduct an annual assessment of the effectiveness of all EDPs in force. That is further addressed by government Amendment 325 C. I hope that is informative for noble Lords and I look forward to responding to the rest of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I will speak very briefly in support of Amendment 293 on the annual report. Put simply, if the department is not required to produce an annual report, will it do so and, if not, how is Parliament to be made aware of progress or difficulties, unless, perhaps by chance, a Select Committee calls in Natural England to tell it?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for introducing their amendments and for the wider debate. I will speak first to Amendment 293, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. That requires Natural England to produce annual reports on EDPs rather than just at the mid- and endpoint of an EDP’s lifespan. We think that our Amendment 325C, on the new reporting requirements, partly speaks to this issue. Our concern is that Amendment 293 would bring a disproportionate burden, given the strengthened reporting requirements that we have introduced in government Amendment 295A.

The noble Lord asked whether we were happy with these levels of reporting. It is important that the frequency of reporting strikes the right balance. Natural England will still be carrying out appropriate monitoring throughout the EDP’s life cycle and will retain the power to publish a report at any time. Similarly, requiring EDPs to include an assessment of their impact on the local economy and community in the relevant area, as is proposed by the noble Lord’s Amendment 295, would add a significant burden to the reporting requirements for EDPs. Of course, communities will be involved during the consultation process; I wonder whether it might be an idea to circulate the consultation guidelines to noble Lords, because obviously the consultation process is an important part of what we are proposing.

On Amendment 285A, I hope I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that requiring a biodiversity survey of an EDP area is already accommodated in the existing drafting to an extent that such a survey is not necessary. I was pleased to hear about his love of birds. He may be interested to know that I am a member of the RSPB, so perhaps I could be described as a minor “birdo” alongside him. Clause 57 already requires an EDP to describe the conservation status of each identified environmental feature at the EDP start date, setting out the relevant baseline. In doing so, as is the case for all duties carried out in relation to Part 3, Natural England will be required to take account of the best available scientific evidence. It is also important to remember that these are targeted plans to address the impact of development on a specific environmental feature. Requiring a full survey of all the biodiversity in an EDP area risks adding cost and burden that go far beyond what is required to consider the impact of development on the environmental feature.

Amendment 258C, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, would add a series of additional requirements for Natural England when preparing an EDP. I know from discussions with my noble friend that she wishes to ensure that the NRF is as rigorous as possible while ensuring that it is an effective tool to support development to come forward. Specifically in respect of the supporting evidence base for EDPs and the consideration of the environmental principles, I assure my noble friend that these matters are already captured through the drafting and amplified by the Government’s amendments to Part 3.

My noble friend also asked about further evidence collection. Where it is necessary to gather additional ecological evidence to prepare and monitor an EDP, the associated costs may be recovered through developer contributions. Clause 57 already requires an EDP to set out why conservation measures are considered appropriate, and new Clause 87A(2) requires the Secretary of State and Natural England to take account of the best available scientific evidence when exercising functions in relation to EDPs. Clause 57 also requires an EDP to describe the conservation status of each identified environmental feature, again with regard to the best available scientific evidence. This means that there is already a requirement for Natural England to ensure that there is a solid base of scientific evidence, including adequate baseline data, to inform the preparation of the EDP. My noble friend asked why Natural England is required to have regard to environmental principles as it refers to Ministers. I reiterate that the Environment Act requires the Secretary of State to take them into account when making their decision to approve or make an EDP.

I recognise the desire to ensure that EDPs deliver as much for the environment as possible, but we must also ensure that we are not asking developers to address more than is reasonable or that we are allowing EDPs to replace the important wider programme of work which is under way to protect important sites and species as part of our ambitions in the overall environmental improvement plan. We have to get that balance right. We have to make sure that the environment supports development and at the same time does not stop important development where we need it.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked quite a lot of questions about the baseline and other things. It is probably helpful if I put my answers in writing to the noble Lord. I hope that with these explanations and assurances, noble Lords will not press their amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment 245A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

246A: Clause 55, page 92, line 9, leave out “, if Natural England considers it appropriate,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 55 inserting a new subsection (4A).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

247A: Clause 55, page 92, line 12, at end insert—
“(4A) But an EDP may include conservation measures of the type mentioned in subsection (4) only if Natural England considers that such measures would make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than measures that address the environmental impact of development on the feature at the protected site itself.”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment would be that network conservation measures can only be included in an EDP if Natural England considers that they will be more effective, in contributing to the improvement of the conservation status of the affected feature, than onsite measures.

Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 10 September.

Motion agreed.

Plastic Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the environment in the United Kingdom of the failure to reach agreement on a Global Plastics Treaty, and what immediate steps they are taking to tackle plastic pollution in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, the UK supports an ambitious treaty to end plastic pollution, and I am very disappointed that no agreement has been reached. Plastic pollution is an urgent issue, with amounts of plastic entering the ocean set to triple by 2040 compared with 2016. The Government therefore remain committed to reaching an agreement on global action. Domestically, we have taken significant steps towards a circular economy for plastics and will publish the circular economy strategy for England this autumn.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I take this opportunity to congratulate successive Governments on their efforts to reach agreement for a global plastic pollution treaty. What are this Government doing to reduce the use of plastics in the economy, mindful of the fact that the Government set up a Circular Economy Taskforce in March, one of the top five priorities of which was reducing the use of plastics? How often has the task force met and what progress has it made to reduce the use of plastics, so that we can at least control our own use in the absence of a global treaty?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are taking a number of steps domestically to tackle plastic pollution. First, we have banned the supply of single-use vapes which, when littered, can introduce plastic, among other substances, into the environment. We are also working with the devolved Governments to bring forward a ban across the UK on wet wipes that contain plastic. The collection of packaging reforms that we have brought in is the first step in the transition to the circular economy for all materials, including plastic. For example, the deposit return scheme includes plastic drinks containers. We have also extended producer responsibility for packaging, so that producers are incentivised to consider reducing the packaging that they use. Increasing the circularity of the plastic sector will reduce the need to produce virgin materials, which will reduce the plastic pollution associated with that. I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the number of times that the task force has met.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, beyond health deception, cigarette filters are the single most-littered item on the planet. They are an environmental disaster: they do not biodegrade but break down into microplastics, polluting our rivers and oceans. Banning them would remove the illusion of safety from filtered cigarettes, at the same time preventing hundreds of thousands of tonnes of plastic waste. If we can ban plastic straws, surely we can ban cigarette filters.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks an interesting question. According to Defra’s work, we know that cigarette butts are the most-littered item. People do not tend to notice them, because they are very small, but they cause enormous damage through pollution, particularly because of the chemicals that get into water systems. I congratulate Keep Britain Tidy, which has done an enormous amount of work on this and has brought it into public perception more that you should not just chuck cigarette butts away; they can cause huge damage. We are going to monitor this further, working with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy, but clearly the best thing is for people to give up smoking in the first place.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, what discussions have the Government had with retailers and manufacturers about stopping the use of plastic in chocolate selection boxes for Christmas? It will not be long before they are stacked up in supermarkets again, demonstrating the mountains of unnecessary single-use plastic being used.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We talk regularly to supermarkets and other retailers, plus organisations that actually package the goods in the first place. We need to reduce the amount of damaging packaging that goes into our environment because, as I have said before, recycling is great—we encourage it—but it is better if do not need it in the first place or if we can reduce the need for recycling. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: Christmas chocolate boxes are a good example of overpackaging, but Easter eggs are another. We need to work with the industry to reduce this packaging in the first place.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, when countries fail to reach a global agreement, often you find a coalition of the willing who will sign a plurilateral agreement and perhaps allow other countries to join later. Have the Government thought about signing a plurilateral treaty or agreement on the use of plastics, which other countries can join later?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Our ambition at the moment is to try to get the global treaty that we have been pressing for. We believe that the more countries that we can bring into that treaty, including those that produce the plastics and the materials for them, the more likely we are to have a larger global impact. But we are considering all options, because we need to move forward in this space.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the pros and cons of requiring road builders to replace some of the fossil fuel-based bitumen with plastic pellets?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

At the moment, I am not aware of Defra having had such conversations. It may be that the Department for Transport has, so I will go back to my department, ask for more information on this subject and write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, what efforts are the Government making to promote more switching to cost-effective, reusable or non-plastic, biodegradable packaging products to reduce the cost burden on industry and consumers of waste recycling and reduction?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The UK works very much with other authorities, the devolved Administrations and other countries on how we can do exactly that. As I said, it is all very well to recycle, but we need to reduce the amount of plastic in the first place because, even when things are recycled, that plastic is still in the system. So, we will continue with our efforts to do just that.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the failure of the negotiations was a great disappointment. Is it now the view of the Government that that is the end of the main story, that opposition is so entrenched that there is no serious prospect of progress on the main issue and that, therefore, we will have to have minor, lesser or subsidiary agreements between different parties?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are still working towards getting the treaty that we want. We think it will have the biggest impact, which is why we want to try to achieve that. The UK has played a leading role throughout the negotiations. We are a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution, and we want to continue with that high ambition. We have worked with other countries. We are supporting developing countries and are trying to bring other countries on board to gain the really big prize that we need.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, when the Minister was at the Dispatch Box answering Questions on plastics last week, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew attention to the extraordinarily high levels of plastics involved in home deliveries from supermarkets. The Minister said that they met regularly with supermarkets to discuss this matter. Can she please press the supermarkets far harder? You can stand at any supermarket vegetable section and see that the vast majority of vegetables and fruit are wrapped unnecessarily in plastics. There are weighing machines at every checkout and they should be the way to restrain the use of plastics by supermarkets.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm to the noble Lord that I have had exactly those sorts of conversations with some supermarkets. There are certain items that they say they need to wrap in plastic—cucumbers, for example. I am waiting to be convinced as to the need for everything to be wrapped, but I am happy to work with and listen to supermarkets. I was very frustrated the other week when I found a swede wrapped in plastic, which I thought was completely and utterly unnecessary.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as someone who campaigned on the need to reduce the use of plastics, I was devastated by the collapse of the treaty negotiations. When does the Minister think they will start again? What are the milestones for that? How can we get this international action finished? That is what is necessary, because this is a pollution problem right around the world.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her support and for continuing to press for this. As she said, it is the thing that will make the biggest difference. As she is aware, the session was adjourned. It was agreed that it would reconvene, but the place and time are yet to be confirmed.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s approach of seeking international agreement. There seems to me no point in us pursuing something on our own and showing leadership if no one is following.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that comment. If we are genuinely to make real progress in reducing the amount of plastic pollution, including the tiny microplastics that we are finding everywhere, we have to work globally and with countries such as Saudi Arabia that we need to bring on board if we are to make a real difference.

Global Plastic Pollution Treaty

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they are supporting progress on the global plastic pollution treaty.

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

My Lords, the UK is a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to End Plastic Pollution and a strong proponent for an ambitious global treaty. At the negotiations in August, the UK worked closely with our partners to push for strong global measures, effective measures of implementation and the ability for the treaty to develop over time. We are therefore very disappointed that no agreement was reached, but the UK remains committed to reaching an agreement when negotiations resume.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. As she says, in light of the rejection of any limits on plastic production by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and the United States at the recent intergovernmental negotiating committee, will the Government, along with other high-ambition countries, consider moving from the current consensus decision-making process to one on a voting basis at the intergovernmental negotiating committee to accelerate progress? Finally, given that the UK itself has one of the highest plastic waste levels per person globally, including UK households throwing away 60 items per week, when will the Government bring forward their promised regulations to restrict the export of plastic waste from the UK?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the first part of the question, the INC has been adjourned; it will be resumed at a later date, at a time to be agreed. We remain steadfast in our commitment. We think that it is important to work with all countries if we are to make the kind of progress that we need in order to make a real difference. So, although no agreement was reached in Geneva, and neither of the two treaty texts put forward by the chair was accepted as a starting point, progress was made on other areas of the treaty. It is important to point out that this was not a complete waste of time. For example, the work the UK co-led with Chile and Panama to progress articles on product design and releases of plastic production in the environment resulted in a much better understanding of country positions and progress towards a landing zone. So we will keep all options under review, but we will continue to work towards a treaty that has broad support, because we want to have absolute maximum impact. Regarding the domestic policy that my noble friend mentioned, we are very keen to work and drive towards a more circular economy. We want to recycle more plastic waste, and we also need to ensure that it is recycled in the most effective and appropriate manner. So all these things are being considered under our circular economy policy.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, given the collapse of the talks in August, does the Minister agree that a global agreement will not be reached if the petrochemical lobbyists continue to outnumber the independent scientists at the talks? What threshold of plastics needs to be found in human brains and reproductive systems for the oil-rich nations to treat this as an emergency and get everyone back to the table?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness’s last point was the main point—getting everybody back to the table. If we are to make a real difference globally, we need those countries with us to appreciate that the production method of plastic has to be part of where we move forward regarding plastic in the future. You cannot solve these issues on their own; it is a global issue. I know that it is incredibly frustrating that we feel that we have stalled. As I said, we have made some progress—we are getting to a better understanding of where other countries are coming from—and we will continue to try to make the further progress that we so badly need.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

It was reported last month that the sale of single-use plastic bags in this country jumped from 407 million items to 437 million in one year, a 7% increase. This was largely driven by online shopping, and particularly by the online supermarket Ocado, which accounts for about half of the single-use plastic bags sold. Although Ocado claims that most of its bags are recycled, we know that in the waste hierarchy, avoidance of use comes above recycling, and other supermarkets, such as Waitrose, provide online deliveries without plastic bags. Could the Government engage in conversations with our major supermarkets to encourage them not to use single-use plastic bags for food delivery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. We have to continue to reduce our own plastic use in this country. Whereas recycling is important, if you do not have to use it in the first place, that is clearly an even better way to behave. We talk to supermarkets on all sorts of issues, and the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is something that we need to discuss and tackle with them. Consumers are expected to change their behaviour, but it is also important that retailers—and that includes online retailers—ensure that their behaviour is not adding to the plastic pollution problem.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, as so often, I agree entirely with the Minister on this matter—I know it is strange, but it is true. While we all deplore plastic waste—it is horrid, and I think that getting rid of plastic bags in general is fantastic—could she also reaffirm the enormous benefits that plastic brings in everything? We are carrying it now in our telephones and other things. It is really important that we do not throw plastics out with plastic waste.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The important thing is to make sure that we look at the pollution that plastic causes and the types of plastic that are most polluting. That is fundamentally what the debate is about.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Because of the importance of this subject, and notwithstanding the key blockers, is there a case for considering a mini-treaty of the coalition of the willing?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are keeping all options on the table. Our priority at the moment is to try to move forward with all the countries, because that is what will make the biggest difference globally, but we will consider all options.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

First, let us put on the record that under the last Government and this one, the UK negotiating team was regarded as one of the best in the world on this subject. Do the Government agree that recycling alone will not solve the problem of the planned massive plastic production we will see over the next 30 years, and will the Government rule out unilateral UK action on production, which would damage our own industry? However, recognising that the oil-producing countries will never agree to a unanimous UN treaty, will the Government now take the lead with the 70 countries in the high-ambition coalition—a group that, as the Minister said, we founded—and the 130 countries which want to cut plastic usage, to agree a new treaty on reduction, use and the most dangerous chemicals used, and thus avoid the obstruction of the oil-producing countries? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, stole my ending line: I was going to say, let us have a coalition of the willing, bypassing the cabal of the blockers.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are looking at all options, but we want to have a treaty that is going to make the biggest difference. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we have a fantastic negotiating team. We have made progress and we want to continue to make progress. It is very frustrating that production is becoming a blocker to agreeing a treaty, but if you take production out, you do not get the end result that is most beneficial. We want to continue working forward, but we will consider all options.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

In some ways we have let the horse out of the stable, in that we are flooded with microplastics ourselves. It is in breast milk, it is in placentas, and it is causing extraordinary newly discovered health problems—two of which, specifically, I would like to highlight. One is about crop production, in which people are reckoning that within the next decade, the yields from common crops will be up to 25% less because of the microplastics going through our water system. My question is: what are the Government doing on that? The other really big problem is that cheap school uniforms are made of polyester, which goes into kids’ bloodstreams. The European Union is moving forward very fast to try to ban that, at least in children’s uniforms. I ask those two questions of the Government about what they are doing about the problems we are already in and cannot immediately get out of because these are forever chemicals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: microplastics and forever chemicals are of increasing concern. One thing we pushed for in the treaty was the inclusion of microplastics to reduce and prevent microplastic pollution from all different sources. One thing we did at INC-5.2, working with Chile, was to put forward a proposal on plastic product design. The criteria for that design were aimed at reducing microplastics that are generated through wear and tear. We know that that is one of the real issues. It is something that we are taking very seriously.

Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Free-Range Poultrymeat Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2025.

[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 1 July 2025.

Today is Back British Farming Day, and this instrument seeks to do just that: back our free-range poultry meat producers. This instrument has been laid to amend existing legislation governing poultry meat marketing standards to enable free-range poultry meat to be marketed as such for the duration of mandatory housing measures introduced during outbreaks of disease, such as avian influenza, which restrict the access of birds to open-air runs. All other criteria upon which the “free range” marketing term relies, such as stocking density, age at slaughter, feed formula and poultry house pop-holes, must continue to be met.

Outbreaks of avian influenza usually occur during the winter months, as was the case in 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2024-25, resulting in the introduction of mandatory housing measures for poultry that, in all cases, lasted longer than the 12-week labelling derogation period. This was for an additional 10 weeks in 2021-22, 11 weeks in 2022-23 and, most recently, eight weeks in 2024-25. So it will be important for the industry that this statutory instrument is in place for the upcoming winter period and beyond, in the event that we experience another avian influenza outbreak.

Currently, when free-range birds are placed under mandatory housing measures due to outbreaks of disease such as avian influenza, the poultry meat marketing standards regulations allow poultry meat to continue to be labelled as “free range” for a maximum period of 12 weeks, known as the 12-week derogation period. After this, poultry meat from those birds has to be marketed as indoor reared.

In 2024, Defra held a joint consultation on these proposed changes together with the Scottish Government. Some 79% of respondents supported the removal of the derogation. A separate consultation was conducted by the Welsh Government. The European Commission also consulted on plans to remove the 12-week derogation period from its legislation. In line with the Windsor Framework, any changes to EU legislation will also apply to Northern Ireland, when introduced.

When a mandatory housing measure is imposed on poultry producers, this is to safeguard the welfare of the birds, which must be our primary concern. However, we also recognise that the current requirement for poultry meat producers and processors to re-label free-range poultry meat once the derogation period is exceeded represents a financial burden on producers. This is primarily related to the higher operating costs that continue to be incurred to maintain their free-range system, with the additional cost of having to ensure that birds are temporarily housed indoors. This is also combined with the loss of income from the premium price that free-range products attract.

This statutory instrument will remove the 12-week derogation period so that free-range poultry meat producers and processors can market poultry meat as free range for the duration of a mandatory housing measure, however long that may last. With the European Union introducing a similar change to its legislation, the introduction of this statutory instrument will enable English free-range producers and processors to continue to operate on a level playing field commercially with producers in the European Union and Northern Ireland. As broiler chickens are generally slaughtered before reaching 12 weeks of age, the removal of this derogation will apply primarily to higher-value free-range birds with longer production cycles, such as turkeys, ducks and geese.

We are working closely with devolved Governments to align the introduction of the planned changes. A statutory instrument was laid in the Scottish Parliament on 3 September 2025 to amend its domestic regulations in relation to the removal of the 12-week derogation period. We anticipate that the Welsh Government will make an announcement shortly regarding the removal of the 12-week derogation period within their legislation.

The change to be introduced by this statutory instrument will safeguard our Great British poultry meat industry by reducing costs, continuing to ensure it is competitive against imports and by protecting the value of its products without compromising the high welfare and food safety standards expected by UK consumers and our trading partners. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, this is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day—a moment to celebrate our farmers and the vital contribution they make to our economy, countryside and food security. I thank the Minister for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important statutory instrument with significant implications for producers and consumers who value high food standards.

We welcome this proposal, which, after consultation, seeks to resolve a persistent challenge balancing disease protection with honest and transparent labelling. This amendment rightly removes the 12-week limit for how long poultry can be kept indoors under mandatory housing measures while retaining the free-range label. The change, as I understand it, has the greatest effect on turkey, duck and goose producers, as chickens are generally slaughtered before the time limit expires.

On this day dedicated to British farming, it is fitting to recognise the immense pressures faced by our producers, especially after the impacts of avian influenza, and the need for legislation that is fair and practical. Mass culls, supply-chain issues and uncertainty have taken their toll on our rural communities, and that is why the priority must be a regulatory system that protects producers from circumstances that are often beyond their control, without undermining their hard-won reputations, of which so many of our UK food producers can be rightly proud.

The Liberal Democrats have consistently championed high animal welfare standards. When in government, we introduced the all-out ban on caged hens. Consumers expect clarity and integrity in their food labelling, and the free-range label stands for quality, welfare and trust, and it is important that those values must not be diluted or diminished.

Support for producers should never mean weaker animal welfare or compromised consumer trust, so I urge the Minister to confirm, or respond with reassurances, that the statutory instrument will not do any of the following. First, will she confirm that it will not exclude British free-range eggs or poultry from EU markets due to regulatory divergence, risking essential exports? After the trading challenges of bad post-Brexit deals, this is a pressure that our farming communities cannot continue to bear. Secondly, will she confirm that it will not dilute the high welfare expectations associated with the “free range” label, which our producers and customers depend on?

Finally, will the Minister confirm that the statutory instrument will not lead to confusion or reduce confidence in what “free range” genuinely means—I note the examples from the polling that the Minister used in her introductory remarks—for so many of our consumers who today wish, in increasing numbers, to make ethical choices? Meeting public expectations and reflecting farm realities requires transparency. The reputation of “free range” must remain as a guarantee of higher welfare, not merely a technicality. Also, how will the Government audit compliance, ensure that labelling reflects actual living standards and work with producers and consumer groups to uphold these robust standards?

We support these regulations; we are looking at the small print, but we are very much in support of this statutory instrument when it comes to providing detailed reassurances on animal welfare and consumer confidence. On Back British Farming Day, we stand with our farmers while demanding the highest standards for animals, rural communities and our food security system. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

With those few remarks, I repeat again that we totally support this SI, and we look forward to a happy Christmas with some good turkeys, ducks and geese for consumption—properly labelled, of course.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I know it has not been a very long debate, but I thank noble Lords for their support, because this is an important instrument.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked whether or not animal welfare would be diluted by it. The answer is: absolutely not. Animal welfare legislation continues to apply even though the birds are being housed. Keepers are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their birds, but we have good legislation in this country to ensure high animal welfare standards. Guidance for all bird-keepers on biosecurity and preventing welfare impacts on poultry has been published by Defra and is available on the avian influenza pages on the Government’s website.

On the free-range criteria, the criteria on which designation of the “free range” special marketing term is granted are outlined in Article 11 and Annexe V of the poultry meat market standards regulations. In summary, for poultry to be regarded as “free range”, the stocking rate in the house and the age at slaughter have to follow detailed requirements. To take chickens for example, the stocking rate per square metre of floor space must not exceed 15 birds and a live weight of 25 kilograms or less, and the age of slaughter must be 56 days or later. Continuous daytime access must also be provided to open-air runs that are covered by certain amounts of vegetation—for example, 4 square metres per turkey or goose. During mandatory housing measures, access to the open-air runs only will be restricted; all the other free-range criteria will continue to apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about enforcement. Animal and Plant Health Agency inspectors conduct risk-based and random checks on free-range poultry producers. Local authorities also conduct checks at retail level. These inspections will ensure that only free-range poultry meat is labelled as free range during mandatory housing measures. Previously, retailers have put up clear signage to explain the conditions that are being met under the new arrangements.

Regarding consumer information and consumer confidence, we issue national, local and trade press releases to make sure that the latest information is communicated through the media. We also post the latest advice, key messages and situational updates on both the Defra and APHA social media channels. Working with different industry groups, the information is then distributed through those industry group members. In addition, you can also subscribe to APHA’s free animal disease alert service for any latest information on situations in Great Britain.

On the EU, there should not be a problem. As I mentioned in my introductory speech, the EU has confirmed that it is also intending to proceed with the removal of the 12-week derogation. Once Scotland and Wales have also come into line, because Northern Ireland is impacted by EU legislation, that should mean that we are all on the same page, which would be very helpful for trade.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the avian influenza aspect and the impact on birds. I am sure he is aware that the housing measures are brought in to reduce the risk that poultry and captive birds will come into contact with wild birds, because avian influenza is often passed on through wild bird populations. It is also not just about the bird itself but the wild bird faeces as well, which can also transmit the disease. Then, even when the birds are housed there is also a risk of infection, so this must be coupled with good biosecurity.

We do not want to see birds slaughtered so we are working with producers, the NFU and others on the importance of biosecurity. Good biosecurity—disinfecting clothing and equipment after use, repairing building defects such as holes in the roof, which unfortunately is often one way that wild birds can get in, and keeping good records, and so on and so forth—is one way that producers can reduce the impact. Obviously, we do not want to slaughter birds. I think we have a better understanding of avian influenza now than we did a few years ago; it is not going to go away.

It is also worth noting that, although the vaccination of poultry and captive birds against avian influenza is not currently permitted, and currently it is unlikely to provide full protection because of the kind of strains that we have at the moment, we are still looking at this issue. We are not there yet. We know that vaccination can help reduce mortality, but we are also concerned that despite that, they could still transmit the disease to other birds. So we are looking at that. There is more work happening on the longer-term view on tackling avian influenza but currently we are not there. Coming back to consumers and trading, we also know that some of our trading partners will not accept vaccination at present.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their support of the need for this instrument. As I outlined in my opening speech, the introduction of the mandatory housing measure is to protect the welfare of our poultry. Removing the derogation will support industry by reducing those financial pressures and will get a level playing field with trading partners, including the European Union, as they also move in the same direction. We have to do our part to support our poultry industry. I think I have answered all the questions, but I will check Hansard just to make sure. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 June be approved.

Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 September.

Motion agreed.

Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important Bill in the other place and for taking it through so eloquently. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for assuming responsibility for the Bill in this House, and I recognise her long commitment on this issue. I am delighted to speak and to confirm government support for the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and support. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, for his eloquent maiden speech. I look forward to his further contributions and welcome him warmly to our House.

As we have heard, dog ownership and the number of livestock kept in the UK have drastically increased since the passing of the 1953 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the survey that had been carried out by the National Sheep Association on the number of dog attacks now experienced by farmers—with 87% of them having experienced attacks in the last 12 months and 96% saying they experience between one and 10 cases of sheep worrying every year. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, spoke about a particularly harrowing attack, which demonstrates why the Bill is so needed.

To speak personally, a few years ago, our neighbour had some sheep on our top field. Unfortunately, there was a dog attack there. Luckily, no sheep died, but it is still horrendous when it happens. Unless you have seen it, it is difficult to truly imagine the damage and stress. The scale of these attacks is really concerning now, which is why the Government are so strongly supporting the Bill. We need urgent measures to protect our farmers and their animals.

We have heard about the devastating consequences—injury or death of animals, aborted lambs and flocks of birds being smothered—all of which are appalling to the farmers who own the livestock. The National Sheep Association’s survey showed clearly the concerns that farmers have raised. It also agreed that there is a need for additional police powers. We must go further to protect our agricultural sector from this, which is why we so strongly support the Bill.

Livestock worrying does not have just an emotional impact; it also places a large financial strain on farmers. A 2025 survey carried out by the National Farmers’ Union found that the total cost of livestock worrying across the UK reached £1.8 million. In England, the Midlands was the worst hit region in terms of cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £452,000. This clearly shows how detrimental it can be for farmers’ livelihoods.

The Bill will address farmers’ concerns by strengthening police powers. These include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Under current legislation, the police can seize a dog found and suspected to have attacked or worried livestock only for the purposes of identifying the owner. Under the Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk that a dog could attack or worry livestock again, they will have the power to seize and detain it. The dog can then be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought forward for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. Additionally, the police can currently enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog. The police powers will be extended to allow the police to enter and search premises with a warrant to seize a dog and take samples if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.

The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and dental impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that the sample or impression might provide evidence of the offence. These powers give the police the tools they need to bring offenders to justice and will help ease the worry that many farmers feel when it comes to dog attacks on their livestock.

To better deter livestock worrying offences, the Bill will also increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. This measure reflects the severe consequences that these incidents have for livestock and their keepers and the significant resources required by the police to investigate.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about guidance on these penalties. The courts will determine the appropriate fine amount, and that will take account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The level of the fine will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive. There were further questions around enforcement that I will come to in a moment.

Furthermore, the Bill will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly farmed. The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Reframing the legislation so that the term “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.

I come to the questions around enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about that, and I absolutely understand concerns around enforcement. As I said, there is no point in legislation if you do not enforce it. As the noble Lord so clearly demonstrated, it has not been working effectively enough—another reason for bringing in the Bill. It improves enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying and attacks much more effectively. It should help the police take each report more seriously. We have engaged with the police on the measures in the Bill, and we know that the police are very keen for it to go through and get on to the statute.

Most livestock worrying incidents are resolved out of court through the community resolution process, and this usually includes compensation paid by the offender to the livestock owner. There is also a separate regime for farmers to obtain compensation. Section 3 of the Animals Act 1971 provides that anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage by killing or injuring livestock may be liable for that damage. Farmers can also obtain and claim on their insurance in relation to losses incurred because of livestock worrying incidents. When cases are taken through the courts, as I said, the courts will determine the appropriate fine, taking into account the seriousness of the offence.

On the number of people prosecuted, the average number of livestock worrying prosecutions every year is 23. This is based on figures provided by the Ministry of Justice on the number of prosecutions from 2022 to 2024. The average number of people convicted and subsequently sentenced per annum is 20. That is based on the same figures from the MoJ. Because of the measures in the Bill, we would expect the number of prosecutions each year to increase.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also asked about enforcement. Just looking at the police recovering costs from seizing and detaining dogs, one issue is whether it will be expensive to enforce, and how that will affect the ability of the police. The Bill will make it easier for the police to reclaim any costs. Any dogs found without an owner or person in charge can be seized by the police and can be detained until the owner has claimed it back and paid all expenses incurred as a result of the seizure and detention. The police also have the power to dispose of or destroy a dog where the owner fails to pay these expenses within seven days of seizure. If the dog is seized and detained due to posing a continuing threat to livestock, the costs incurred can be recoverable if the owner is subsequently convicted. The Bill will enable the courts to make an order requiring the owner to pay whatever sum the court determines reasonable for the costs associated with the seizure and detention of the dog. The magistrates’ courts will also have powers to enforce these orders. The Government take this very seriously; we do not want extra costs on the police.

There was also a question about microchipping—it might have been from the noble Lord, Lord Trees. At the moment, 23 databases, operating independently of Defra, provide microchip data. If you include the dog’s microchip number in any evidence, that constitutes the processing of personal data and would give rise to a number of data protection issues, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions require the register to be made publicly available.

The Bill requires the police to keep a register of all dogs seized in the area, which must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure, and whether the dog was disposed of and how. That register must be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public, free of charge.

It has also been mentioned that this is an issue of responsible dog ownership, and I confirm to noble Lords that we have brought back the responsible dog ownership task force. We have asked it to do work in a number of areas, because it is important that people understand their responsibilities when they are owners of pets. For example, it is very frustrating when people say, “Look, Fido only wants to play”. There is a complete misunderstanding of the importance of keeping your dog under control in areas where there are livestock. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned the importance of socialisation, which, again, is incredibly important. Many dogs were left without this following Covid, so, again, it is an important part of educating owners on how best to look after their dogs.

Just to finish, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked a couple of questions. On petting zoos, it will be for the courts to decide whether a petting farm is agricultural land, based on the facts of each case as it goes to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Would it make sense, when the regulations come forward, to embrace all commercially produced animals in the definition, for the avoidance of doubt?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am happy to take these issues away. At the moment, it covers grazing land. The definition of grazing land is something, again, that the courts can look at. Perhaps we can consider those definitions further. On the noble Baroness’s final point, that the legislation will lapse in 2034, I would just like to confirm that it is not going to lapse in 2034.

I am confident that it has been recognised here today that the Bill is really necessary to protect our farmers and our livestock. I thank all noble Lords for their time and valuable contributions. The robust measures that this introduces are long overdue. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on continuing to pursue this issue. We must pass the Bill without delay to support our dedicated farmers who have long been calling for these measures.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers, as others have, for introducing this important Bill in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring it in this House. I know as well as everyone here that the noble Lord is a great advocate for animal welfare, and he has followed discussions on the Bill very closely.

The UK is a world leader in animal welfare and has a long history of promoting high animal welfare standards. Many across the House will agree that pets are important members of the family. The noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned my lovely cat, Sid. I also have a now rather elderly chocolate Labrador called Max. They are very important members of our household.

The Government take the issue of puppy smuggling and low-welfare imports of pets seriously. That is why we committed in our manifesto to bringing an end to this cruel trade, which causes unnecessary suffering to animals, in the pursuit of profit. This is a popular and important policy right across the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the organisations that support and have been pressing for this legislation over a number of years.

As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined, the importance of this legislation is that it looks to stop, for example, the exploitation of loopholes in our pet travel rules by unscrupulous traders. Crucially, the Bill reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that are permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement under the pet travel rules. That limit, as we have heard, will change from five pets per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. This means that non-compliant traders will not be able to evade the more stringent measures that apply to commercial imports by claiming that that the vehicles full of puppies are carrying their pets.

To clarify, and to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, where the purpose of a movement of a pet relates to the sale or transfer of ownership of the animal, the commercial importation rules should be used. But I am aware that some people, and many in the House today, have called for the measures to go a step further to reduce the limit to three per vehicle. We looked at this very carefully and had long discussions with Danny Chambers MP about it. One of the reasons for that decision was to not create unintended consequences for assistance dog users. There were concerns that that could negatively impact on their travel. But I can confirm for the noble Baroness that the Bill does give us the power to reduce the limit further, should there be evidence that the pet travel rules continue to be abused, and we will be keeping a very close eye on that.

The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet into Great Britain is explicitly linked to the movement of its owner. The amendments made by the Bill require that, in order to move under the pet travel rules, the pet and the owner will have to travel within five days of each other.

I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Black, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, about the disease brucella canis. I can clarify that we take biosecurity very seriously. Disease risk is monitored carefully and kept under constant review. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce, where necessary, preventive health measures to control diseases that are likely to be spread due to the movement of pet animals into Great Britain.

I now turn to some of the exemptions that were discussed. Crucially, the measures will make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to abuse the non-commercial pet travel rules. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned in his introduction, to ensure that the new measures do not disproportionately affect protected groups such as assistance dog users, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill will give the appropriate authority discretion to effectively exempt owners from these measures if needed. I want to reassure the House that these measures—this discretion—will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and the process for exercising the discretion will be tightly controlled to prevent misuse.

We do not want this to become a back door for illicit activity or to undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve. By incorporating this discretion, the Bill offers the flexibility needed to support responsible pet owners who could be affected by unforeseen events— something they did not know about in advance, such as a medical emergency or natural disaster that would affect travel plans—and provides reassurance to individuals relying on assistance dogs. As I said, we have the option to review the Bill going forward to make sure that no one is negatively impacted, particularly if we see that it is being abused. But every case will have to be judged on its individual merits. We will work in partnership with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop a clear and robust framework for the handling of exemption requests, ensuring that the discretion is exercised only when truly justified.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Sanderson, asked about exemptions to the prohibitions and restrictions that will be introduced within the Bill’s enabling powers. The main enabling powers allow exemptions to come through secondary legislation. We are going to continue to engage with stakeholders as the regulations are developed to make sure that we know that the introduction of exemptions is appropriate.

I am aware of the emails about the rescue and rehoming concerns about mutilated animals still being able to be brought in from abroad. We need to ensure that any pets that come into Great Britain for rescue or rehoming are moved in compliance with the stringent commercial import regime. We have to protect the biosecurity of our country and animal welfare during transport, and we know that bringing a dog from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We recommend that any prospective owners ensure testing for diseases, including Brucella canis, and that that is carried out before movement takes place. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce extra measures, as I said. The main thing is that any changes that we might make in future to the Bill do not open up loopholes. We do not want loopholes that undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve.

On the regulation-making powers in the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, rightly highlighted that the Government will first use these powers to raise the minimum age at which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain to six months. We will also restrict the movement of heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain.

I confirm to my noble friend Lord Grantchester that ear-cropping legislation applies to both commercial and non-commercial movements. In the other place, there was clear and vocal support at Third Reading to close the loophole that allows individuals to claim that mutilated dogs have been imported when in fact the animals have been illegally subjected to cruel procedures here. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly raised the fact that he can buy dog ear-cropping kits in this country on online, which is really shocking. To reassure him, it is an offence in England and Wales under the Animal Welfare Act to carry out a non-exempted mutilation, including the use of DIY cropping kits. Anyone convicted of illegally cropping a dog’s ear may be imprisoned for a term of up to five years, receive an unlimited fine or both. Those convicted of an offence may also be disqualified from owning or keeping animals. At the moment, the Government are focusing our efforts on delivering the crucial measures in this Bill, but doing so will also help us to do more to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and make it easier for us to police the existing offence in England and Wales, as future offenders will be unable to claim that the mutilation was undertaken abroad.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, asked about limiting the movement of pregnant dogs after 42 days’ gestation. The reason for this is that physical signs of pregnancy can be seen from 42 days’ gestation. These signs can be used during identity and visual checks at the border accurately to identify pregnant dogs and cats in the limit. That is why we cannot enforce a total ban on importing pregnant dogs. I spoke to enforcement officers about this, and they felt that this is the right approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about people who deliberately breed dogs with genetic defects, which is just appalling. We are considering a range of evidence, including the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on canine breeding and the findings from our post-implementation review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations. Under the LAIA regulations, anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs or who breeds three or more litters in a 12-month period must have a valid licence from their local authority. Licensed dog breeders are prohibited from breeding dogs if it can reasonably be expected on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health that this would lead to welfare problems for the mother or the puppies. Elsewhere, we support the work of the UK Brachycephalic Working Group, which works towards a world where no dog experiences health-related welfare problems as a result of being selectively bred. We also support the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, whose work helps online sales platforms to identify and remove illegal and unethical adverts, and we will continue to do further work on this.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding the exemptions to these prohibitions. Delivering these measures via secondary legislation allows us to gather further evidence and discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. It is important that any new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively without any unintended consequences. Any exemptions have to be appropriate. The department has already started discussions with the Kennel Club and Assistance Dogs International because, if there are going to be exemptions, we need to have proper information and evidence that they are the right way to go forward. As I said before, if anything is brought in as an exemption, we have to be confident that it is not going to create an unacceptable loophole.

The eagle-eyed will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial measures. This is because very low volumes of ferrets are brought into Great Britain. Unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in or low-welfare movement of ferrets at this time. However, if that changes, we will be able to continue to protect ferrets’ welfare in the future.

A number of noble Lords asked about enforcement. Any new legislation is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Therefore, we are working closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the guidance and tools to enforce these measures effectively. The Bill also introduces new powers to make regulations to provide authorities with additional enforcement powers when they are presented with a non-compliant pet.

I shall answer a few specific questions. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are going to be responsible for enforcing any new pet travel and commercial import requirements, and the Bill will make regulations to give them a clear process to do so. We anticipate limited additional impact on enforcement authorities, but we will continue to work with them to assess funding and resource impacts. In fact, much of what is in this Bill will make their job more straightforward with better outcomes.

We are looking at how to develop guidance so that enforcement bodies have the correct tools they need to deliver these measures. There are powers in the Bill to introduce measures to support and strengthen the current enforcement mechanisms. For example, this could be in relation to the detention and seizure of non-compliant dogs and cats and the costs associated with that seizure and detention, the rehoming of abandoned animals and any financial penalties. In response to my noble friend Lord Grantchester, I should say that the Bill creates the power to make regulations about detention and seizure because they are necessary to ensure that we get effective enforcement. As I said, what is the point if we if we do not have effective enforcement? Delivering those measures through secondary legislation means that we can develop those proposals with the enforcement bodies to make sure they are effective, efficient and proportionate.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about Northern Ireland. EU regulations relevant to pet travel apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Windsor Framework, as the noble Lord said. Therefore, the changes that the Bill makes to the maximum number of permitted single non-commercial consignments do not apply to Northern Ireland. The enabling powers in the Bill allow DAERA to introduce regulations restricting the bringing into Northern Ireland of dogs, cats and ferrets on welfare grounds, as appropriate. Officials and enforcement agencies across all four nations will continue to work together closely to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and safeguard the welfare of animals. That should make a difference, particularly as DAERA is currently consulting on some proposals. If those proposals are implemented, it would mean that anyone who sells puppies would need to be registered with their local council and registered individuals would not be able to sell, give away or otherwise transfer the ownership of the puppies that are unweaned, weaned at an age when they should not have been weaned or aged under eight weeks old. This, paired with the fact that third-party sales and sales below eight weeks of age are already banned across the rest of GB means that the issue can be tackled by separate legislation.

Having talked about Northern Ireland, I will say a few words on territorial consent. We have had legislative consent from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We are continuing to engage with the Welsh Government as their legislative consent process continues to progress. They do support the Bill; it is just a matter of it going through their parliament.

Changes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme, including the revised cap on the maximum number that may enter GB in a single non-commercial movement, and the requirement that the journey should take place within five days of the owners’ travels will apply in England, Wales and Scotland—I confirm that. The regulatory powers will extend across all four nations of the United Kingdom, although the duty to enact the three prohibitions the first time the power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply to domestic travel; this is really important. The Bill does not apply to the domestic travel of dogs, cats and ferrets, including movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those journeys will not be affected by this legislation.

As I said at the beginning, we made a manifesto commitment to put an end to the cruel puppy-smuggling trade. I am delighted that the Government are supporting this Bill so that we can get to work on this. I have backed previously failed versions of this legislation, so I am delighted to be here representing the Government supporting a Bill that we expect to get onto the statute book. Regarding timings, we are serious about this as it was a manifesto commitment, so we will bring in the measures needed as soon as is practically possible. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for taking this important Bill through the House today and I look forward to us all working together as the Bill progresses.

Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 30th 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 19 June 2025. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 4 July in relation to the draft instrument. It corrected a typographical error on page three of the draft regulations that are the subject of this debate. The change was from Her Majesty’s Treasury to His Majesty’s Treasury. Clearly, this does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation.

In February 2025 we consulted on expanding the warm home discount scheme, which provides low-income and vulnerable households with a £150 rebate off their energy bills. Today, we are considering the regulations that will allow us to implement those changes and bring this much-needed relief to around 2.7 million additional households. Since we took office, this Government have been committed to alleviating fuel poverty. Our review of the 2021 fuel poverty strategy made clear that progress has stalled and that we need a new plan to speed up progress on tackling fuel poverty. There are two principal ways of doing this. The first is by improving household energy performance and the second by expanding direct bill support to make energy more affordable.

Starting with the first, at the spending review in June, the Chancellor confirmed £13.2 billion for our warm home plan that will transform the housing stock and improve energy efficiency across the country, ensuring that less money is wasted on leaking, ageing homes that are expensive to heat. However, while we press on with that vital work, we recognise that many households remain at risk of fuel poverty and cannot wait until later in this Parliament to feel the benefits. That is why we are also expanding the warm home discount, providing vital support to those who need it most. This support will be available immediately, coming into effect this winter and, importantly, consumers do not need to take any action to receive it.

Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped around 3 million low-income and vulnerable households every year by reducing their energy bills when it is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £150 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills, and more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households also receive rebates.

The statutory instrument before us seeks to amend the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 to allow changes to the eligibility criteria for this coming winter so that more households can receive rebates. It will also extend the time period in which rebate notices can be issued to suppliers, so that as many as possible can be issued before the current regulations expire on 31 March 2026. The SI also amends the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 to increase suppliers’ non-core spending obligation by an amount considered to be commensurate to the expected increase in England and Wales.

This SI is a result of our consultation in February, in which we proposed to remove the high cost to heat threshold that we believed was unfairly excluding some vulnerable households from the scheme. This threshold often meant that families in almost identical circumstances were treated differently, with some receiving the rebate while others missed out. The current system also excludes many households in smaller properties because their home is not classified as high cost to heat, meaning that our support has not been reaching some of those who need it the most.

Removing the high cost to heat threshold will make all energy bill payers who receive a qualifying means-tested benefit eligible for the warm home discount. By bringing around 2.7 million additional households into the scheme, it pushes the total number of households that will receive the discount in winter 2025-26 up to around 6 million, which is one in five households in the UK.

We have a statutory duty to tackle fuel poverty. It is our duty as a Government to break down the barriers that prevent some of the most vulnerable families in the country receiving the support they need. The proposed regulations will help us to achieve this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate on an important issue for their contributions and for the broad support that the Committee has expressed for this statutory instrument. I shall cover the questions as best I can. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the fact that the scheme relates to electricity bills. She referenced the issues around rural heating—she mentioned Cumbria, where I live. It is a real issue for rural areas. We need to move away from fossil fuels. There are some challenges in rural areas on how we do that. I know that the department is working hard on this to understand those challenges because the transition needs to be countrywide, not just in one area and not another.

The noble Baroness also asked about universal credit. It is probably best if I ask my colleagues in the DWP to respond to that because I do not have the information and officials in DESNZ would not, so we will pass that on to the DWP if that is okay with her. She also asked about lower benefits to households. I stress that the impact assessment is based on our best estimates, but its purpose is to help those who are on low-income and means-tested benefits because that is the best way for us to get directly to the people who need the most support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I have a point of clarification. The Minister responded to me most kindly about how the Government are going to invest in SMRs. I know that, if the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—a former Secretary of State for Energy—were here, he would stand up and say, “I’m speaking to all the SMR providers. They’re saying to me that they are ready to go. They’re doing it with other countries, but they need more progress from the UK”. Can the Minister come back to us at some point with a bit more detail on when are we going to see some progress with the SMRs? What is holding us back? Can we action this urgently?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Earl and his colleagues are aware that we have made a very strong commitment to nuclear energy and are pushing forward on that in a way that previous Governments have not done. It is really important that we are investing in nuclear energy with that commitment. The department is working up exactly what that will look like; I am sure that, when the time is right, the noble Earl and his colleagues will hear more about SMRs.

Motion agreed.