Draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Protection Against Detriment (Industrial Action) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 24 June 2026 and relates to protection against detriment for workers taking protected industrial action under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It is being introduced to provide essential protection to workers, ensuring that they can take industrial action without being treated unfairly by their employer as a result.
The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Secretary of State for Business and Trade v. Mercer ruled that the current protections from detriment for trade union activity under section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act do not extend to protected industrial action. As a result, the Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility between UK legislation and article 11 of the European convention on human rights, the right to free association. This means that there is a gap in the law that could enable bad faith employers to unfairly penalise workers taking industrial action.
While it should always be treated as a last resort, this Government believe that industrial action is an integral and vital part of a worker’s right to express their collective voice if they choose to. If a worker does choose to take industrial action, it is essential that employers treat them fairly and with respect, as the vast majority of employers have always done. This draft instrument remedies the existing gap in the law, enabling workers to take industrial action without being at risk of suffering detriment as a result. It also ensures that UK law regarding detriments will be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The draft protection against detriment regulations are made under section 236A of the 1992 Act, which was introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. The draft regulations, taken together with section 236A of the 1992 Act, prohibit all detriments to which an employer can subject a worker for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring protected industrial action.
This Government are committed to protecting workers who take industrial action while ensuring that employers are not unduly affected. The vast majority of employers already act responsibly and do not impose detriments on workers for taking industrial action. The draft legislation therefore targets the rare cases where such treatment may occur, without disrupting the day-to-day running of responsible businesses. That is why this legislation prohibits only detriments for the sole or main purpose of penalising, preventing or deterring industrial action.
That means that during a period of industrial action, ordinary business practices will not be banned as long as they are not used for the sole or main purpose of preventing, penalising or deterring a worker from taking industrial action. For example, disciplinary action may still be taken against a worker who has committed misconduct unrelated to strike action during an ongoing period of strike action. Employers will still be able to manage industrial action in ways that do not involve imposing a legal detriment. Examples of that include proactive negotiation prior to industrial action commencing and contingency planning to mitigate the impact.
Turning to the issue of deduction of pay following industrial action, in common law the principle of “No work, no pay” applies. This means that if a worker does not attend work for a day due to taking industrial action, the employer is under no obligation to pay them for that day. The draft regulations state that they do not affect that common law position. The rules enabling the deduction of pay on account of a worker having taken part in protected industrial action will remain as they are.
The draft statutory instrument also adds section 236A of the 1992 Act to the list of claims in schedule A2 to that Act. Detriments claims will therefore be added to the list of claims in schedule A2. For claims in this list, an employment tribunal is able to increase or decrease compensation awards by 25%, depending on whether the employer or worker has failed to follow the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. This will encourage fairness and co-operation by both employers and workers and will help timely resolution of disputes to allow employers to return to usual business as quickly as possible.
This statutory instrument is essential to provide workers with sufficient protection when exercising their fundamental right to take industrial action, and to make UK legislation compatible with the European convention on human rights. It prevents the door being left open for the very small number of bad faith employers who might exploit the gap in legislation that was highlighted by that Supreme Court judgment, while still allowing good faith employers to deal with industrial action in a non-punitive manner and enabling them to continue to use normal business practices during industrial action. I therefore commend this instrument to the House, and I trust that Members will support it.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesperson, let me place on record my thanks to him for the assiduous way he has dealt with delegated legislation when I have been in the Chair, and I wish him good luck in his new role. I call the shadow Minister.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I was going to say it is a great pleasure to be on this Committee, but it is an even greater pleasure after that wonderful remark. I am very grateful, and it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister, as usual; I thank her very much indeed for her explanation of the Government’s intentions for the draft regulations before us.
As I think I have stressed at every Delegated Legislation Committee under this Department, it is important that these changes strike the right balance—in this instance, between ensuring that employees are able to exercise their right to industrial action in certain circumstances and in accordance with the law, and the interests of businesses and employers upon whom our future prosperity depends.
To that end, I have a few questions about the measures. At the end of part one of the explanatory memorandum it states that guidance covering these regulations will be updated next month, in October. Does that mean that employers will be left in the dark about the specifics of their new, added responsibilities until the date that these regulations come into effect? More broadly, that seems to be a recurring theme of statutory instruments laid by this Department.
I suggest that the hon. Lady and her colleagues try to put themselves in the position of a business, particularly a small business. Whether or not one agrees with the Government’s regulatory changes, businesses deserve fair and reasonable time to plan before regulations come into effect. That is good for everybody. I am afraid that, consistently, guidance and regulation come at the same time, which gives no time for due planning so that businesses can get ready. Will the Minister commit today to publishing guidance ahead of regulation coming in, so that employers have advance sight, notice and guidance? That would be appreciated by all companies, big and small, in all our constituencies.
Secondly, following the Government consultation on these regulations earlier in the year, some respondents suggested that reducing the perceived risks to participation in industrial action could lead to more frequent and prolonged disputes with trade unions. I appreciate that the Government may not be concerned with trade union-created disputes becoming more frequent, but the public and businesses certainly are. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s response to those specific concerns in the public consultation? They were not addressed in the formal Government response, and it would be good to hear the official response.
Thirdly, the law firm Dentons has made clear that employment tribunals will determine on the facts of each case whether a worker has suffered a detriment. But we know that the Government are already facing an unprecedented and growing backlog in the employment tribunals system. In the most recent statistics, which are from March 2026, there were 64,000 single claim open cases awaiting resolution. That is a 55% increase compared with the same period in 2024-25, and a 42% increase in the last year alone. We know that the Justice Committee felt required to launch an inquiry into the issue, and the Law Society has described the situation as “urgent”, stating:
“It is alarming to see employment tribunal backlogs continuing to spiral”.
What conversations has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the impact of the Government’s employment policies in creating this additional backlog? Has an impact assessment been carried out by either her Department or the MOJ to determine how these specific regulations might further exacerbate what is quite a worrying backlog?
Fourthly, during the passage of the Employment Rights Act through both Houses, the Opposition repeatedly tabled amendments that sought to put beyond doubt that protection from detriment for employees who engage in behaviour such as intimidation on picket lines, protest on company premises or at the personal residence of managers, or the harassment of non-striking workers is withheld. The Government chose at that time—many times, actually—to reject those amendments, suggesting that such behaviours would already not entitle protection. For the record, can the Minister state categorically that, if workers engage in those kinds of behaviours, which I think we would all disagree with, these regulations will not leave employers unable to take action against those serious perpetrators?
Finally, paragraph 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the deduction of pay by an employer from a worker who takes industrial action. That is allowed under common law and unchanged by the regulations, but the paragraph also explains that
“the question of precisely how much pay may lawfully be deducted”
can be “complex”, and that the Government’s view is that the common law is not sufficiently developed in this area.
That matters when we are debating these regulations, because employers deemed to have made an excessive pay deduction could be liable to have a complaint brought against them under section 236A of the 1992 Act. It seems, therefore, that the Government admit that this is a potential or actual grey area, but that they will not provide the clarity that we have sought, not least before these regulations come into effect. That could lead to serious consequences for employers.
I realise that there are a few questions there, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could provide more clarity on them. If she cannot provide the answers today, I would be grateful if she could write to me with them. My final remark, if I may, Ms Vaz, is that we last met in a delegated legislation Committee on 8 July and—it happens from time to time—the Minister was not able to answer all my questions in that Committee. I wrote to her on 9 July. She is a very diligent person, and I know she will be horrified to learn that she has not yet responded to me, 55 days later. I gently request that she ask her officials to send that response as soon as possible.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks; it has been a pleasure to debate him in numerous secondary legislation Committees. He is always diligent with his questions and his scrutiny, and I appreciate that and wish him well in his new role.
Taking the shadow Minister’s questions in turn, he mentioned the impact on businesses of understanding the guidance that will be in place and ensuring that they feel prepared to address and adapt if necessary. We of course consulted business representatives, as we did at length throughout every stage of the Employment Rights Act, to gain their views on this guidance in particular. We will move at pace to ensure that employers get that support with the guidance so that they can comply as necessary.
I would add, however, that at the moment employers very rarely have to impose detriments, so we do not believe that there will be a significant amount of work for employers to do. I referred in my opening remarks to the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial action and how rare it is. Given the scale of employers having to understand the guidance, we do not really see the risk as significant, but of course we will work to publish as soon as possible and work closely with businesses, as we always do.
The shadow Minister mentioned the frequency of strike action, and I gently remind him of the unfortunate highs under the previous Government: 2.5 million days were lost to strike action under the previous Government. That figure has increasingly come down. We want to ensure that, alongside all these measures, we have good industrial relations and that employers, businesses, trade unions and Government can get around the table to discuss the challenges we face across this country as well as those we face in workplaces.
We recognise that trade unions, their representatives, business and employers will not agree on everything all the time, but fostering good industrial relations across workplaces across the country is my ambition and this Government’s ambition. We know that strike action is often the last resort, and it is an important right for workers to use if necessary, but we want to foster good industrial relations. That is a key part, not just of this draft instrument, but of our wider approach.
I have been working on consistently with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on the issue of employment tribunals, recognising that backlog—it was not helped by the previous Government’s cuts, unfortunately, where we saw significant decreases to the employment tribunal system. It suits no one when they do not have access to justice—neither workers nor employers. People want a system that works for them and can work through cases, and to have that support and that ultimate access to justice. It is really important that we get those backlogs down. We have set up a taskforce with union representatives, businesses, employers, myself and my colleague in the Ministry of Justice, and we have been working at pace since October last year on how to fundamentally fix the system, recognising the pressures and the backlog we already face.
As I have said, on the particular instrument we are debating here, there have been two cases in recent years relating to detriments for participation in industrial action. We do not have the frequency of employers imposing detriments on workers taking industrial available to us, because it is so rare—but of course we are conscious of the point about employment tribunals.
On industrial action, the shadow Minister mentioned all the regulations that are already in place. Trade union activities and strike action are already highly regulated already. We have talked a lot about that throughout the passage of the Employment Rights Act, as he referred to. We want to ensure that workers abide by the regulations and the law in place, just as we want employers to do; that is why this debate is so important. That conduct is important for the good industrial relations that I mentioned earlier.
Finally, the shadow Minister mentioned pay and the impact on common law. Of course we want to ensure that we can enable that process of lessons being learned, so that we can understand and hear what is developing in common law and feed it into our work on this issue. I mentioned in my opening remarks what this instrument will and will not do, so hopefully our intentions in making this change have been understood. We will of course review common law as we always would.
On the response the shadow Minister is waiting for, I can only apologise; I will chase that and ensure he gets it in due course. I hope I have answered many of the questions from this debate and that all hon. Members can support this important principle of protecting workers from unfair treatment for taking industrial action. If any of our constituents were put in that position, we would want them to have the law behind them and to have that support, so I hope that colleagues across the House will support this statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. This draft instrument was laid before the House on 22 June. It applies to Northern Ireland only and was developed in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is a necessary measure to update Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation and enforcement provisions relating to plant health, ensuring the continued protection of Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and fulfilment of the Windsor framework obligations. As Members will be aware, under the terms of the Windsor framework, limited parts of European Union law falling under annex 2 of the framework continue to apply to Northern Ireland. They include the movement of goods, agrifood standards and animal and plant health.
The draft instrument makes no changes to the Windsor framework. It amends six pieces of Northern Ireland legislation covering plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material. The amendments are technical in nature and ensure that Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation remains clear, operable and aligned with requirements that already apply there under the Windsor agreement and framework. These legislative frameworks govern matters such as plant varieties, documentation requirements, traceability and plant health quality standards for fruit, vegetables, propagating material, forest reproductive materials and seed potatoes. They help to protect growers, traders and consumers by setting standards for products placed on the market and by ensuring that plant material can be traced and verified.
The draft instrument updates outdated references throughout the legislation, including references related to Northern Ireland, Great Britain and EU member states, following the UK’s exit from the European Union. It also reflects relevant EU plant health legislation that is already directly applicable to Northern Ireland, including provisions related to regulated pests, diseases and reporting requirements.
The draft instrument also strengthens the domestic enforcement framework by ensuring that DAERA has clear powers to take proportionate action where plant health requirements are not met. While the requirements already apply to Northern Ireland, the draft instrument ensures that they can be fully enforced where necessary, including through penalties and prosecution in cases of serious non-compliance. That is important in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity and maintaining a level playing field for businesses that comply with the rules.
Members will be aware that the Windsor framework restored the movement of seed potatoes from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, supporting growers and businesses across the sector. The draft instrument helps the legislative framework governing seed potatoes, alongside the other plant health controls, to remain effective and enforceable.
Importantly, the draft instrument does not introduce new requirements for businesses. It ensures that domestic legislation accurately reflects arrangements that are already in operation and supports Northern Ireland’s high standards of plant health and biosecurity. No formal public consultation was undertaken on the draft instrument because it introduces no new policy requirements. However, DAERA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have engaged extensively with stakeholders on the wider plant health arrangements operating under the Windsor framework.
I emphasise that it is essential that the amendments in the draft instrument update the Northern Ireland statute book and enable effective compliance with plant health requirements to uphold our commitment to full and faithful implementation of the Windsor framework. The draft instrument does not alter the Windsor framework, nor does it introduce new policy requirements. Its purpose is to ensure that Northern Ireland’s domestic legislation remains accurate, operable and capable of enforcing requirements that already apply. This is a technical but important measure. It updates Northern Ireland’s statute book, strengthens biosecurity protections, supports effective enforcement and introduces no new requirements for businesses. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
These regulations make necessary amendments to Northern Ireland’s legislation governing plant health, seeds, seed potatoes and plant propagating material and ensure that it operates in accordance with the Windsor framework. Maintaining strong plant health protections is essential to safeguarding Northern Irish growers, Northern Irish food security and the natural environment. An outbreak of a serious pest or disease could have devastating consequences for agricultural production and rural businesses across Northern Ireland.
Plant health legislation is included under article 5(4) of the Windsor framework. The amendments in these draft regulations ensure that DEFRA has the necessary powers to enforce the plant health rules applying in Northern Ireland. They update prohibited lists of plants and pests, phytosanitary controls that govern the movement of plants for planting and other objects and conditions in relation to planting material and requirements for reporting and disposing of infected material. The instrument also removes provisions relating to movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland that are no longer applicable, introduces a GB-NI code for official labelling and makes several technical corrections.
These are important protections and the official Opposition will not be opposing the amendments laid today. It is right that DAERA possesses the powers that it needs to enforce the rules properly and to act where non-compliance is identified.
However, we do have some concerns. The Minister mentioned that no public consultation was undertaken on these amendments, but while DAERA and DEFRA engaged with key stakeholders, it is important to note that Northern Irish growers, seed potato producers and other affected businesses must also have a meaningful opportunity to make their views heard. Therefore, I would like to understand from the Minister if a level of engagement was had with those growers and organisations involved in that sector. Will the Minister identify which organisations, if any, DEFRA engaged with?
The Government have not produced a full impact assessment or established specific monitoring arrangements because the regulatory requirements already apply in Northern Ireland. They may already apply, but that does not necessarily mean that they impose no cost or administrative burden to businesses. Could the Minister assure us today that any unforeseen costs or practical difficulties will be identified and addressed, particularly if they could disrupt the movement of plant and seed potatoes between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The official Opposition will not oppose these regulations. Strong and enforceable plant health protections are essential, and these amendments will provide DAERA with the powers it needs to protect Northern Ireland from dangerous pests and disease. However, regulations introduced under the Windsor framework must be accompanied by meaningful engagement, proper democratic scrutiny and close attention to their impact and practical consequences. While not opposing these amendments, we seek clarity from the Minister today around the assurances on consultation with stakeholders and the protection of trade within the United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
The Minister outlined why these regulations were necessary and gave what, to most on the Committee, would be an acceptable argument: they are to protect biodiversity in Northern Ireland and to ensure that diseased plants are not accessing the Northern Ireland market. But of course, that is not the real reason; the real reason is contained in the regulations themselves. The regulations make it quite clear that they are necessary because Northern Ireland has to be regarded as if it were a member state of the European Union. That is the reason for this legislation. Although we have had Brexit, the vote and the decision to leave the EU, Northern Ireland is still to be treated as if it were a member of the European Union. That is the real reason behind it.
We would not need these regulations were it not for EU regulations having to apply to a certain part of the United Kingdom because it is regarded as part of the EU, regardless of the democratic vote of the British people to leave the EU. This is not about protecting biodiversity. Most of the goods affected by this legislation will originate in GB. For years, those goods were able to enter the Northern Ireland market without any damage to the agriculture or nature of Northern Ireland.
The implication is that, somehow, the majority of the trade coming across from GB in plants, seed potatoes and so on must be suspect. That is why we have to have these separate regulations: to protect us from goods that, for years and years, we sourced from producers in GB. Now, suddenly, we need to protect the Northern Ireland economy from those goods. That is just nonsense. The real reason is that EU laws now apply in Northern Ireland. We are regarded as an EU state, and therefore those EU regulations have to be imposed. There is nothing to do with the protection of biodiversity or anything like that.
What exactly will these regulations do? First—the Minister has actually used these words himself—they will fully implement the Windsor framework. They are to fully implement EU laws in Northern Ireland—laws that were never decided by this House or by the Northern Ireland Assembly, but by a foreign Administration, and about which there was never any say.
What is the impact of that? Let me give one example. When it comes to the import of seed materials, we would have imported a lot of our seed potatoes from Scotland. Now there are regulations stating that, if someone brings in more than 2 kg of those seed potatoes, there is a whole pile of additional administration.
As a keen gardener, I used to send to Fothergill’s—as did a lot of other people—to get my seed potatoes. I cannot get them any longer, because business-to-individual sales of many plants are forbidden under these regulations. If, for example, some of the big potato growers in my constituency want to bring potatoes in from outside, there is a whole range of information that has to be provided if they import more than 2 kg of potatoes, and draft regulation 5(14) states that.
What has been the effect? I can think of a number of companies that used to sell to me as an individual consumer or to garden centres in my constituency. They no longer sell. Why? Because they are now subject to all these additional regulations. If they do not abide by those regulations—we have already seen this—those goods can be seized, destroyed, re-exported or detained by DAERA in Northern Ireland. That is not something which is just a maybe; it happens currently.
Last year, 43 such consignments were seized by DAERA and either detained, re-exported or destroyed. That begs the question, if DAERA already has the powers to do that, why is the legislation required? It is required because it now gives DAERA the ability to do this with the imprimatur of the EU. We have not only the imprimatur of our Government, which signed up to the Windsor framework agreement; we now have the imprimatur of the EU.
The regulations are full of jargon and everything else. I am trying to spell out the practical implications. As I have said, first, Northern Ireland is now treated as part of the EU. I do not know how anyone who claims to be a British parliamentarian can accept that as a reason for this legislation. Secondly, the legislation has disrupted trade significantly. In fact, there are some goods that are not even subject to regulation—they are simply banned. There are some trees that would normally have been imported into Northern Ireland that are now banned from being brought in because the EU has regulations against them.
As the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, pointed out, it was also not even deemed necessary to have a consultation or to get consent. I wonder how much of the information in support of, or even about, the regulations was gathered from many of the garden centre owners in Northern Ireland who are severely impacted by them, whether by not being able to get supplies, supplies becoming more expensive or, more likely, now having to go to the Irish Republic to get their supplies, where they are more expensive and probably inferior goods. That is the irony.
In my own constituency, the wee forest at my own house is now affected by Ash dieback. Many of the trees there are now dying and have been cut down. They were not diseased trees that came from GB, where the regulations require that the trees be inspected. They came from other parts of the EU without the necessary inspections. That is the irony. The Minister can talk about protecting biodiversity, but the regulations do not do that. All they do is ensure that a bad agreement, which should never have been signed, and which has constitutionally split up the UK and its internal market, is now going to be fully implemented.
I say to Members, regardless of their political persuasions and everything else: that is not right and should not be supported. It is a bit of an irony that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill in the main Chamber, which is meant to be all about democracy in the United Kingdom, and yet we are not exercising democracy in Northern Ireland if we pass this legislation. It is not just some kind of semantic argument about what democracy is; it has real practical implications for people who live in my constituency.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Order. I remind everybody that this is quite a tight set of regulations, so please try to keep your comments focused on what is before us, rather than expanding the arguments to issues surrounding how we may have got here today.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you, Sir Alec; I can do that by taking the Committee precisely to the words of the regulations. Here we are, a Committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, supposedly, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet the Committee has been invited to write into six separate regulations affecting these issues in Northern Ireland a declaration to the effect that Northern Ireland is not really part of the United Kingdom, and in fact is someone else’s territory.
If anyone is interested, I invite them to look at page 17 of the regulations. Things can be found in numerous places, but on page 17 there is an amendment under part 7 of the regulations to the Plant Health (Official Controls and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020. At the top of the page, it says:
“In these regulations”—
these are regulations affecting a part of the United Kingdom—
“any reference to a member State is to be read as if Northern Ireland were a member State of the European Union…any reference to the Union”—
that is the EU—
“or Union territory is to be read so as to include Northern Ireland.”
What we are putting into legislation that applies to Northern Ireland and the standards that apply to a range of materials and goods is a formal legal declaration that my part of the United Kingdom is not in truth a part of the United Kingdom.
According to this, I am to be read as being part of the EU’s territory. I say to every member of this Committee: if the regulations said that about your constituency, what would you say? I say that in particular to Conservative and Unionist Members. If the regulations said that their part of the United Kingdom is to be treated as if it is not part of the United Kingdom, but as a territory of a foreign jurisdiction—namely, the EU—would they come to this Committee, nod the change through and say, “It is only technical”? It might be technical to the Minister and the official Opposition, but I can tell them it is a lot more than technical to the people of Northern Ireland who we represent in this House. It is a fundamental constitutional slight on our supposed membership of the United Kingdom.
Through that slight and through the regulations we have imposed laws that we do not make, that we cannot change and that someone else makes. The regulations do not put into these six statutory instruments standards made, created or thought about by this House; they impose standards made, created and thought about by foreign parliamentarians, none of whom we elect. That is the mischief and the insult of the regulations that we are imposing on those who deal with seed potatoes or any of these plant health issues. They are someone else’s regulations. What sort of parliamentarians are we if we think it is okay to let someone who no one from this United Kingdom elects decide what the standards should be within this United Kingdom? That is precisely what the regulations do today, and that is far more than technical, Minister. It is fundamental.
It goes further. Under part 7, we now are imposing sanctions if someone breaches foreign-made regulations. What sort of United Kingdom is it? This House is going to pass regulations that say that people can be fined or dealt with by other sanctions not because they break the regulations of our own Government or the regulations of their own Parliament, but because they break the regulation of someone else’s Parliament. That is the absurdity that the Windsor framework has brought to Northern Ireland. Unless and until this House wakens up to that absurdity and asserts itself as a sovereign Parliament—supposedly—of this United Kingdom, we are going to continue to be subject to this insult. I say to every member of the Committee, particularly those who profess a belief in the Union of the United Kingdom, that it might be a small measure to some—not much more than a technical issue—but the Committee could at least take a small stand against it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
I concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. This instrument has been presented as a technical one, but there is nothing insignificant about creating new criminal liability under laws imposed on Northern Ireland by the European Union. The regulations amend six separate areas of Northern Ireland law, covering vegetable plants, ornamental plants, forestry material, seed potatoes, fruit plants and official plant health controls.
As the Committee has heard, the constitutional language is extraordinary. The instrument states that Northern Ireland is to be read as if it were a member state of the European Union. It replaces references to UK standards with references to European Union standards. In relation to forest reproductive material, Great Britain is classified as an “EU-approved third country”. That is certainly not a tidying up of legislation; it writes Northern Ireland out of its own country and into the regulatory territory of the European Union.
Most seriously, regulation 7 inserts a new list of EU instruments into Northern Ireland law and makes non-compliance with them an offence. The instrument expressly states that references to those EU laws include those laws
“as amended from time to time.”
In other words, future changes made in Brussels can alter the rules with which Northern Ireland businesses must comply, without any vote in this House or the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those rules cover matters including pet passports, the movement of seed potatoes, the destruction of infected plants and even the cleaning or destruction of machinery, vehicles, stores and packaging, yet there was no public consultation, and not one Northern Ireland farmer, grower, nursery seed producer or forestry business was formally asked for their view. That is outrageous, given that it impacts them the most.
Nor has a full impact assessment been produced, because the Government claim that there will be no significant financial impact. That is simply not good enough when Parliament is being asked to approve new offences. DAERA already has powers to detain, reject, re-export or destroy consignments, and those powers were used 43 times in 2025. DEFRA has confirmed that the enforcement gap caused no negative effect on compliance or biosecurity. The Minister must therefore explain what failure requires these new offences, who could be prosecuted and why Northern Ireland businesses were denied a consultation.
This instrument exposes the reality of the Windsor framework: EU law, EU standards and EU enforcement imposed on one part of the United Kingdom without any democratic consent. I simply ask Committee members to search their hearts. If this was happening to their constituency, their constituents and businesses in their part of this great United Kingdom, they would not like it and they would vote against it. I ask the Committee to do the right thing by Northern Ireland and our place in this United Kingdom.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution and his constructive engagement on these matters, and all Members who have shared their insights and views.
The shadow Minister noted that there has been no public consultation on this instrument because there is no legal duty to do so. However, DAERA has worked closely with DEFRA to engage with relevant stakeholders on the wider plant health requirements under the Windsor framework, including through the relevant working groups and, I can assure him, through engagement with the Ulster Farmers Union. There is ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders, and strong relationships are in place.
The shadow Minister asked about the impact on trade. I assure all Members that the instrument introduces no new requirements for traders and will not have any impact on trade.
Stephen Morgan
I will make some progress.
A number of Members made broader points about constitutional matters. I appreciate the strength of feeling on the wider constitutional issues, but I assure all Members that the instrument respects Northern Ireland’s integral position as part of the United Kingdom. It is a UK-made and UK-scrutinised piece of legislation, operating within the scope of the UK’s international commitment to introducing and applying domestic legislation to Northern Ireland. It upholds the UK Government’s commitment to implementing the Windsor framework. The Windsor framework is the legal framework currently in force, and this instrument operates within it. That is a clear improvement on the Northern Ireland protocol and the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances in the long term.
Let me turn back to the specifics of the statutory instrument. It serves only to update Northern Ireland’s plant health legislation to ensure that it is clear, operable and accurate. That not only gives clarity to DAERA in the vital roles that it delivers in protecting Northern Ireland’s biosecurity, but gives clarity and stability to Northern Ireland stakeholders, ensuring that all parties play their part in doing what is necessary to maintain plant health in Northern Ireland.
By ensuring that the requirements of this instrument are correct and clear, we ensure that there are no legislative gaps or room for confusion in dealing with the complex plant health environment, thus contributing to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s trade and economic success in the agri-food, horticultural and forestry and woodland sectors. The instrument will ensure that the United Kingdom meets its international obligations under the Windsor framework, and will serve to ensure that high biosecurity standards for Northern Ireland are observed for years to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health, Seeds, Seed Potatoes and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026.
Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026
(2 days, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 June.
When it comes to development and the environment, this Government have been clear that we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature. To that end, we legislated through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to introduce a nature restoration fund that will unlock and accelerate development, going beyond simply offsetting harm to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery. The purpose of the NRF is simple: to end the current suboptimal approach to discharging environmental obligations, in which developers are required to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo; and to replace that with a more strategic approach that will streamline delivery of new homes and infrastructure, while efficiently delivering improved environmental outcomes by leveraging economies of scale and reducing need for costly project-level assessments.
As hon. Members are aware, the core principles and purpose of the NRF were subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses. Relevant clauses of the original Bill were strengthened in a number of important ways during its passage to provide further reassurance that the fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. It would not be appropriate to relitigate the lengthy debates that took place in the Bill Committee, but I take this opportunity to emphasise that strong safeguards were built into the 2025 Act to ensure that the fund will restore, not harm, nature. Those include a binding overall improvement test, monitoring and back-up measures, remedial action and the ability to amend or revoke plans if necessary.
Shifting to a strategic approach requires positive planning, which is why the creation of environmental delivery plans sits at the heart of the model. EDPs will be developed by Natural England, the Government’s adviser in respect of the natural environment, and will demonstrate how the proposed package of conservation measures delivered by the EDP will materially outweigh one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species. Those conservation measures will then be deployed by Natural England where they will have the greatest environmental benefit.
Each EDP will be subject to public consultation, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to scrutinise the evidence presented by Natural England before an EDP can be made. At the conclusion of that process, the Secretary of State will consider whether the EDP meets the overall improvement test established under the Act before they formally make the EDP. Where an EDP is in place, developers will have the option to pay the nature restoration levy to discharge the relevant environmental obligations that the EDP covers. That levy is the subject of the draft regulations that we are considering.
The draft nature restoration levy regulations set out how the levy mechanism will work in practice. They will provide the statutory framework for key elements of the levy’s operation, including how liability to pay the levy may be assumed, imposed or transferred, and they explain how the amount of the levy will be calculated, when payment will be due, and the enforcement mechanisms available to Natural England when obligations are not met.
The purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable the delivery, management, maintenance and monitoring of the conservation measures identified in the relevant EDP. The draft regulations therefore provide clear safeguards to support the effective delivery of such measures. They ensure that payments from developers are sufficient to meet the costs of the relevant conservation measures, are properly recovered in a timely manner, and are aligned with the commercial realities of development. Levy rates will be set through individual EDP charging schedules, which will form part of the EDP, which is consulted on. Those charging schedules will be based primarily on the cost of delivering the conservation measures needed to materially outweigh the development impacts.
At times during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, concerns were expressed that funds collected through the NRF might be diverted to pay for other, unrelated priorities. I assure hon. Members that the draft regulations will ensure that levy funds can be used only for the delivery of the conservation measures set out in the relevant EDP and for the administrative expenses connected with that EDP. Clear reporting requirements on how levy receipts are spent will further enable the NRF to operate transparently and with appropriate scrutiny. I stress that levy receipts are subject to a statutory ringfence and must be used to deliver the EDP for which they were collected. Only costs reasonably attributable to that EDP can be funded through levy income.
I am also aware of concerns regarding the potential impacts of EDPs on development viability. I want to make it clear, however, that we have put in place important safeguards to protect developers who choose to use the NRF from unjustified costs. Public consultation and rigorous Secretary of State scrutiny of each EDP will ensure that proposed levy rates are carefully considered before any EDP is made. It is also worth reiterating—we debated this issue at length in Committee—that in almost all cases EDPs will be voluntary and developers will have the option to meet obligations through existing routes if they do not believe that discharging their obligations through the NRF represents good value for money.
Although the levy regulations are a key part of the new system, we recognise that users will need proper support to navigate the NRF. I am pleased to say that initial guidance has now been published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Natural England to support the implementation of the first EDPs. The guidance sets out the key steps for NRF users and explains the core operational processes that will underpin the NRF system. We will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further areas where guidance might assist as we work to roll out the NRF.
To conclude, the regulations will support the effective implementation of the NRF by ensuring that the levy operates effectively, transparently and fairly so that we can build the homes and infrastructure our country needs while improving our natural environment for future generations. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. As the Minister set out in his introduction, there was extensive debate during the Committee on the Bill that has brought this set of regulations to life. There was certainly a lot of cross-party debate about the provision; that reflects the public interest in the impact that development can have on nature and wildlife in particular. Although there was a degree of political disagreement about the policy itself, I think we all shared the objective: having a more functional system. That is clearly the Government’s objective, so we will not seek to divide the Committee this afternoon.
However, I have some questions for the Minister. When we debated the issue in Committee, he was clear that in due course this legislation would come forward and there would be an opportunity to look at the points of detail that Members had raised. My first question is about any assessment that he has undertaken of Natural England’s capacity to administer the process. We heard in the Committee evidence sessions from different development organisations that talked about how difficult it sometimes was to get a decision from Natural England because of its lack of capacity when a development had been approved but there remained elements that Natural England needed to sign off. Clearly, this legislation envisages a significant role for Natural England in the planning process—much larger than it currently occupies, and one that it said in evidence to the Committee it would welcome. But making those decisions and the financial underpinning will come at a significant cost, in terms of both people and skills. Will the Minister set out what assessments have been undertaken to ensure that the provision does not lead to further delays through the administration of the levy scheme?
The second question relates to a point that we touched on in Committee and is not, as far as I can see, fully addressed in the papers: the treatment of levy payments in kind. We heard examples of when developers had said that, rather than make a cash contribution, they would seek to offer another site where they would create an appropriate wetland habitat, habitat for birds or whatever, which would have a value attached to it. In the normal course of events, the Government already negotiate to determine whether a financial contribution can be made in the form of an asset that has a value, rather than in cash. It is not immediately clear how that type of situation would be handled, especially given that Natural England will be separate from the planning authority making the decision on the scheme. It would be helpful if the Minister told us how the Government envisage dealing with that.
Finally, in Committee a point was raised that I do not think the papers entirely address: how the policy will operate where we are talking about cumulative impacts. It is straightforward for a developer that has needed to raze a woodland to demonstrate that it is financing an alternative site, to be managed by Natural England, that will recreate that habitat elsewhere. But what about developers with numerous smaller sites? How will their accumulated contribution be used to ensure that there is appropriate remediation? When those sites are in different planning authorities, how can there be an appropriate negotiation so that things are not held up because one planning authority is trying to determine the impact and another has a separate application, but the contributions from both are key to ensure that the remediation is sufficient?
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I will try to keep my questions brief. I want to be clear from the outset: I am not here to oppose the principle of the regulations—indeed, I agree with the Minister that they must work for the sake of nature restoration. However, some serious concerns have been raised with me about how they are drafted, perhaps because they have not gone through a formal consultation process.
I will focus on one key point. As I understand it, there is no third-party oversight to ensure that the levy is calculated at the right amount to secure the objectives of the environmental delivery plans, although I understand that there is third-party oversight within comparable regulations for the community infrastructure levy. That matters because I understand that a key element of the primary legislation is that the overall improvement test should be based on whether the EDP, if delivered in full, would secure an overall improvement in the environmental feature in question. Although the EDP might be sound, if the nature restoration fund levy amount is not set at an appropriate level there is a risk that the overall improvement test could be null and void because there would not be the right amount of funding.
I also understand that the regulations allow the Secretary of State to change the levy rate at any time without notice. That presumably creates considerable jeopardy for developers who do not have a legal route to exit once they have committed. It would also seem to create an avenue for a lot of political pressure to be brought to bear to reduce the amount of the levy—possibly to improve the viability of certain development schemes. I would welcome the Minister’s response to those concerns and encourage him to consider how they might be addressed before the regulations come into effect.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the shadow Minister for those questions. Let me deal with them each in turn. It may be useful if I set out in plainer terms how an EDP will be made and how the levy will be set.
The shadow Minister asked first about Natural England capacity. We debated that at length during the passage of the Bill: we believe that Natural England is the appropriate delivery body for the NRF, given its internal expertise and ability to operate effectively across the whole of England. It is also worth saying that when carrying out its functions under the nature restoration fund, Natural England remains bound by its wider statutory duties and general purposes, as set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2026. Those include promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity.
We think that Natural England is the appropriate body. It will be supported to take strategic action to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual EDPs, using income from the nature restoration levy. This is a really important point: the levy is based on full cost recovery. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the levy can be used to support administrative duties tied to the EDP, but is primarily to fund conservation measures that EDPs will bring forward, on a full cost-recovery basis. The regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover management, maintenance and other things. That will enable Natural England to build and maintain the capacity and capability needed to design, implement and monitor EDPs effectively.
The important point to convey to the Committee is that each EDP will be subject to public consultation. In line with the commitment we made in the other place, we have been working for many months with Natural England and DEFRA on the first EDP, which deals solely with nutrient pollution; we thought that was the best constraint to take the first EDP forward on.
In bringing forward an EDP, Natural England will have to project and estimate the maximum amount of development that that EDP can cater for and set a levy rate based on what is necessary to deliver the conservation measures required to discharge and meet that overall improvement test; I will come back to that in a second. Natural England will set a levy for each individual EDP. That will be subject to public consultation. Environmental groups, local residents, local authorities and developers will each have a say on the particular levy being consulted on. That gives the public a chance to have input into what is taken forward.
David Simmonds
The Minister has helpfully set out how we expect the EDP process to work in practice. When he was talking about how it would be financed, he described what could be extensive and lengthy public consultation, requiring expert input in designing habitats and so forth. Clearly, that will come at a significant cost. Will the cost to Natural England of administering the scheme be paid for out of the levy income itself or is there a separate funding mechanism that will enable Natural England to carry out that work?
Matthew Pennycook
That is an appropriate question. The shadow Minister may recall that during the passage of the Bill we committed to some upfront funding for Natural England. However, we have come to the regulations before us: the point is that the levy is designed to operate on a full cost-recovery basis. Rates are required to reflect the cost of delivering the necessary conservation measures, as well as covering the costs of monitoring and maintenance activities. Some of the levy can be used on the cost of setting up and consulting on an EDP but it is primarily for bringing the conservation measures forward.
The shadow Minister also asked about payments in lieu—off-site payments, as I took it. The regulations do not provide for that. That is not the assumption that we are working on.
I come back to what an EDP means in practice. Let us take the case of nutrient pollution, which will be the first we consult on. Natural England will have put together a suite of conservation measures across a designated area that it can call on to ensure that the overall improvement test is met. As I said in my opening remarks, each individual developer can still decide to discharge relevant environmental obligations under current arrangements if they do not feel that the levy rate provides value for money. However, we hope that the workings of the EDP will show that it is a very effective, efficient way to discharge those obligations. We hope that more developers will come in.
As the levy payments come in, Natural England will begin to draw on the suite of conservation measures available to it. We are taking forward separate regulations on the prioritisation of conservation measures: as part of an EDP, Natural England will have to set out in general terms a prioritisation and sequencing of conservation measures. Those are not mutually exclusive; some might be relevant and used in different instances. This is about what it brings forward to meet those requirements. As more developers come within the given area where the EDP is operating, Natural England will be able to leverage economies of scale. That is the big win here: allowing those economies of scale and that strategic approach. The regulations are not designed for payments in lieu.
I hope that I have dealt with the cumulative impact. When it comes to individual planning applications, developers will have to indicate that they wish to discharge their obligations through the EDP. At that point, there will be a commitment to pay on the part of Natural England. The developer can then use that commitment to take that through the relevant planning process. The planning process may not be successful, but if it is, the liability to pay is ensured and there will be payment into the scheme.
In terms of cumulative impact, a particular developer may seek to discharge its obligations on a site-by-site, project-level basis, using EDPs only on some sites in the catchment—again, we would hope not; we want as many developers to be using EDPs as possible. That is probably unlikely if developers see that EDPs are working for them as an efficient way to discharge the obligations. I am sure that developers will start to make better use of the scheme.
Let me address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised, including on changing the levy without consultation. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 sets out the circumstances where reconsultation on an EDP is required, such as where new conservation measures are proposed or the amount of development coverage is increased. There are a couple of scenarios where that might work. Say the projected development of homes or infrastructure increases; there might be a need to amend the EDP. Alternatively, additional conservation measures might be required.
Under the powers in the Act, the Secretary of State may direct Natural England to reconsult when there are changes to the EDP’s charging schedule. That allows the levy rate to change to meet the cost of the EDP, in line with the overall improvement test, but it does not require reconsultation in all circumstances. We would not want a wholesale public consultation on minor changes to the levy rate; when there are significant changes, the Secretary of State has the power to do that. The levy rate for developers is set at the point where Natural England accepts the commitment to pay. If the levy rate subsequently needs to be increased to ensure that the required conservation measures can be delivered, the new rate will take effect only for future requests made to the EDP.
In terms of independent oversight, EDPs will not be black-box exercises; as we said, they are subject to public consultation. In the very near future we will launch the consultation on the first EDP, which is on nutrient neutrality. Before an EDP can take effect, local authorities, environmental groups and others will have a chance to scrutinise it in its entirety. Natural England must then consider the consultation responses before finalising the EDP and the Secretary of State retains statutory oversight through the approval of the EDP itself and whether it meets the overall improvement test. I do not want to relitigate the extensive debates in Committee, but that overall improvement test is the test that must be met. In the case of the first EDP that we bring forward, it will be the DEFRA Secretary of State who makes the judgment on whether the EDP is to be made following consultation.
I have covered whether the levy funds are not required to meet costs in full. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised the absence of a legal route to exit a commitment if circumstances change, but we have designed the draft regulations to accommodate the changing circumstances that developers might face. The regulations allow for levy-related commitments to be cancelled in specified scenarios, ensuring that the system can respond when a development does not proceed as anticipated. That reflects a proportionate approach to provide certainty for Natural England in delivering the necessary conservation measures, while recognising that plans can change over the lifetime of a development.
David Simmonds
I want to test the Minister’s thinking on that point. As constituency MPs, many of us have heard about section 106, where a significant number of contributions may be attached to school places, road improvements or whatever it may be. When the money is not spent within a specified period of time, the developer can reclaim it so that it cannot be redirected to other purposes, depending on what is in the agreement.
Another challenge is what happens when developers in a new town, for example, prefer to pay the levy, but the total of all the payments exceeds the value of the work that Natural England is undertaking because of the extent of the development, so something else needs to be substituted. Will the Minister set out briefly how the Government propose to address such issues so that the legislation does not, in practice, turn out to be a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare for many of the communities involved?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. That brings me back to my point about how the levy is set and how it is tested through public consultation. It will be for Natural England to judge the quantum of development to be taken forward and to divide the individual charge on a per-hectare or per-dwelling basis in the most appropriate way. However, at the point when the developer seeks to discharge its environmental obligations through the use of the levy it will have consented to pay that levy amount.
We will test the levy amount through public consultation, but the test of whether the levy is set effectively is that it allows for the conservation measures to be deployed. There is a statutory ringfence on the funds, so it is not as if the funds could be diverted to other uses. As we made clear repeatedly throughout the passage of the Bill, EDPs will be based on the best scientific evidence available and on all the expertise in Natural England to allow it to judge whether it has the levy rate right. As I said, that will be tested in consultation. To answer the shadow Minister’s point, I should say that the value should not be exceeded.
I think I have responded to all the points. I thank Members for their questions. To be clear, this draft statutory instrument sets out a framework for the nature restoration levy and provides Natural England with the tools it needs to implement the nature restoration fund effectively. The draft regs are a necessary precursor to that first consultation, which as I have made clear will concern nutrient pollution only. That is the commitment that we gave.
We will return to the House with an evaluation of how that consultation worked before we proceed, although Natural England and DEFRA are working on the early stages of the EDPs for other interventions—great crested newts are a priority for colleagues in DEFRA. I hope that the draft regulations will be welcomed by the Committee and I commend them to it.
Question put and agreed to.