Deforestation

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Roborough 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 Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is aimed at strengthening the natural recovery framework model and addressing the overall improvement test. I do not intend to take up more time than is necessary, so I will not address each amendment in this group individually. However, I will speak to my Amendment 291, which stands also in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra.

Amendment 291 seeks to provide a power for the Secretary of State to reject an environmental delivery plan where they consider it is not in the public interest. We believe that this is a crucial safeguard. While we recognise the need for local responsibility and innovation within the NRF model, it is important that national priorities and the wider public good remain central. This amendment seeks to ensure that where an EDP does not sufficiently deliver the environmental improvements that are expected, or where it conflicts with other essential national interests, the Secretary of State can act decisively. It seeks to provide a necessary balance between local ambition and national accountability. While we are opposed to the entire EDP bureaucratic scheme, if the Government insist on pursuing it, it must be meaningful and measurable. The framework must be rooted in real outcomes, not vague intentions.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, on the face of it, I welcome government Amendment 245A and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, because it is clearly right that the public should understand what the sequence proposed might be.

My noble friend Lord Lucas has stolen some of my thunder in identifying that some of the research can take place only at certain times of year which, if it is a particular time window, may be, say, 11 months away, and there is this temporal longevity which may happen over many seasons. It is really important that, as part of that requirement for laying out the sequencing, we get an understanding of what timescales may be needed, because my concern is what happens at the point at which an EDP is first mooted and that sequencing process starts. What assurances can the Minister give that, because the process may take several years, it will not, in effect, impose a moratorium on any development while we wait for the sequences and processes to go through? These were laid out in the helpful diagram from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the bits before.

It is important that government Amendment 245A which, as I say, I welcome, should be coupled with the anticipated timescales. It might be implicit in the amendment, but it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could make it explicit that sequences and timescales are in there and whether that applies to a moratorium in the meantime.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak first to my two amendments in this group. Amendment 293 would require Natural England to report on environmental delivery plans more regularly than simply at the halfway and completion points of the plan. This is important, because without frequent reporting, Parliament, local authorities and indeed the public are left in the dark for too long about whether the plans are on track. More frequent updates would allow for earlier course correction where plans are falling short, helping to build public confidence through transparency and ensure that delivery does not drift between the start and the finish. Can the Minister set out why the Government are confident that the current reporting framework is sufficient when many stakeholders believe more timely scrutiny is essential?

My Amendment 295 would require environmental delivery plan reports to include assessments of their impact on local communities and the local economy, rather than focusing solely on environmental consequences. This matters because environmental improvement is not achieved in isolation. Communities are directly affected, sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, by the choices made in land use, development restrictions or habitat restoration. Understanding the economic and social consequences alongside the environmental ones is the only way to ensure that these plans are fair, balanced and capable of commanding long-term public support.

My noble friends Lord Jamieson and Lady Scott of Bybrook have repeatedly argued that local community voices matter in planning and this is no different. On these Benches, we continue to stand up for local engagement and meaningful consultation so that communities are partners and not bystanders in shaping outcomes.

Briefly, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, for her Amendment 258C and my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge for his Amendment 285A. These are both vital because they strengthen the foundations on which environmental delivery plans are built. I have direct experience of this with my own farming activities and new forest development. Without accurate data on the baseline condition of the soil, flora and fauna, and water quality, it is simply impossible to be confident on progress. I would go further and suggest that this data should be published so that all stakeholders can hold Natural England to account. It is essential if plans are to be scientifically robust, deliver measurable benefits for nature and remain aligned with the environmental principles that your Lordships’ House has consistently supported. In that context, I should refer the Committee to my register of interests, which I have not done before in this respect, as a shareholder in Agricarbon.

These are constructive and necessary amendments. Taken together, they provide the checks, the evidence base and the community voice that will make environmental delivery plans more effective, more trusted and, ultimately, more deliverable.

Plastic Pollution

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would imagine that is probably an education piece.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm what specific criteria or evidence the Government are using to determine which activities abroad will be considered low welfare under the forthcoming regulations?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am determined to look at what makes the biggest difference. The whole essence of my approach to animal welfare is what makes the biggest difference, where are the most animals suffering abuse, and what can we do to try to reduce that. Those are the criteria we are looking at.

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are very supportive of these measures and I very much welcome the Government bringing them forward as part of addressing an ever-growing problem. As the Minister rightly highlighted, e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, with the 50 million tonnes currently generated globally predicted to grow to 75 million tonnes by 2035. The United Kingdom is the second-biggest generator of this waste per person in the world, so it is absolutely right that the Government are bringing forward measures to address it. I welcome the fact that this will be part of Defra’s wider circular economy strategy.

As has been said, we all buy and consume these things and try to recycle them, which can often be difficult to do. Many of these items are designed to be used once and then thrown away, and they are designed in such a way that it is almost impossible to take the batteries out of them. I call for further work to make sure that items are available on the marketplace from which it is actually possible to remove the batteries. I would really like to see a universal standard for that, particularly for vapes.

This statutory instrument applies to vapes and secondary online marketplaces, but the thread running through both of those is that the polluter should pay. We agree with that principle and it is welcome that it is here.

We agree with the Government’s plans for vapes to be put under the new categorisation 7.1. It was not correct that the toy and board-game industry was in part subsidising the recycling of vapes, which are far more dangerous and complicated to recycle.

I have tabled an amendment to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to set minimum pricing for vape products. Picking up on what the noble Baroness said, I welcome the fact that Defra has brought forward measures to ban single-use vapes, but the truth is that manufacturers are finding ways around that by putting in a rechargeable point and a reusable coil. I have seen vapes selling online for as little as £2.99 which the manufacturers say pass the ban. To me, the answer is putting in minimum pricing and making sure that we have proper vaping products with long battery cycles that are designed to be reused, and keeping these products away from pocket-money prices and our children. I encourage the Minister to go further on those measures as part of the work of the Circular Economy Taskforce. That is an issue, but we welcome the measures in these regulations.

I turn to the second part, on the online marketplace and overseas sales. On the issue of dealing with the freeloading problem of online marketplaces that have been exempt from the regulations and have not been meeting the costs of the e-waste that they generate, whereas our bricks-and-mortar sellers have been, it is right that that will change and we welcome it. We also welcome the reclassification, which is good. Just for context, it is estimated that over 1 million tonnes of electronic waste are added to the UK marketplace each year via these platforms. That is a lot of stuff, which they need to be responsible for. Some have worried that this could impact online suppliers and that some might withdraw from the UK market. We do not share those concerns. We think these measures are properly set out and see no reason why they cannot be absorbed.

I conclude by asking the Minister a couple of questions. While we welcome the measures, they are quite complex and are being introduced quite quickly, and they will involve a lot of reporting, monitoring and verification and compliance mechanisms, which are required under the regulations. My questions to the Minister are as follows. Are there enough resources available within Defra? Is there enough time for doing this stuff? Does it have the appropriate staff available? Does it have the right procedures in place to monitor the impacts to make sure that enforcement is properly done?

With that, we welcome the regulations, and we look forward to this Government going further in these areas.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument and outlining its objectives. The ambition to ensure that all producers contribute fairly to the costs of collecting and treating waste electrical and electronic equipment is one that few would dispute. Indeed, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in full support of these regulations.

This instrument makes two key changes. First, it makes online marketplace operators responsible for the WEEE obligations linked to electrical goods sold into the UK by non-UK sellers using their platforms. Secondly, it creates a new, separate category for e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products, removing them from the broader toys and leisure equipment category. Both are necessary steps to address long-standing imbalances.

Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall pose a number of questions that I hope the Government will consider as implementation progresses. First, on making online marketplace operators responsible for waste costs, what analysis has been conducted to assess likely compliance rates among these operators? Ensuring that the law translates into meaningful change is essential, and enforcement should be at the heart of that.

Secondly, how confident are the Government that enforcement will be sufficiently resourced, especially given past difficulties with online sellers who fall outside UK jurisdiction, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering? While it is logical to shift responsibility to platforms with a physical or legal UK presence, is there a risk that some operators may still find routes to avoid liability, either by reclassifying their service or by restructuring seller arrangements?

Thirdly, on the methodology for calculating the volume of electrical and electronic equipment sold through online platforms, how prescriptive is the guidance expected to be? Will methodologies be subject to review or audit by regulators to ensure transparency and comparability?

I turn to the creation of a dedicated vape category— I should declare an interest as a 15-year vaper myself—which we are told will allow for more targeted collection targets and financial obligations. How clearly defined will this new category be in practice, given the rapid evolution of vaping and nicotine delivery technologies? Will the Government commit to regularly reviewing the scope of this category to ensure it remains fit for purpose?

I would also welcome the Minister’s views on the transitional provisions. Are the timelines, particularly 15 November and 31 January, realistic for smaller operators, especially those newly brought into scope? What communication plans are in place to ensure these businesses are fully informed? Effective communication here will be important to the success of the instrument. I note that smaller producers that place less than 5 tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment on the market remain exempt from full financial obligations. Does this de minimis threshold continue to strike the right balance between supporting small business and ensuring environmental responsibility? I was hoping the Minister could help explain how the Government reached this threshold, which seems rather large.

In conclusion, we welcome the intent behind these regulations to create a fairer, more enforceable system, but, in doing so, we must ensure that compliance is not only a legal requirement but a level playing field. That requires clarity, transparency and, above all, careful oversight. I look forward to hearing how the Government will monitor these reforms and respond to the questions they inevitably raise.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Looking at the annunciator, I am wondering whether it is worth starting, but let us give it a go; I think we are going to be interrupted.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their contributions. We are very grateful for the broad support for the regulations and the recognition that they are important. I will turn to the comments and try to answer as many questions as I can. If there are any outstanding—I think particularly on the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett— I am happy to come back in writing, as usual, to ensure we have covered everything.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about online marketplaces, as did other noble Lords. Just to make clear, after the regulations come into force, online marketplaces that are not already registered with a producer compliance scheme must do so by the deadline of 15 November 2025. All online marketplaces will be required to submit the methodology they will use to determine the amount of electricals placed on the market via their platform by their overseas sellers by 15 November.

This data submission is a new requirement. The reason for it is that we need to better understand the volume of products being sold into the UK by overseas sellers through online marketplaces. A lot of the compliance and enforcement around this will be dependent on the data and information we have. Online marketplaces will then be required to report this data on a quarterly basis in line with existing reporting obligations. This is subject to transitional provisions, which have been made to reflect that the regulations enter into force part way through the year. Online marketplaces will be required to report this data only for the period after the regulation enters force through to December 2025. They must do so by 31 January 2026.

The Secretary of State will then set a national collection target for 2026 for each of the categories of electrical equipment. The regulators will then issue producer compliance schemes with a share of this target on a market share basis. The fees will then be apportioned among the producers within a particular producer compliance scheme based on their market share within a particular category in the previous year. For online marketplaces, this will be based on the data they report from the date the regulations enter into force until December 2025. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, it is quite complicated, but it is important we get this right. That seems like a good place to stop.

Plastic Pollution

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the UK throws away more plastic per person than every other country in the world except the US, with 81% of that plastic consisting of food and drink packaging from supermarkets. It is evident that effective measures must be taken to reduce this waste, an opinion shared by 74% of the British public. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays to the Government’s proposed deposit return scheme?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, I am very pleased that we have announced that we are doing a deposit return scheme. It is something that was discussed for many years by the previous Government, so I am pleased that we have acted quickly to announce that we are bringing that in. However, it needs to be brought in effectively and to work properly; we are doing it in a way that we think will have the greatest results. It is also part of our bigger picture around the circular economy. It is part of our commitment to reducing plastic, which comes right back to the initial question from the noble Baroness about our support for the treaty, because, although we want our own ambitious plans for reducing plastic waste in this country, this is a global problem, and we have to work globally.

Food Allergens

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that this requires cross-departmental work. My taking this Question today from Defra, when a lot of people assumed that it would be a health question, demonstrates that there is cross-departmental work between labelling and health issues. Regarding the allergy tsar, the Department for Health and Social Care continues to discuss this, and how allergy support and care can be improved, with NHS England and shareholders. There is an Expert Advisory Group for Allergy, which the DHSC jointly chairs, that brings stakeholders together to inform policy-making and identify any priorities in improving outcomes with people. I spoke to my noble friend Lady Merron from the DHSC about this earlier and I understand there will be a response in due course on whether an allergy tsar is the appropriate way forward.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the House will know that the previous Government passed Natasha’s law on pre-packaged food. Also, detailed ingredient listing has been in place since 2021. Does the Minister accept the concerns of Anaphylaxis UK and Allergy UK that the excessive use of precautionary allergy listing might be depriving customers of safe food?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The critical thing is the last thing that the noble Lord said: safe food. It is important that we work with industry, across government and with the different campaign groups. Natasha’s law was a very important piece of legislation. We know that Owen’s law is proposed as well. We have heard about the health tsar. We know that there are other incidents, such as the recent one in Stoke-on-Trent. It is important that we move forward together to ensure that any legislation or guidance that comes forward improves things and makes people feel safe when they go out to eat.

Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, we support these regulations as a sensible step to protect our biosecurity and reduce costly and deeply damaging barriers to trade, but we see this as just one stage of a much bigger journey. As my noble friend Lady Suttie has said in previous debates of this nature, these regulations are a stopgap. The real prize is a full sanitary and phytosanitary SPS veterinary agreement with the EU—something both sides committed to at last month’s summit. That would mean that one day our aim would be to do away with most border checks on plant and animal products altogether.

Indeed, we welcome the Government’s recent decision to delay new checks on medium-risk fruit and vegetables, an approach that a lot of industry rightly calls common sense. The extension until January 2027 gives businesses some breathing space, but everyone knows this is temporary and that the Government expect that a new SPS agreement will make these stopgap measures unnecessary.

The May summit made clear the aim: a common sanitary and phytosanitary area with no time limit. That would mean most goods, plants, animals and their products could move between Great Britain and the EU without the current certificates and controls. It would cut costs, ease pressure on food prices and end routine border checks. The benefits would also extend to Northern Ireland, thanks to the Windsor Framework. There is sometimes a myth that such an agreement would make Britain a rule taker. In reality, if we want to export, we always have to meet our trading partners’ standards. This deal would mean genuinely unfettered access to the EU market and therefore far less trade friction—friction that has been so damaging, for example, to our farmers in recent years.

Farming groups such as the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association have raised concerns about the role of European courts and the need for flexibility, especially around issues such as precision breeding and pesticides. The proposed agreement suggests dynamic alignment with the EU rules, but also promises a say for the UK and an independent arbitration panel. I am looking forward to a few more answers on this and the need to be sure that any dispute process is genuinely fair and respects our own parliamentary procedures.

This agreement could bring real benefits: lower prices, less red tape and more secure food supply. But I echo some of the requests in previous debates with questions to the Minister, especially from these Benches, about a clear timetable for finalising the implementation of the SPS agreement. So far, our understanding is that no date has been set. We would also like to know whether there is any risk to animal health or biosecurity while we wait for the new agreement to come. Ongoing surveillance in that period is obviously vital, but we do feel that reassurance is needed.

On another point, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions debt recovery and collection costs for unpaid fees. Can the Minister tell us the total cost of unpaid fees, the average fee charged, and whether non-payment is a widespread issue? If she is unable to answer that this evening, perhaps she could undertake to write; we would be very grateful. Finally, can the Minister confirm that there are robust checks to prevent goods deliberately avoiding control posts, now and in the future?

With regard to the Motion to Regret, I note at paragraph 17 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 15th report the submission from Jim Allister MP and the Defra response with reference to the use in the four nations of the UK plant health provisional common framework and that, for example, measures against Popillia japonica are already in place in Northern Ireland, and the rest of Great Britain has been catching up. I therefore have been a little confused by some of the contributions I have heard this evening.

Given the benefits so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the very detailed and useful explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, we will not be supporting the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We want to see these regulations and the wider agreement deliver what matters to people: less bureaucracy, lower costs and a stronger partnership with our closest trading neighbours, and we would prefer that sooner rather than later. That is what is best for our businesses, our farmers and ultimately our consumers.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and my noble friend Lord Frost for bringing it to the Chamber.

At face value, this instrument appears to be a routine update, technical in nature and laudable in intent. It introduces new and stricter import controls on certain plant pests, including Heterobasidion irregulare and Popillia japonica, which are already spreading rapidly in parts of Europe. These steps are necessary. We have seen all too often the devastating consequences of failing to act quickly and unilaterally if necessary, whether to Phytophthora ramorum, which devastates our larches and causes sudden oak death, ash dieback, or threats to our commercial crops from the great spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed European spruce bark beetle—for some reason, neither of those seem to have Latin names. I refer the House to my register of interests as a forest owner and a planter of new forests.

While these regulations seek to bolster biosecurity across Great Britain, they do not extend those same protections to Northern Ireland, and that is a shame. I know that the concerns of my noble friend are sincerely held and reflect the views of a great number of those in Northern Ireland in particular. As my noble friend Lord Caine has said on previous occasions, it is important that His Majesty’s Government and Opposition continue to listen to those concerns and seek to address them.

We are told that biosecurity is an essential state function. It is and it must be. But under the terms of the Windsor Framework, that essential function has been compromised. Biosecurity measures which apply robustly to England, Scotland and Wales are not being applied to Northern Ireland in the same way. In effect, plant health in Northern Ireland is now subject to the policy choices of the EU and not, as it should be, to the collective will of this sovereign Parliament. However, the Windsor Framework was the best deal available to us while in government, and we continue to support it, while urging this Government to try to improve on it. For that reason, we do not support my noble friend Lord Frost’s regret Motion.

My noble friend Lord Frost and others have already mentioned the new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, which is designed to ease trade by removing checks on food. To add to the many questions posed to the Minister, could she reassure us that this will not provide an easier entry for plant diseases and a repeat of the imported pests that I mentioned earlier as happened while we were in the EU? What checks will remain in place to protect our natural environment?

The EU deal appears to have betrayed our fishers in return for reduced checks. The farmed salmon industry seems to be the only fish and seafood group to have spoken in support of this deal. The damaging effects of this industry on the environment have been debated at length in this House during Committee and Report of the now Crown Estate Act. The farmed salmon industry is distinct from the UK fishing industry, which has greeted the deal with deep disappointment.

In answer to my Oral Question two months ago, the Minister gave encouraging answers, which I will briefly quote:

“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters, and vice versa, become a matter for annual renegotiation, as is typical between coastal states … as a Government, we will always push for the best opportunities for our fishers and the fishery industry”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]

The end of the trade and co-operation agreement in June 2026 represented the opportunity to increase the size of our fishing effort by 60%, with full zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone—a huge economic opportunity for deprived coastal communities. The deal was a betrayal of those communities and those who live and work in the fishing industry. We are now committed to a 12-year extension of the very disappointing status quo. Was this phytosanitary deal really worth that betrayal? The benefits of trade accrue to both sides of that trade, so why should any price be paid, let alone such a high price?

Thames Water

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, these Benches attempted to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to protect consumers from bearing any costs associated with a special administration regime, but this was rejected by this Government. Will the Minister commit today that consumers will not be made to pay any SAR-related costs, and that under no circumstances will the Government take responsibility for repaying the rumoured £20 billion of Thames Water debt? I should also declare an interest that one of my daughters works at a firm named in the press as a bondholder.

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

My Lords, the Government do not have any intention for consumers to pay towards this. We do not see that consumer bills need to go up to cover these debts. It is not for consumers to pay for the mistakes and poor behaviour of the water companies. In response to the second question, within the regime, we will look at it in detail, but it is, again, not our intention for the water companies to basically get away with it.

Reservoirs: Protection from Contamination

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The main point is that our water supply absolutely has to be secure. We have to know that we are doing everything we can to protect it from hostile actors, as the noble Baroness and my noble friend mentioned. That is why the cross- departmental work is so important. On Thames Water, I assume the noble Baroness refers to the fact that the preferred bidder has now pulled out. Thames Water has assured us that there are other potential bidders. We need to look at the current situation and, clearly, any investment needs to include security. The PR24 investment that has been made includes a substantial sum for improving security as well as infrastructure. It is important to make the point that it is part of our ongoing discussions with water companies.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, our country has frequently been at war or under threat in our history, and our water infrastructure is always one of our vulnerabilities. Can the Minister inform the House whether there has ever been an attempt or a plan uncovered to contaminate our water supply, and what lessons have been learned if so?