Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to extend Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which I shall refer to as the POFA to save time. This will ensure that the recovery of unpaid parking charges on railway land is enforced consistently with other private car parks and has the relevant safeguards provided for users of those car parks, including an independent appeals service. It will also ensure consistency in the regimes applying in railway car parks across the railway network through the extension of this order to cover England and Wales.
Noble Lords will wish to know that, after the draft order was laid on 8 September, it was formally cleared by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its Thirty-fifth Report of Session 2024-26. Likewise, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee formally cleared the draft order as an instrument but named this amendment as an instrument of interest to the House in its 36th Report of Session 2024-26. Prior to this, my department had responded to preliminary inquiries from the committee’s clerk.
The background to the draft order is that railway operators currently use a combination of enforcement regimes to recover unpaid parking charges at railway station car parks, resulting in inconsistency and complexity for operators and passengers. Some operators rely on criminal enforcement set out in the Railway Byelaws, while others use agents who rely on contractual agreements with motorists. With the introduction of Great British Railways, my department expects a consistent level of service to be offered across the network to passengers. Therefore, the order will bring car parks located on railway land within England and Wales into the scope of the same civil enforcement regime that applies to all other car parks on private land.
Previously, railway station car parks were excluded from the POFA because they were subject to the Railway Byelaws, which meant unpaid parking charges could be enforced only under those by-laws. The POFA made a number of changes to the law related to parking on private land. It bans vehicle immobilisation and/or removal without lawful authority and provides private landholders with additional powers to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle for unpaid parking charges, providing certain conditions are met. Schedule 4 to the POFA facilitates the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a private car park. It sets out detailed requirements regarding the provision of notices and the appeals process. However, as I have said, railway station car parks are currently excluded from this regime.
The change which this order enables will ensure a consistent civil enforcement regime for all railway station car parks across the future Great British Railways network. It will ensure that passengers have the same protection that they would have when parking in other car parks on private land, including access to an independent appeals service. An industry consultation showed support for amending the Railway Byelaws to remove criminal liability for parking breaches and instead using the civil enforcement regime set out under the POFA regime.
These changes will standardise the approach to the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle parked in railway station car parks. To support this order, changes to the Railway Byelaws will be made at the same time to remove the criminal enforcement regime which is currently in place and allow this amendment to take effect. This shift from the criminal enforcement regime to the civil regime provides passengers with an independent appeals service and allows the same framework to apply to railway station car parks as applies to all other private car parks.
I have highlighted the importance of this order to ensure that passengers have access to a consistent civil enforcement regime when recovering unpaid parking charges on railway land and an independent appeals service. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I am pleased to speak in the debate about this amendment order. As the Minister has set out, the order amends the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to bring land subject to the Railway Byelaws within the definition of relevant land to facilitate the recovery of unpaid car parking charges from the keeper or hirer of a vehicle parked in a station car park. This will bring simplicity. It brings railway car parks into line with other car parks, which will allow private parking operators to pursue the registered keeper of a vehicle rather than just the driver for unpaid parking charges, which has been an anomaly for some time.
The consultation on this matter was launched in 2020, so I ask the Minister why it has taken over five years for this small order to appear before the House. It seems uncontroversial, and over five years seems a long time. I know that signage costs were one concern raised in the consultation, but the background note explains that budget provisions have been made to cover this, so that should not be a reason for the delay.
In principle, we welcome this rather technical change and the fact that a consultation took place. However, as anyone who has been an MP or an elected member of a council or an assembly knows, parking and parking fines are always controversial. MPs and councillors receive much casework expressing frustrations and problems with many car parking operators and providers, who often lack transparency and are unaccountable; they can sometimes seem unreasonable. Clear and new signage that is accessible is welcome, but what is the timescale for implementing the new code for private car park operators, which has been consulted on recently?
The public need to have confidence in the overall regulatory framework covering private car parking providers to ensure they have greater transparency and consistency, that they are not being unfairly penalised and that they have that forum for appeals when things have gone wrong. Will the Minister ensure that resources are in place so that operators comply with the forthcoming code, particularly regarding signage, fair changes and independent appeals?
Finally, I understand the Government’s assessment that a statutory review of these regulations was judged disproportionate. However, will the Minister commit to revisiting that decision if there is evidence of unforeseen consequences for operators or users of the relevant land from this order? I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this instrument seeks to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act. The moment one sees a Labour Government fiddling with our freedoms, one is naturally anxious as to what they have in mind. That Act was one of the great achievements of the coalition Government—in fact, it was a Liberal Democrat-inspired achievement—from those happy days when the country was run by a quad of David, George, Nick and the red-headed guy, whoever that was, but now it is being amended, so one looks very carefully at what is proposed. In fact, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said, it is much less dramatic than it might be and it is, in essence, to do with enforcement at railway station car parks.
However, I have some questions. I am interested in the thinking and timing behind this order, particularly in how it fits with the proposed architecture of the rail reform Bill, which was published for the first time last week and is, therefore, now available to us so that we can scrutinise the Government’s plans for railway reform.
The basic position is that car parks at railway stations are currently covered by railway by-laws. What is wrong with that? It turns out that the by-laws are unsatisfactory in some respects. So it was open to the Government to come to this House with a view to amending the railway by-laws that govern station car parks—keeping it all within the railway family, if you like—but that is not in fact what they have done. The Department for Transport has not taken us down that track; instead, it is, in effect, outsourcing the whole matter to an MHCLG code of conduct. How does that fit with our plans for a single directing mind for railway infrastructure?
The department is also doing this at a very strange time because, again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, pointed out, the Government are in the process of consulting on a new code for the private enforcement of car parking. I believe that the consultation closed only in September, which is very recently. Of course, it is too early for MHCLG to have finished its consideration of that consultation or to have issued its plans for the future, so we do not know what we are actually being invited to impose on drivers who are parking their vehicles in railway station car parks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, complained, quite rightly, that it has taken five years since the consultation was undertaken to bring this order forward. My complaint is that, now that it is coming forward, it is being done in a very rushed manner when, given where we are with the consultation on the code of conduct, it would be a great deal more sensible if the instrument were to wait until we knew what that code of conduct said. Indeed, one would have thought that the train operating companies currently being absorbed into the Department for Transport—that is, the train operating companies or Great British Railways, which is going to replace them—will want to know as much as I do about what the enforcement regime will look like, once the new code of practice is in place, before they relinquish their powers under statutory by-laws, which, as I understand it, the Minister can extinguish without reference to Parliament.
In general, if the Government want to do this, the Official Opposition will not stand in their way, I think, but this seems to me to be a very strange thing for the Government to want to do just at the time when they are putting in place a single directing mind covering all rail infrastructure—in effect, handing this over to a statutory structure that will be dominated by a parking code of practice which was issued by a different government department and which is not even available to us at the time when the Department for Transport is relinquishing these powers.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of this draft order. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest shown in ensuring that our railway and car parking legislation remains coherent and fit for purpose.
I will first respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The consultation was launched a long time ago. Although I cannot account for periods of time before this Government were elected in mid-2024, it is clear that several factors around the cost of the change and how it would affect train operators’ revenue required resolution before this could proceed. As the noble Baroness remarked, these impacts are now funded and budgeted for, and this draft statutory instrument is being aligned, as has also been remarked on, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s private parking code of practice. In answer to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that is to avoid duplicate signage changes and ensure consistency across the parking industry. Although it has taken a long time, it is clearly the right thing to do.
National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025
Baroness Wheeler
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
It is a privilege to represent His Majesty’s Government in bringing forward this important secondary legislation, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to present it for your Lordships’ careful scrutiny today.
Slavery remains one of the greatest evils in human history. This Government cannot and will not accept that we might inadvertently support forced labour or human trafficking through our supply chains. I wish to acknowledge the cross-party and Cross-Bench support on this issue, both in this House and in the other place. I pay tribute to all noble Lords, and to distinguished Peers such as the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who have all worked tirelessly to keep modern slavery at the forefront of our national conversation.
I will begin by setting out why these regulations are necessary. Many are shocked to learn that there are more enslaved people now, in absolute terms, than at any point in history. It is estimated that around 50 million people worldwide are living in modern slavery. Globalisation has brought immense opportunities for trade, but also for exploitation. We in the United Kingdom are not immune from these global networks of human trafficking.
In late 2023, the previous Government published a review into NHS supply chains, covering 60% of medical consumables—£7 billion of spend across over 1,300 suppliers, representing 600,000 products. The review found that just over a fifth of suppliers represented a risk. We know that staff working in the NHS would be appalled to learn that surgical items and face masks could be contaminated by modern slavery. I know I share this revulsion with colleagues across the NHS and across this House.
The review also recognised the wider benefits to the NHS of a better understanding of our supply chains, including improved product quality and supply resilience. It gave us clear recommendations, and today I am proud to present landmark modern slavery legislation to put these policies into practice. This is a first for England, and I hope our colleagues in the devolved Administrations will follow suit.
The NHS is one of the largest public sector procurers in the world, with an annual spend of around £35 billion and business with over 80,000 suppliers. We have a duty to ensure that no products we procure are tainted by forced labour, and an opportunity to use our purchasing power for good. These regulations will require all public bodies to assess modern slavery risks in their supply chains when procuring goods and services for the health service in England. They give effect to a duty established by the Health and Care Act 2022 requiring the Secretary of State to eradicate modern slavery wherever it is found in NHS procurement.
Public bodies will be asked to take reasonable steps to address and eliminate modern slavery risks, especially when designing procurement procedures, awarding and managing contracts, and setting up frameworks or dynamic markets. Reasonable steps may include enforcing robust conditions of participation, monitoring supplier compliance, reassessing risk through the contract’s life and requiring immediate mitigation where instances of modern slavery are discovered.
The regulations also require public bodies to have regard to relevant guidance issued by DHSC or NHS England for consistency and accountability across the system. The updated guidance is now published and publicly available, and the Explanatory Memorandum has been updated to share a link to it.
Some noble Lords may be concerned about legislative overlap, questioning the need for new regulations when modern slavery is already illegal. These regulations have been carefully drafted to fit in with existing statute, building on measures such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Procurement Act 2023, not replacing them. We are bringing all NHS England procurement into scope and creating a stronger legislative footing for enforcement. The aim is to introduce a single, enforceable risk management approach to modern slavery across the NHS, and we will continue to review our arrangements to ensure their effectiveness.
I do not pretend this will be easy. NHS supply chains are vast, making it difficult fully to assess the scale. The 2023 review was a snapshot, but it is likely that more than a fifth of our supply chains remain at high risk, as the review said and as I have previously stressed. Items included cotton-based products, surgical instruments and PPE gloves, all vital for hospitals across the country. That is why NHS organisations will be supported with clear guidance and resources to root out modern slavery wherever it is found.
It would be abhorrent to think that we procure such items cheaply by turning a blind eye. Ethical supply chains have been proven to be cost-effective in the long term, helping us to avoid litigation and supplier collapse, but even if this were not the case, I am confident that decent people across this country would never put a price on eliminating modern slavery.
In today’s debate we are considering the public and the NHS, but, most importantly, we remember the victims of modern slavery. We have a chance to send a message to enslaved people across the world: “What is happening to you is unjust. We have not forgotten you. We will ensure that our money does not go to those who keep you in chains”. I hope this proves that the Government are committed to rooting out and addressing modern slavery in NHS supply chains. I hope that I have been able to set out the purpose of and a clear rationale for the regulations. I look forward to what will, I am sure, be an informed and constructive debate. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for her clear and helpful introduction to the regulations. This is, quite rightly, a moment for us all to express collective support. The measure before us today is fundamentally about the moral application of public money. The NHS is arguably one of the largest single procurers, if not the largest, of goods and services in the country. When taxpayers’ money is spent, it must not, in any circumstances, inadvertently finance or sustain the abhorrent practice of modern slavery or human trafficking. This instrument, which is rooted in the Health and Care Act 2022, serves as a powerful declaration that our healthcare system will not tolerate this barbaric crime.
Having said that, I am a little confused on a point of governance and accountability. The Government’s Procurement Policy Note 009 Tackling Modern Slavery in Government Supply Chains already states unequivocally:
“This Procurement Policy Note (PPN) applies to all central government departments, their executive agencies, and non-departmental public bodies and NHS bodies when awarding public contracts”.
Given that PPN 009 already binds the NHS to a risk-based approach, will the Minister explain the precise interplay between these two existing policy requirements and the new statutory instrument?
In answer to questions placed by the Secondary Legislative Scrutiny Committee in its 37th report, on page 23, the Government seem to suggest that somehow this will be a more mandatory approach. I therefore seek to find out exactly how that interplay works out. Importantly, we need to understand what the fundamental flaw is in the existing PPN system that has led the Government to conclude that a policy note is insufficient to protect public money, compelling them to introduce new secondary legislation to ensure that the NHS supply chain is truly free from the stain of modern-day slavery and human trafficking. Are they saying that for other departments the PPN is not sufficient and there is a weakness within other public sector procurement if they do not introduce the equivalent of what the NHS is doing in this statutory instrument?
If these new duties are to be introduced over and above the existing PPN 009, we must be clear-eyed about the significant practical challenges that may arise during the implementation of these regulations. It is in the space between legislative intent and practical realities on the ground that problems can and sometimes do emerge.
First, on the scale of the administrative burden, the NHS supply chain is vast and notoriously complex, involving millions of different products—from common consumables to highly specialised medical devices—that are often sourced globally through multiple tiers of contractors. Imposing a mandatory risk assessment before every procurement process, as set out in the regulations, will place a substantial and, so far, uncosted administrative burden on already stretched NHS procurement teams. We must ensure that this work is not simply devolved to front-line staff without the requisite funding, training and specialist tools.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which seek to extend and strengthen the framework for addressing modern slavery and human trafficking risks in NHS supply chains. This is an issue on which there is—and must always remain, ad aeternum—cross-party consensus. No public body, least of all our flagship National Health Service, should ever be associated, however indirectly, with the exploitation of vulnerable people.
The Minister confirmed that this will not be an easy task. We must acknowledge the scale of the challenge to be addressed; this is absolutely not a storm in a teacup. The department’s own review in 2023 found that 21% of NHS suppliers were assessed as being at high risk of slavery or human trafficking, particularly in the supply of gloves, gowns and surgical instruments—essential items that are used day in, day out in our hospitals to save lives. The findings were deeply troubling and underlined the need for consistent, enforceable action.
When we were in government, we took the first steps to make this situation good through Section 81 of the Health and Care Act 2022, which provided the legal foundation for these regulations. We therefore welcome the fact that this Government have now chosen to bring that framework into effect. However, it is not entirely clear cut; we therefore request further clarity from the Minister on a number of areas.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, highlighted implementation and enforcement. The regulations will require public bodies to take “reasonable steps” to address modern slavery risks, but what will that actually mean in practice? What exactly will constitute a reasonable step? Who will be monitoring compliance with the regulations? What benchmarks will they use to judge whether a body is meeting all of its key performance indicators—indeed, who will set those key performance indicators? The Explanatory Memorandum refers to judicial review as a possible route of challenge, but surely the system should not have to rely on the courts to act as a last line of defence and to identify failings. Who will actually be the first line of defence?
Secondly, on guidance and accountability, Regulation 11 gives NHS England the power to issue guidance, but, as noble Lords know, NHS England is about to be abolished. Can the Minister confirm, therefore, which body will assume those obligations and when that transition will occur? A responsible and decisive Government would want to ensure that there is no period of uncertainty or inconsistency in oversight.
Thirdly, on support for NHS procurement teams, many procurement officers are already under pressure and, understandably, may not have the expertise or know-how to assess complex global supply chains. What specific training and resources will the department provide to help them meet these new legal duties effectively?
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also flagged up the impact on suppliers. It is obviously essential that the new requirements do not create unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape or deter smaller, ethical businesses from bidding for NHS contracts. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the Government’s approach will be proportionate and sensitive to the realities of different markets?
Modern slavery is one of the most serious human rights abuses of our time; the NHS, as a symbol of our national values, should lead by example in confronting it. The previous Conservative Government laid the groundwork and this Government are now taking the next step. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition therefore support the intention behind these regulations but, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Principles must be matched by effective implementation, proper scrutiny and absolute, measurable outcomes. This is a matter not of political division but of national responsibility. We will hold the Government to account in ensuring that these regulations deliver the changes that they promise.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Earl. I apologise that I will have to write on a number of issues, but I will try my best.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked what the difference is between PPN 009 and the regulations. PPN 009 sets out policy expectations, but the new regulations provide a statutory basis for enforcement, ensuring stronger accountability and compliance in NHS procurement.
On the impact on SMEs, the regulations do not impose direct duties on suppliers, including SMEs. We cannot accept any amount of modern slavery in our supply chains. The regulations allow for a proportionate approach to avoid deterring SME participation. Early market engagement and tailored procurement design will help SMEs compete fairly.
I turn to implementation, training and support. Guidance, training and tools, such as a central risk assessment tool, are being provided to support NHS bodies. The Department of Health and Social Care will take over guidance responsibilities from NHS England. I was asked what will happen and how the expected powers will be used when NHSE is abolished. All the powers will transfer to the Department of Health and Social Care. They have worked together so far and will continue to do so.
On compliance and monitoring, compliance checks are integrated into the NHSE procurement system that is used by more than 300 NHS bodies. We are encouraging commercial teams to embrace these checks as part of good governance. Line managers have real-time data monitoring, which enables effective oversight and accountability. Procurement regulations allow bodies to exclude suppliers and terminate contracts where risks are not remediated.
On the general concern, I understand totally the pressure on the NHS and on local authorities, which was not raised but is in the back of our minds. It is important that we use the NHS’s purchasing power—estimated at £35 billion—to raise standards across the globe without harming domestic suppliers. Ethical supply chains can still be cost effective in the long term by avoiding scandals, litigation and sudden supply collapse. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, on the point about NHS burdens and the impact on suppliers.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is all right for the Minister to reassure the Committee, but have organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses been consulted and given a view? Have they seen the regulations? Which small and medium-sized businesses have been involved and given the Minister the reassurance to be able to say that?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
Again, there was certainly full consultation. I will have to write to the noble Lord on the individual quotas, but we were very concerned to ensure that there was consultation across a wide range of groups.
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate and their commitment to ensuring that no goods or services procured are tainted by modern slavery. As I set out in my opening remarks, the NHS is one of the biggest buying organisations in the UK. We have a golden opportunity to leverage its purchasing power to influence supply chains in the UK, in Europe and right across the world. With this legislation, we can send a clear signal that we will not tolerate human rights abuses. I end by reminding colleagues that these regulations are about what we can do not just here in England but in eliminating modern slavery across the globe, and to say: “If you want to do business with the NHS, you must get your house in order”.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I asked a very specific question. The department wrote to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that it aimed to publish the updated guidance for October 2025. Has that guidance been published? If not, when will it be?
Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stockwood
That the Grand Committee do consider the Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations authorise the enactment of Section 2(10)(b) and Section 2(11) of the Trade Act 2021 and extend the power within Section 2(1) for a further period of five years. I was pleased to see the SI pass through the other place, and I look forward to this debate.
The extension is not just a procedural necessity; it is a strategic imperative that will ensure that the United Kingdom remains agile and responsive in its trade relationships with key global partners. It will enable the Government to continue with their ambitious trade programme with minimal disruption and ensure that key trade agreements that bring jobs and growth to all parts of the UK can be implemented in a timely manner.
Before going any further, I will take this opportunity to provide some further context, for which I turn back to Royal Assent of the Trade Act on 29 April 2021. As noble Lords will no doubt remember, this was a landmark piece of legislation that included a power for the UK to domestically implement trade agreements that it signs with economies that had a trade agreement with the EU before exit day. The power enables Government Ministers, the devolved Governments, Scottish and Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland department to make regulations via secondary legislation to implement non-tariff provisions for these types of trade agreements.
The original breadth of this power prompted rightful concern from the House, resulting in the Government at the time eventually conceding a number of safeguards. One of these was to include a sunset provision that would cause the power in Section 2(1) to expire at 11 pm on 31 December 2025 unless it was extended for a further period of five years via an affirmative statutory instrument.
Since taking office, this Government have made great strides in negotiating several agreements that require the implementation power of Section 2(1) beyond the expiry date. The power may also be needed for the ongoing management of existing arrangements, an example of which is to facilitate changes to the wholesale rates set out in an annexe to the EEA EFTA-UK free trade agreement.
The importance of being able to implement the finalised outcome from negotiations cannot be stressed more highly. Not only is it essential for businesses that operate and trade under the newly negotiated terms, but it is important that the UK is seen as a reliable trading partner that upholds its commitments. Without Section 2(1), this becomes increasingly difficult. Furthermore, Section 2(1) has been used to domestically implement such agreements and in future may be used for the ongoing maintenance of existing agreements.
Given the various ways in which it is likely to be needed, extending the power of Section 2(1) is the most prudent approach. We have deemed it necessary for a five-year period, not only to maximise cover but to militate against unforeseen issues that might need correcting via domestic legislation during the ongoing management of our negotiated agreements.
In practical terms, we anticipate that the extension of this power may be used to enable the effective implementation of forthcoming trade agreements with key partners such as Switzerland, covering £45 billion-worth of trade, and Turkey, for £28 billion in trade. These deals, when they enter into force, are poised to deliver further significant economic benefits to the United Kingdom by unlocking new markets, supporting jobs and driving growth across the country. This power will allow for the swift implementation of aspects of trade agreements with countries that had a trade agreement with the EU prior to the UK’s exit from the EU.
Before I conclude, I will offer some reassurances around this power. Any agreement implemented with this power and within scope of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 would still be required to complete the usual pre-ratification scrutiny, as well as the non-statutory parliamentary scrutiny and transparency commitments that this Government have put in place. Furthermore, all the safeguards put in place in the original Act will continue to be maintained. We will maintain our safeguards of ensuring that the power cannot be used to reduce UK standards in the fields of the protection of human, animal or plant life, or animal welfare, environmental protection, employment and labour, data protection, and the protection of children and vulnerable adults online. Regulations concerning healthcare services must be consistent with maintaining a publicly funded healthcare service. For these reasons, I hope colleagues will be supportive of this measure. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. This is my opportunity to express a personal welcome to him on his new ministerial responsibilities. I hope he enjoys them. For those of us who are veterans of the Trade Act 2021, such as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I—perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also counts in that category—the abstruse nature of the debates that we take part in can always be characterised as having a certain fellow feeling and enjoyment. This debate will doubtless be one of them.
As veterans of the Trade Act 2021 will recall, Section 2(10)(b) confers the power to extend the operation of the Act by a period of up to five years from IP completion date—31 December 2020—and, on more than one occasion, as specified under Section (2)(11). The Act provides for the powers to implement “an international trade agreement” or “a free trade agreement”, but it applies only to agreements to which the European Union and a counterparty were signatories prior to exit day—31 January 2020—so it applies only to those agreements that we referred to at that time as continuity agreements.
Those involved in the original legislation will recall that the regulations were expected to apply principally to procurement agreements and mutual recognition agreements for conformity assessments, as well as similar agreements known as agreements on conformity assessment and the acceptance of industrial products. That was in reference to what my noble friend Lord Grimstone—he of the famous Grimstone rule—enunciated in the passage of that legislation on 29 September 2020. I think it is correct to say that, since the passage of the Procurement Act 2023, further powers are available separately to the Government to include further countries to have access to the government procurement agreement by adding to the list in Schedule 9 to the 2023 Act, so there should be no further need for regulations under the Trade Act 2021 in relation to procurement.
I do not believe the same is true for mutual recognition agreements. One can see that powers in the Act have been used for this purpose. I found three: SI 2021/730, which was the mutual recognition agreement for the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Republic of Korea and Japan; SI 2021/1332, which extended the Canadian agreement to construction products; and SI 2022/1400, which applied to Switzerland. Are those powers still needed? I conclude yes, in so far as I can see there are three continuity agreements that include the potential for a mutual recognition agreement or an ACAA, but where such agreements have not been concluded between the European Union and those counterparties. They are the association agreements between the European Union and Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia respectively. Will the Minister say what, if any, ongoing work is being conducted to reach any agreement with any of those three states, or am I correct in thinking that we would implement such an agreement only if or when an MRA or ACAA is concluded between the European Union and one of those states?
I have one further question. Is it the Government’s intention to legislate for a power to implement mutual recognition agreements in free trade agreements in the future? The Trade Act applies to continuity agreements only, and clearly there is a wider question. Will the Minister explain what we might agree with Switzerland or Turkey that is covered by the Trade Act 2021 and regulations under that Act? I am not sure I understand what that would be.
Going outside continuity agreements, the UK-India agreement includes commitments to work on the joint development of technical regulations and can include the acceptance of conformity assessments, but it is not a full mutual recognition agreement. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership states, at Articles 8.5 and 8.6, that each party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territory of another party and may do so through a mutual recognition agreement; and that, at the request of another party, a party shall enter negotiations for the conclusion of agreements for the mutual recognition of the results of conformity assessment procedures. Among the member states of the CPTPP, Japan, Canada and New Zealand already have mutual recognition agreements in place with us, but other countries may request them. I take this opportunity to ask whether they have done so. On the assumption they have not, were they to do so, would the Government consider implementing legislation for the purpose of bringing mutual recognition agreements into force through statutory instruments, rather than waiting for primary legislation for the purpose?
The conclusion I reach is that these regulations may be needed, if for no other purpose than that the European Union might fast-track agreements with Ukraine and Moldova, although probably not Georgia for the time being. If they are fast-tracked towards EU membership and would be compliant with conformity assessments for industrial products, we may arrive at a situation where we could extend our continuity agreements with them in like fashion. I therefore see the purpose, potentially, for an extension for the next five years.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in thanking the Minister for the introduction and repeat his welcome. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who led us so skilfully and bravely through some truly obtuse bits of the Trade Act in 2021, including questioning his Front Bench very strongly. I will aim not to be obtuse and to be brief. Just the existence of this SI reraises some of the big questions that we discussed in 2021 in the context of what has happened since then.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about not being obtuse, it is compulsory to be obtuse on this subject.
I again welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, with him having made a very accomplished maiden speech on the previous occasion which I boldly attempted to interrupt. This job may not have taken much selling to him by the Government, but I hope they told him, as I said to his predecessor, “What you’re really going to have to do is statutory instruments with a group of people who contracted Stockholm syndrome having been in the same room with the Conservative Front Bench literally for weeks”. I congratulate him and welcome him to his first statutory instrument on this.
As we have heard, the purpose here is to continue to extend the powers of the Trade Act 2021 beyond the end of the year. Why would you let a power lapse when you could keep it going? The answer I would infer is “just in case”. I am sure that no government would accidentally let go of powers, so that is perhaps the motivation. However, it is with these powers that the Executive partially exercise the royal prerogative which they use to maintain control over trade deals—what we sign, what they contain and how they are implemented.
Having happily spotted that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would speak, I did not prepare a whole bunch of detailed questions on this statutory instrument. I did, however, prepare a broader critique of the scrutiny process that exists for trade deals and their like.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith KC, who chairs the International Agreements Committee, remarked in the front piece of a recent report on trade scrutiny,
“Treaties have the potential to raise matters of very great public importance”,
including trade agreements, but also other treaties such as the Rwanda treaty and the Chagos Islands agreement. He went on:
“Government has the power to negotiate and conclude treaties but it is important that Parliament can hold it to account effectively for its actions”.
That is where I am going to focus my speech; I am not going to challenge the validity of this statutory instrument, but I want to look at the scrutiny gap a little more, because it is a way of welcoming the Trade Minister to a really important matter. I hope that he will see the need for helping to improve Parliament’s grasp on what is happening.
When this statutory instrument was debated in the Commons, my friend the MP for Richmond Park—that is the Richmond in Surrey—Sarah Olney, gave the process a clinical demolition. She noted up front:
“The Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the Trade Act 2021, as it failed to provide sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements and risked weakening the UK’s high standards on health, food, labour and the environment”,—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/11/25; col. 5.]
and we heard a little of that just now.
The then Bill passed through the House of Commons in 2020 without amendment, despite cross-party efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability. I tabled quite a few amendments in the Lords, as did others, but Sarah tabled amendments requiring transparent investment courts for investor disputes. This was to ensure human rights considerations in trade negotiations and to mandate assessment of trade agreements. Those, along with other opposition amendments—such as protections for the NHS and food standards—were voted down by the then Government.
We believe that trade deals have been weaker without these imperatives. We warned that the omission could lead to deals that lower standards or allow foreign influence over our public services. Now, as then, we believe that the 2021 Act grants excessive powers to Ministers, excluding MPs and your Lordships from meaningful involvement. It also provides no guarantee that UK standards, public services or democratic accountability will be protected.
The Lib Dems are not unique in calling for greater scrutiny. The most recent report from your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee—the one on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, commented —is entitled Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster: Addressing the Accountability Gap. The news release for the report states that it
“concludes that the current statutory process for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”—
or CRaG, as it is affectionately known by its devotees—
“is a weak and insufficient mechanism for securing meaningful accountability. The process has not changed significantly since the 1920s”.
Indeed, the Grimstone undertaking is about the most significant change that has happened since 1920. That is not hyperbole; it is a fact. Of course, in the 1920s, treaties had rather less impact on domestic affairs—they did not reach into public services or domestic standards in the way they do now—so we believe that too much discretion is given to the Government to act in ways that enable them to evade detailed scrutiny.
The news release further states that the report
“acknowledges that there is a balance to be struck between the flexibility the Government needs to negotiate and conclude treaties in the national interest and the transparency and scrutiny which the public interest requires. However, while the treaty scrutiny procedure codified in the 2010 Act”—
that is, CRaG—
“places some limits on the autonomy which the Government enjoys in international relations, the legislation tilts the balance too far in the Government’s favour. The report finds that the UK scrutiny process is weak in comparison with most other countries … The report concludes there is a powerful case for legislative reform and calls on the Government to engage seriously in a dialogue with Parliament … about this. Recognizing that legislative reform will take time, however, the report also recommends steps to make scrutiny under the current framework more effective provided the Government shows sufficient … will”.
I commend the report to the Minister; he should have a look at it because it is, obviously, very important to the portfolio that he now holds.
We Liberal Democrats will not vote against this draft statutory instrument, of course, but we will continue to call for reforms to ensure transparency and fairness in, and public scrutiny of, future trade policy. I look forward to the Minister’s reflections, as a newcomer, on trade policy and its scrutiny.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in welcoming the Minister. I too participated in the debate on the steel industry, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, where we had the benefit of two maiden speeches from the two new Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood. Looking back, that was a really good, wide-ranging debate. I thought this would be a very narrow, rather simple statutory instrument to deal with, having looked at it—until my noble friend Lord Lansley got up. It may be that it applies only to continuity agreements, but thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we have entered a much wider debate. If I were the Minister, I would welcome that, because it gives him an opportunity to set the framework in the ways that my colleagues have outlined.
Having said all that, this instrument merely seeks to extend for a further five years the power under the Trade Act 2021. This power enables Ministers, including those in devolved Governments, to make regulations to implement the non-tariff provisions of continuity trade agreements with so-called partner countries—those that had agreements with the European Union before the UK’s exit. This instrument does not change the substance of the policy; it merely extends the time within which that power may be used from December 2025 to December 2030.
The rationale is that it will bring legal certainty and flexibility to implement existing and future agreements. I understood that it is particularly directed to those agreements under discussion with Switzerland and Turkey. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the context and answer the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I would also like to know what has happened concerning the agreement under discussion with the Republic of Korea; the Minister may well be able to explain why he omitted to mention it.
Continuity and predictability in our trading relationships are indeed important for British businesses and exporters, particularly small and medium-sized operations. It is also sensible that the devolved Administrations can continue to use this power where matters fall within their competence. From paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, on the legislative and legal context, I understood that the devolved Governments had been asked and were consulted on the power in Section 2(1). What happened in those consultations and what responses were received from the devolved Governments?
Then we have the whole question of parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements, which has been raised in this debate. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give us some outline of what his approach will be and the approach of his department. I would also like to press him on several points of oversight and accountability.
First, the powers granted under Section 2(1) must always be exercised within the statutory protections set out in the Trade Act. I instance employment rights; environmental standards, already referred to; animal welfare; data protection; and the integrity of our publicly funded healthcare services. It would be really helpful if the Minister could give us assurances on those points. Secondly, I would like him to give us a little more context about how this five-year period has been calculated. It must be used wisely. The power was always intended to be a transitional mechanism following EU exit. From looking back at those debates, already referred to, it was never seen as a permanent feature of trade policy. We therefore expect the Department for Business and Trade to report in due course on how frequently the power has been used and whether a further extension beyond 2030 will genuinely be necessary.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I am very grateful to noble Lords for their generous welcome and continued acknowledgement of my novice status in quite a technical debate, alongside the comments and questions they have put to the Government. To reiterate, these regulations are crucial to the Government’s trade agenda. We anticipate that we will be required to domestically implement deals currently under negotiation that will greatly benefit UK consumers and businesses.
I turn to answer the questions raised in the debate, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who asked about the necessity of the Trade Act powers in today’s legislative context, with regard to live negotiations. The question was whether the powers in the Trade Act are still necessary. The answer is that negotiations with partner countries are ongoing, and I would not like to pre-empt any future talks that may take place. The powers in Section 2 have been used for statutory instruments relating to procurement, but also for free trade agreement implementation—for example, the mutual recognition agreements—as well as for the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and the Chemicals (Health and Safety) Trade and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations. We therefore believe that the ongoing management of our trade agreements justifies extending the power.
I should have said upfront, by the way, that if I do not go into enough detail I am happy to write rather beyond the narrow range of this debate. I look forward to having broader conversations outside the Room as well.
The second question was from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about protections for phytosanitary standards in future trade agreements. During the passage of the Trade Act, my party worked hard to ensure the inclusion of robust safeguards in Section 2. These guardrails require that any regulations made under Section 2 must uphold existing UK statutory protections in key areas, including environmental protection. A full list of these guardrails can be found in Section 2(5) and 2(7). Preserving our world-class standards is a priority and we will not compromise on any of them for our trade policy.
A number of noble Lords raised a secondary question about future plans for democratic scrutiny of trade deals. We believe that the current statutory and non-statutory commitments governing the scrutiny of free trade agreements are robust and fitting for a country with our constitutional make-up. Our scrutiny arrangements are similar to and, in some areas, better than other Westminster-style systems, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, but our non-statutory commitments include, for new FTA negotiations, that the Government will undertake a public consultation or a call for input. Should a relevant Select Committee publish a report on these objectives and, should it request one, we will facilitate a debate, subject to parliamentary time.
Furthermore, during negotiations, the Government will publish regular updates and provide regular open briefings for all MPs and Peers. Post signature, the Government will—
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry—I can at least intervene at this point. The point that the Minister has made on a couple of occasions is not exactly right. The report that the International Agreements Committee put forward says that the idea that the way in which our democratic process is organised somehow means that countries that are like ours are the same as us is fundamentally not true. The evidence is laid out in the report that I mentioned in my speech. I ask the Minister to go and read it, and perhaps discuss it with his department.
On the subject of parliamentary time, without getting into too much detail on CRaG, the only way in which a trade deal can be delayed is by the Commons having a parliamentary debate, and the only way in which the Commons can have a parliamentary debate is by the Government granting them one. The evidence suggests that that does not happen, so it is a deeply flawed relief valve in the system and something that would, again, merit reconsideration.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his follow-up question. This Government are trying to go beyond the statutory requirements.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked this question earlier: is CRaG inadequate in the modern context? I will go away and read the report so that I have a further written answer for him, but I come back to the idea that CRaG provides an effective and robust framework for the scrutiny of treaties that require ratification, including free trade agreements. Although it was formally legislated for in 2010 under the previous Labour Government, its origins date back more than 100 years. Under CRaG, the Government must lay relevant treaties before Parliament for 21 sitting days before it can ratify them. Parliament has the power to prevent ratification; in the case of the House of Commons, it can do so indefinitely.
In line with the Government’s commitment to transparency, we have gone well beyond the statutory requirements for CRaG and provided comprehensive information to Parliament to support its scrutiny of our trade policy approach. In addition, no trade agreement can in itself alter our domestic legislation, and any changes to our UK legislation that are required for trade agreements will need to be scrutinised and passed by Parliament in the usual way. However, I take the noble Lord’s comments on board; we will come back with a fuller answer.
On the noble Lord’s other points, which were about protections in trade agreements for human rights, animal welfare and the NHS, as I have said, preserving our world-class standards is a priority. We will not compromise them in our trade policy. Regulations 2, 5 and 7 contain safeguards in the areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox; we will ensure that they are upheld. None of our FTAs, which are not covered by this power, has undermined our NHS or domestic standards. Parliament has debated this matter at length in its debates on the Australian FTA, the New Zealand FTA and our ascension to the CPTPP. Both required primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked a question about devolution. DBT Ministers wrote to their counterparts in the devolved Governments on 11 August 2025 to inform them of our intention to lay this SI before Parliament. In keeping with our commitment to transparency, we also shared a draft version of the SI for comment. In addition, we committed to maintaining the safeguards around the Section 21 power, as laid down in the Trade Act 2021.
On the question about the use of this SI’s power, before laying the SI, the Government reviewed whether the circumstances were such that the power in Section 2(1) ought to be extended; this provided an opportunity for the power in Section 2(1) to be reviewed. It was HMG’s conclusion that an extension to the power would be necessary. It is possible that the power in Section 2(1) may be relied on to enable the effective domestic implementation of major forthcoming trade agreements with key partners, such as Switzerland and Turkey, but also for the ongoing maintenance of existing agreements.
Lord Lansley (Con)
The Minister has again referenced Switzerland and Turkey. Let us leave Switzerland to one side because there is a pretty comprehensive continuity agreement between the European Union and Switzerland, which we have replicated.
Where Turkey is concerned, I want to stick with the question of mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessments. As I understand it, the European Union’s agreement with Turkey does not include a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment, although the negotiations between the United Kingdom and Turkey around an extension of a free trade agreement in future might include such a thing; we do not have to decide whether it would or would not. If such an agreement were entered into with Turkey, that would create an agreement with Turkey beyond the scope of the agreement that constituted the continuity agreement because it would include something that was not in the original continuity agreement with the European Union. My question is, therefore, very simple. The Minister does not have to answer it now; he can take it away and have a think about it. If we were to agree with Turkey something that was not in the European Union-Turkey agreement and, hence, not in the continuity agreement that we signed way back in 2021, could it be implemented under the Trade Act 2021 or would that require additional primary legislation?
Lord Fox (LD)
We could extend the same question to the situation with Korea, where my understanding is that the current continuity agreement is being rolled over again prior to the negotiation of a new deal. Were a new Korea deal to be negotiated, the question would be the same as the one put by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Stockwood (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for those follow-up questions. I am reliably informed that both of those negotiations are under way at the moment, so I will come back with a full answer in writing, if that is okay. I am grateful for the support across the Committee for these draft regulations.
Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 37th 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 draft regulations were laid before the House on 16 September. I welcome the chance to set out the action that this Government and the devolved Governments are taking to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic right across the UK.
The Government are committed to bringing forward root and branch reform of the water system to secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment and to restore trust and accountability. A key part of this is enabling pre-pipe drainage and wastewater solutions, including better management of our rainwater and preventing pollutants entering the sewerage network and our waterways. Banning wet wipes containing plastic is integral to this ambition.
Wet wipes containing plastic are a growing source of plastic pollution. They are often found in our natural environment, including in waterways and on our beaches. They break down into smaller pieces when in the water, contributing to microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning them will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution as well as the volume of microplastics entering wastewater treatment sites when wrongly flushed. This is part of a wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviour around the consumption of single-use plastic. Ultimately, we want to encourage a shift towards reusable and/or plastic-free alternatives. In our 2023 public consultation, 95% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument proposing the ban on the supply and sale of wet wipes. There is no doubt that there is a significant and ongoing problem with wet wipes, and I agree that urgent action is needed to ban the sale and supply of wet wipes containing plastic fibres. These regulations on banning wet wipes which contain plastic allow sensible exemptions, including for medical and industrial uses, to ensure that wet wipes containing plastic can still be supplied when necessary and where there are no viable alternatives.
Nevertheless, banning plastic wet wipes will go some way to helping reduce marine litter, decrease pollution and support progress towards a zero-waste economy. Manufacturers must be called to account and stop labelling wet wipes as flushable or disposable. They must be improved with clear and precise labelling, because misleading labelling makes misleading claims and causes confusion with the general public—ultimately, we see blockages in sewers, flooding and environmental damage triggering storm overflows, as well as harm to marine and animal health. It is imperative that action is taken to reduce the amount of microplastics entering our waterways and destabilising our marine ecosystems. Labelling is non-negotiable. It has to change, with clear labelling saying: “Do not flush”.
Further, I would like to see His Majesty’s Government bring forward legislation to ban plastic wet wipes earlier, in 2026. The Government say they are committed to tackling plastic pollution internationally, but they still allow manufacturers to export wet wipes containing plastic and imports of the same. It seems at odds with Defra’s claim that the Government are taking steps internationally to tackle plastic pollution. When do His Majesty’s Government expect a full transition where medical needs are no longer affected and wet wipes across the board no longer contain plastic but are urgently phased out? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am delighted to see these regulations, but I agree with my noble friend Lady Redfern that it is sad to see that they will not come into effect until May 2027 at the earliest. It has been a while since the original consultation happened. To give a bit of history, when I introduced the consultation, we were chided for not getting on with it and asked why we needed another consultation. The reality is that the law required one. Admittedly, the response to the consultation given on 22 April 2024 said that there would be an 18-month transition period from when the legislation happened, but it was expected at the time that the legislation would come in before the end of 2024. Given that manufacturers have known since before 2023 that both the previous Government and the current Government when they were in opposition were minded to ban these wet wipes as quickly as possible, why are we not seeing this come into effect until 2027?
My noble friend Lady Redfern referred to medical exemptions. I am conscious that there will be detailed explanations of why particular kinds of machinery need them, business-to-business exemptions and some other characteristics, but the NHS continually relies on plastic and there seems to be very little incentive for the NHS to get off it. We need to consider disincentives for the NHS to continue its use of this multitude of products—wet wipes being one—where it seems to get an exemption time after time. Instead, we should consider a further levy on these products to incentivise take-up of and research into other products to do the jobs they are designed to do.
For what it is worth, I disagree with the RPC being dismissive about why Parliament is not being asked to exempt small businesses. It is absolutely right that we are not; there is absolutely no reason for these products to be in circulation, apart from what the Minister has already explained about some technical exemptions being required at the moment. I would be grateful if she would help me understand why—I am not criticising; I know there is a busy legislative timetable—recognising that notice had been well and truly given to manufacturers, we are not banning them until May 2027, in effect. Otherwise, I am supportive.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to this SI. I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Coffey, in expressing disappointment about the slow pace at which this measure is being brought in; of course, Wales is ahead of us. I also join them in welcoming what is, I am afraid, a modest step forward.
It is worth noting that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, this is what the previous Government were planning to do anyway. It is disappointing that this new Government are not going any further. We had a Government who came in promising change and environmental measures; we might have expected to be going further than this statutory instrument is going now. We have to think about where we are now. We are all aware of the island that appeared on Google Earth and was, significantly, the result of wet wipes. I have seen different figures but at least two-thirds—perhaps more—of the wet wipes being sold now do not contain plastic. This is not going to solve the sewage problem; that is terribly clear.
What does that sewage problem mean? It is not just about things that happen in London and get lots of coverage. In September, the BBC reported that Northumbrian Water was finding under its coverage areas that were severely affected by sewer flooding. Effluent was being pushed back up through sinks, showers and toilets. One of the staff members dealing with the people affected spoke about how this really impacted on people’s lives and well-being. Wet wipes are a serious problem—not just a financial problem or an environmental problem but a problem in people’s lives.
The noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, referred to the fact that terms such as “biodegradable” and “compostable” are used inappropriately by manufacturers. If you look at the packaging, you see “99% water”, “plant-based” or a lovely symbol of two hands cradling the earth. That may not be illegal, but we have to ask: how do we get the packaging right so that people understand that they should never go in the toilet? I note that, here in your Lordships’ House—at least in some of the facilities I have been in—there are clear labels saying, “This is a problem, please don’t do it”. If the message is not getting through in the Houses of Parliament, it is perhaps not surprising that it is not getting through in the rest of the country. There is real concern that, as this statutory instrument comes into effect and people hear, “Oh, it’s all right. Isn’t it good that they’ve banned plastic?”, people are more likely to feel that they are able to flush these items.
What do you need to biodegrade one of these products? It works best in temperatures of about 30 degrees Celsius; I think I can safely say that we do not have a lot of sewers at 30 degrees Celsius. A 2023 paper by scientists from Cardiff University concluded that most flushed, so-called biodegradable, wipes do not really degrade. Most of them are made from cotton-based or wood-based cellulose fibres. There is a further problem here in that, when they are put into water, it changes the balance of nutrients, takes oxygen out of the water and increases the risk of fish suffocating. These wipes are a problem in so many different ways.
Can the Minister say what further measures the Government are considering? I know that there is a three-year review under this SI, but that is three years more of the kind of damage and human and environmental suffering that I have been talking about. On the figures, I am looking now at a graph of the expected sale of wet wipes from 2024 to 2032. It is a steep upward curve. Are the Government considering whether we really need all those wet wipes? Perhaps parents have become used to using wet wipes—we can all feel sympathy for new parents and the challenges they face—but what about make-up wet wipes or household cleaning wet wipes? Are these things that we really need to be selling in the UK? Are the Government considering further action sooner than in three years’ time? The Minister referred to the extended producer responsibility scheme; surely we could include all wet wipes in that now.
I have a specific question. I note that the impact assessment refers to plastic using the UK REACH definition, but the Marine Conservation Society has a specific question about whether lyocell and viscose are recognised as a form of plastic under that definition. The Marine Conservation Society says very clearly that they should be recognised as such because that is how they behave.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her positive introduction to this important SI. Plastic and microplastic pollution is a scourge of the modern age that did not exist when I was a child, and which must be tackled effectively if we are to save countless species. Unlike many previous SIs I have spoken on, this one has a thorough impact assessment. Although I cannot claim to have read all 55 pages in depth, it was clear enough to provide easily accessible information.
Wet wipes are responsible for a disproportionate number of blockages in our sewage system. They also litter the banks of our rivers and streams, and cause huge pollution on our seashores.
I am grateful to the Marine Conservation Society for its brief. Currently, 11 billion wet wipes are used every year in the UK. Some 54% of UK beach cleans found wet wipes, of which nearly two-thirds contained plastic. Despite wet wipes being marketed as flushable, many do not break down in water and, as we know, end up as sewage and other debris on our beaches and in the sea.
I am concerned that the enforcement and policing of this SI is again down to local authorities and trading standards officers, at a time when local authority budgets are under some of the most severe pressures they have ever faced. Can the Minister say whether local authorities will receive extra money for this increased responsibility?
I am sympathetic towards the Government’s intentions in this SI, but I feel that an opportunity is being lost and that more could be done at this time—something to which nearly every speaker has referred. A ban on plastic in wet wipes is welcome but, in terms of labelling, is it not time for all wet wipes to be classed as unflushable and for that to be said in large lettering on their packages? With childcare wet wipes being responsible for 18,477 million items in 2021, they are by far the largest consumer. It cannot be much more effort for a parent or carer to put a used wet wipe in a rubbish bin than it is to flush it down the toilet; I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, agrees with me on this.
Every baby and small child deserves the right to grow up in a society where plastic is not ruining the environment and overloading our inadequate sewage systems. Larger, adequate signing on the packaging would make a huge difference in ensuring that no wet wipes enter the sewage system. This would include those made from lyocell and viscose being treated the same as plastic, as these materials take a long time to decompose; the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to this.
The IA makes it clear that microplastics are damaging and disrupting our aquatic systems, resulting in the extinction of some marine organisms. Wet wipes are one of the chief culprits here. Although I support this SI, I ask the Minister: why have the Government not gone further and banned all wet wipes, even those with no plastic content, being flushed? This is a missed opportunity.
The table on page 12 of the IA shows that those using wet wipes for cosmetic purposes are getting the message. In 2018, 2,485 million wipes were used for cosmetic purposes; this had dropped to 1,205 million by 2021. Although that is still a huge amount, it shows that some consumers are reading the packaging and attempting to play their part.
Again, the IA informs us that humans consume 5 grams of plastic a week—the equivalent of a credit card—with microplastics. This is horrendous. As microplastics are also being found in human blood, surely it is time to take this issue more seriously. This ban is not being implemented for 18 months, which is too long; six months is plenty of time for such a ban to be introduced. Those currently using wet wipes will continue to do so regardless of whether they can flush them or bin them. The Environment Act calls loudly for the polluter to pay, and this instrument moves us some way towards that goal—though not quickly enough.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on the impending strategy on plastics, which I look forward to. I agree with all of the comments made by previous speakers, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this vital issue.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are supportive of these regulations, which seek to ban wet wipes containing plastic. We commend the Government on pressing ahead with this important measure, which was first initiated by the previous Conservative Government in 2024. It is both a long-overdue and necessary step in tackling the scourge of plastic pollution, which finds its way into our rivers, on to our beaches and, ultimately, into our oceans.
These regulations are sensible, proportionate and practical. However, while this statutory instrument will eliminate one major source of plastic pollution, it will not solve the wider problem of what we are flushing down and into our sewer system. Wet wipes and other waste continue to create enormous fatbergs in our sewers. Oils, grease and wipes congeal into solid mounds that block the network, leading to flooding and enormous clean-up costs. Water UK tells us that 93% of sewage blockages are caused by wet wipes, costing around £100 million per year to clear. We have seen gruesome evidence of this: the 250-metre fatberg in Whitechapel in 2017, which weighed in at 130 tonnes, and, more recently, the so-called wet wipe island on the Thames near Hammersmith Bridge.
Even so-called plastic-free wipes are not a simple solution. Whether they are made from cotton, bamboo or viscose, they remain single-use products with significant environmental footprints and the liquids they contain often include palm oil or chemical preservatives that can damage our rivers. Nor does “biodegradable” mean what many people assume it does, as highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Bennett. In laboratory tests, everything eventually breaks down, but our sewers are not—and should not be—laboratories. As the Rivers Trust has pointed out, these wipes are not designed to disintegrate quickly, so they continue to block pipes and form fatbergs. The only gain is that they no longer shed microplastics.
While His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support this ban, we must not imagine that it will end the fatberg menace. Plastic-free wipes, whether cleaning, make-up or baby wipes, behave nothing like toilet paper. They cling to grease, oils and other debris, creating the vast sewer monsters that cost millions to remove and drive up consumers’ water bills. Only last month, Thames Water cleared a 100-tonne fatberg from a sewer in Feltham in west London. Some 10 metres below ground, engineers had to blast, chisel and vacuum out 125 metres of congealed fat, oil and wet wipes—a blockage weighing as much as eight double-decker buses. The waste had to be craned out in skips and sent to landfill. Thames Water described the clearance as “hugely complex” and reminded us that, while some fatbergs weigh the same as 25 elephants, most blockages begin in small local pipes where sewage can back up into our streets, our rivers and people’s homes.
What can we do? Either we press manufacturers to create wipes that truly disintegrate or we accept that fatbergs, floods and higher water bills are here to stay. This statutory instrument is a necessary and welcome step and we commend the Government on carrying forward the initiative begun in 2024, but please let us not assume that our drains will run clear all of a sudden. Until both product design and public habits change, the fatbergs will keep on coming.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate and for their contributions. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to bring this important debate to the House of Lords. It has been a really interesting discussion. I am grateful for the broad support but, clearly, there is a range of views as to how best to introduce this measure and what it should contain. It is clear that we are all quite passionate about this, so it has been a really good debate. I will try to pick up most of the issues and questions raised.
A number of noble Lords asked about the issues around manufacture. Banning the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic is in line with most other recent single-use plastic bans where manufacture of the products has not been banned. One problem is the size of the wet wipes industry in the UK, and because of that we need to act carefully to ensure the ban is both proportionate and effective, much as the noble Earl just said.
We need to mitigate any economic impact of the ban and reduce the possibility of job losses in the industry. It is also important, however, that our domestic wet wipes manufacturers remain competitive in international markets; I will come to that later. We want to continue to encourage manufacturers to move to a position where all their wet wipes are plastic free. Most manufacturers have already started this transition to producing plastic-free wipes; the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the amount of notice they have been given. I confirm that we are not ruling out a ban on manufacture at a later date. We will consider whether this is necessary once the ban on supply and sale has come into force.