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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 June be approved.

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.

Motion agreed.

State of Climate and Nature

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Statement, issued in response to the Met Office’s State of the UK Climate report, our most authoritative assessment of the UK’s changing weather patterns. We also very much welcome the intention to make this an annual update.

We see this Statement as a message of hope—that together we can start to reverse the impacts of climate change. Our climate has changed in my very own lifetime. The science is absolute, and our scientists are some of the best in the world. We are as certain of man-made climate change as we are that the earth is not flat. The Met Office report focuses on 2024, when the UK experienced its second-warmest February, warmest May and warmest spring since records began in 1884. The last three years have all been in the UK’s top five warmest on record. Mike Kendon, the Met Office report’s lead author, said:

“Every year that goes by is another upward step on the warming trajectory our climate is on. Observations show that our climate in the UK is now notably different to what it was just a few decades ago”.


The Met Office calculates that the UK is warming at a rate of around 0.25 degrees Celsius per decade, with the 2015-24 period 1.24 degree Celsius warmer than 1961-90. The UK is also getting wetter, with rainfall increasing significantly during the winter. Between October and March, rainfall in 2015-24 was 16% higher than 1961-90. The new normal is even more extreme.

These indisputable ground truths are an urgent and unmistakable call to action. Nature bears witness and suffers these unparalleled and accelerating changes. We are already one of most nature-deprived nations on earth. One-third of our natural species has been lost from UK biodiversity in my lifetime. Nature is struggling to adapt, just as we are. To those politicians who have given up on efforts to tackle climate change and remain happy to take funds from the fossil fuel companies, I say, you offer no solutions and no hope to our children. Like the tobacco lobby of the 1970s, who said, “One more puff of cigarette smoke in your lungs won’t hurt”, they say, “What are a few more tons of CO₂ in our atmospheric lungs?”

The UK green economy grew by 10.3% last year. A green future is our only future, and it is a good future. Global green growth is our future climate solutions, our future energy security, and our future economic prosperity.

Those who say that we cannot afford the cost of preventing climate change never calculate the devastating consequences of not doing so. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation showed that the reversal of climate policies would cost the UK economy up to £92 billion, almost 3% of our entire GDP, and mean the loss 60,000 jobs before the end of the decade. British leadership is global leadership. When we work together at home, we lead the global conversation. We are lucky: we have the knowledge, we have the technology, and we have the time to enact change. We join calls for a return to this powerful cross-party consensus on climate change. We will always seek political co-operation on these common challenges.

It feels as though Labour has found its voice and will improve its communications—and better communications are required. I ask the Government to also tackle the growing problem of misinformation and disinformation. Their own message needs to be more coherent and consistent: less talk of nature protection as a blocker, and more honesty about the complexities and challenges that we face. The nature and climate challenges are interlinked and interdependent. Nature is not only nice to have but essential to all life. Labour’s messaging on nature has been muddled, but I thank the Minister for the amendments that have been brought forward to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. These are indeed welcome.

It is vital that we build new, clean energy infrastructure, but, equally, we must support nature recovery. This Government must champion the benefits of joined-up actions on climate and nature policies. Labour’s green mission is overly centralised: it is being done to us and not always with us. If Labour fails to work with and include our communities, public support will erode. The Government must listen to and take our communities with them. They must stop trying to do it all alone and empower and include our communities to help with the task. My party has suggested how new energy market reforms could be brought in to bring about reductions in our energy bills. These matters are urgent, so I ask the Minister: when will the Government be able to bring forward their plans to reduce our energy bills?

We must mitigate and adapt; both are needed. Not a single adaption delivery pathway plan was rated as good. The simple truth is that we have been better at changing our climate than we have been at adapting to the changes we ourselves have made. Our duty as politicians is to co-operate, create change and enable hope.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their interest in the Statement.

Going on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, he seems to be a bit glass half-empty at the moment. I encourage him to work with the Government to become a little more positive in his outlook. First, he asked about the cost of net zero. We believe that growth and net zero go hand and hand. Net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, and it can support the creation of hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the UK and protect our economy from future price shocks from reliance on fossil fuels alone. We also believe that this is the way forward to getting the UK better energy security and to deliver a range of social and health benefits. Last week, the OBR showed clearly in its latest report on risks to the government finances that the cost of cutting emissions to net zero is significantly smaller than the economic damages of failing to act, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just said.

Both noble Lords asked about bills. We are determined to cut bills for people. We appreciate that they have been high in recent years and the basis of our clean energy superpower mission is to look at how we can do exactly that. If we just carry on as we are, we are exposed to expensive, insecure fossil fuels, as we saw when Russia invaded Ukraine and prices went through the roof. We are driving forward with renewable power and with nuclear, because that is the way, in the long term, that we get to cut bills. We are also looking at how we cut the cost of electricity as part of that, so that, for example, if you put in a heat pump it makes financial sense. We have to look at it all along those lines.

Renewable infrastructure and the impact on nature were also mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We believe that nature recovery and preserving our ecosystems are an essential part of the clean energy superpower mission. As we unblock barriers to the deployment of these clean power projects, we are committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, nature recovery is incorporated in development stages and that innovative techniques can be used to encourage nature recovery—the noble Earl mentioned the amendments that we are making to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for example—because we want to get that balance right.

The noble Lord, Lord Offord, also talked about jobs. We are working very hard to bring in a just transition that is fair and built on the principle of fairness, because we need to ensure energy security and protect prices, as I said, but also to ensure fairness for workers, because decarbonisation has to be seen as the route to reindustrialisation. Working towards net zero and adapting to climate change are essential if we are to prevent widening inequalities and to reduce inequality as it stands. We know that if we do not act, climate change impacts more severely the most vulnerable groups, so we have to move forward on this.

The oil and gas sector was mentioned. We know that oil and gas production in the North Sea is going to continue for decades to come. We want to manage its reduction in a way that ensures the just transition and that our offshore workers can continue to work in the industries of the future. We are publishing a response to the consultation on the North Sea energy future later this year. That will look at how we can address the transition of oil and gas workers into working in clean energy. On that point, Robert Gordon University notes that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce skills have a medium to high transferability to offshore renewables.

Last time, when we had coal and steel collapse and communities were left behind, that had a terrible impact, and we are determined that that will not be the case this time, so we are working in partnership with trade unions, businesses and local communities, investing in skills and running regional skills pilots in places such as Aberdeen and Pembrokeshire.

The question was asked: why should we bother when other countries are not pulling their weight? That is not exactly true: other countries are acting. Over the last decade, there has been a transformation in the extent to which countries are taking it seriously. At least three-quarters of global GDP is now covered by a country-level net-zero target. This rises to 80% when taking account of commitments made by subnational governments. India is often mentioned. It has a target of 500 gigawatts of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030 and of reaching net zero by 2070. China is also committed to peaking its CO₂ emissions by 2030, with a target to reach net zero by 2060. I could go on.

Consumption and emissions were talked about, as well as offshoring emissions. There has been a substantial overlap between our carbon footprint and territorial emissions. This means that our ambitious carbon budget targets and commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower will reduce our carbon footprint in the process of reducing our territorial emissions. The latest figures do not show that we are offshoring emissions from the UK to other countries. As the CCC states in its 2025 Progress in Reducing Emissions report:

“The reduction in territorial emissions since 1990 significantly outweighs the increase in emissions from imports over that period, reflecting the fact that emissions reductions in the UK have largely occurred without offshoring emissions”.


I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support for the Statement, but also for his clear recognition of the huge challenges that we face in tackling climate change. I completely agree with him on the complexities that he was referring to. As he said, we absolutely need that balance between nature and development.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also talked about the global impacts. I assure him that we are committed to working internationally and to multilateral action. We are not going to address climate change and the nature crisis on our own. The UK is steadfast in its commitment to the three Rio conventions, which aim to protect the global environment, the landmark Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. We also have international milestones coming up such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. We will reaffirm our commitment to working with partners around the world to scale up integrated solutions that deliver for climate and nature. That will include demonstrating how our plans at home are working to make people in the UK safer, healthier and more prosperous.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that contrary to the dire predictions made by the noble Lord who speaks for the Opposition, the OBR’s analysis of the costs of reaching net zero suggests that, contrary to earlier estimates, they will be much lower because of the decline in the costs of clean technologies?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can be very brief in my response. I can confirm that, agree with the noble Baroness and thank her for bringing it up, because the costs of not acting are huge. We must do it and work with others right around the globe to achieve it. Our clean energy mission and moving into cleaner, greener jobs for this country will be a central part of that work.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on this report and remind the Front-Bench spokesman that every previous Conservative Prime Minister, including Mrs Thatcher, would have understood that what the Government have said is right. The cheapest way to proceed is to go green. That is where the jobs will come from. If we hang behind, saying, “After you, Claude”, we will suffer, our industry will suffer and our businesses will suffer. It would be helpful if the Opposition consulted the Climate Change Committee or those who have spent their lives working on climate change instead of making statements which do not have a scientific basis. The science says quite clearly that what the Government are doing is right. I disagree with the Government on almost everything else that they are doing. They are dreadful on most things. On this, they are right and should be congratulated.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his very kind comments. He talked about science. It is worth pointing out that the Met Office published, alongside the Statement, State of the UK Climate 2024. That clearly shows that the UK’s climate is getting hotter and wetter, with more extreme weather events. We have also published several reports around protected landscapes targets, the outcomes framework and how we can unlock benefits for people. A lot of work is going on. It needs to come together if we are successfully to tackle the impacts of climate change so that we do not suffer more devastation in the future than it looks like are doing at the moment.

[Lord Sharma (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome this Statement from the Government, particularly the commitment to deliver it annually. However, we need to see more engagement with the public. The Climate Change Committee, in its report The Seventh Carbon Budget, stated very clearly that we need to see more public information campaigns, so that people can understand the benefits of climate action and the climate actions available to them. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government’s climate engagement strategy is when it comes to the public?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks an excellent question, and I thank him for all his work in this sphere. It has been really important that we have had cross-party work on this over a number of years. Part of the reason for laying the Statement is that the Government believe that we have a duty to inform the British people about the scale of the climate and nature crises and the actions that government is taking in response. That is the start of a broader public discussion around this. If we are to move into a very different way of working in respect of energy—for example, moving away from fossil fuels and expecting people to make decisions about their heating, the cars that they drive and the costs of bills, as has been discussed—it is extremely important that we bring the public with us.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I have not heard many Front-Bench Statements from the Opposition as sad, inaccurate and negative as the one that we have heard this evening. I find it incredible. I hear no solutions whatever. It is a symptom of a party that has completely lost its way and feels under threat from another party, further to the right, which voters will vote for rather than this one if this is their issue. I make that warning. It suits us as Liberal Democrats—if they want to lose another 50 seats from middle England, they can go ahead and we will accept them.

Moving to nature, I too welcome this report and that it will be annual. I want to ask about 30 by 30. It is important that we are not negative about this situation. We must be optimistic but realistic that we can meet our targets. The paper issued by Defra last October defined the types of land that can be included in 30 by 30. At the moment, only 7% of that land can be included. Could the—

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am going to ask the question. Can we find a way to define 30 by 30 land that includes ELMS, for instance, that makes that target attainable? At the moment, I believe it is impossible.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks a really important question. To meet the target, which we want to and believe that we can, we must be sure of the best way to achieve that. The land identified will be critical for that—and whether it is land or sea. A number of recent announcements will help us to work towards that—for example, the land use framework will be part of it. Banning bottom trawling in the marine protected areas will also help in the blue areas.

We are working through identifying the land that will make a difference. In the past, land that has been included—all SSSIs, for example—has not necessarily been in good enough condition to be taken into account. Taking that out has set the target back, but that is an honest approach. However, if we are being honest like that, we must be very careful about how we will achieve it and what land we are identifying. All I can say to the noble Lord is that these are really important points that we in Defra are looking at really hard to work on. We are looking at ELMS and the next batch of SFI, and what we should include in that to make the biggest difference.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer back to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he referred to growth in the green economy. This refers back to a CBI report published in February, which showed that the green economy was growing by about 10%. Does the Minister share my surprise at the antagonism of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, towards these policies, given that not only is the green economy a remarkable record of success over the last few years but that in Scotland it contributes £9.1 billion to the Scottish economy and supports 100,700 jobs? The CBI report shows that much of this huge investment in the green economy is happening not just in London and the south-east but in places such as the West Midlands and Scotland.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. It is why Great British Energy has been set up in Aberdeen, for example; it is to look at the areas that need the finance. I know that other areas, in the Midlands and the north-west, that have suffered in the past for lack of investment are now going to have huge opportunities through green finance and green infrastructure being built.

He is absolutely right. It was a little disappointing, to be honest, to hear the Opposition’s response. I remember at one time when the Conservatives were talking about being the greenest Government ever.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that talking about climate change does not really do very much about mitigating the problems we all face. What we need to see happen is what my children call “stuff”. Of course, that entails regulatory frameworks and available finance. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented favourably—and rightly, in my view—on the recent changes proposed to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Can we take it from the Minister that this is a precedent that will stand when similar problems are faced in trying to bring about the mitigation of the climate problems that we are looking for, and that this is the attitude that the Government will adopt towards these problems?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are absolutely serious about tackling climate change. I really hope that that has come across both in the Statement and the answers I have given. We are also absolutely determined to ensure that nature and development can work together, that one does not have to be at the expense of the other, which is the challenge we have in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and why, following the discussions in the other place, we have brought forward amendments to try to acknowledge some of the concerns that have been raised also by the OEP and certain NGOs. The important thing for me is that, whatever proposals and Bills we put forward in the future, we have to look at the impact on climate change as we go forward. We have to look at the impact on biodiversity and nature, and that is what the Government are working to do.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment, on biodiversity in particular, but, given that there are still serious misgivings about elements of Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, notwithstanding the amendments last week, given the fact that there is still a serious question mark over the future of biodiversity net gain, how can we be confident that the Government are actually going to pursue properly, and in a committed way, that 2030 target? It is there in law and is fundamentally important.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

All I can say is that we are absolutely determined to do so, and I look forward to debating it with him during Part 3 of the Bill.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s priority is growth, but the Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent fiscal risks report said that climate change impacts could cut GDP in the UK by 8% by the early 2070s. The Government inherited a pretty naff, if I can pun, national adaptation programme, which was formerly known as NAP3. But a naff NAP3 was pretty inadequate; it had not been implemented effectively and is not joined up with other resilience work that is going across both government departments and local authorities.

I would have thought from the way the noble Lord, Lord Offord, was speaking that, since he was unconfident that we would reach climate change carbon reduction targets in time, he might have been upping the ante on the adaptation programme, since obviously we are going to have more floods, heatwaves, reductions in biodiversity and more general gloom. But I ask the Minister simply, in the face of the fact that the national adaptation programme is currently not adequate, will the Government radically get a grip on the real challenge of adapting to the impacts of climate change in this country and protect the Government’s growth strategies through that action?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very pleased that my noble friend has asked about adaptation, because in my opinion it does not get talked about enough. It is going to be absolutely critical and really important that we look at how we develop infrastructure and housing. It is all going to have to take adaptation into account over the coming years.

She mentioned the third national adaptation programme, NAP3. But, alongside the delivery of that, we know that we have to drive further action. We know that we have to develop robust delivery plans ahead of the fourth national adaptation programme, which will come in 2028. We believe that we should have stronger objectives, because they are going to be crucial if we are going to have an ambitious and impactful fourth national adaptation programme. We are absolutely committed to increasing and improving the resilience of our communities as we accelerate our progress towards net zero.

My noble friend is absolutely right; it is completely critical, and vital, that adaptation is undertaken now to ensure that risks are managed efficiently and at the least cost to people.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to the legal duty on the Government to halt species decline by 2030—except that is not happening. To take the example of birds, including the starlings, turtle doves and grey partridges the Statement refers to, overall, bird species have declined in the UK by 2% and in England by 7% in the five years since 2018. One of the significant contributory factors is factory farming. Globally, farmed chickens account for 57% of bird species by mass, wild birds only 29%. The arable land growing their feed is generally terrible for wild species, plus their waste causes widespread air and water pollution.

We have just seen that the absolutely awful Cranswick plc proposal in East Anglia for an existing site to rear 870,000 chickens and 14,000 pigs at one time was refused and 42,000 people signed a petition against it. What are the Government going to do to protect nature and human health and well-being against further expansion of the disastrous practice of factory farming, rather than forcing local councils to bear the weight of dealing with these applications and the legal risk of turning them down? I should perhaps declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, we do a lot of work on farming in Defra through the pathway to better welfare conditions for farmed animals. Clearly, the important thing is animal welfare, the conditions and a farm doing the best job it can in the best conditions. I do think the emissions implications for huge farms are something that we need to address and we are looking at that extremely closely. I hope she will be interested in the animal welfare strategy when we publish it later this autumn, because that will have a section on how we are going to improve farmed animal welfare, which will have a knock-on effect on exactly the kinds of situations that she is talking about.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I am surprised at some Members holding up Scotland as a bastion of good practice. I understand that Scotland has had to reduce, or at least review, some aspects of its climate targets, so I am a wee bit surprised. But my main question is on China. Imports from China to the UK were worth almost £70 billion last year, but I am not impressed to hear that China’s fossil fuel production will peak by 2030. Will we continue to buy products from China or is there a process or mechanism to force, or at least attempt to force, China to get into line? If it is allowed to peak by 2030, goodness knows where the level will be at that stage.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The question of China is important, because if we are to tackle climate change globally and meet net zero, we have to look at those countries that have high emissions. Until very recently, China was very dependent on fossil fuels, but we also know that it is making moves away from that. It has been investing a lot in nuclear, for example. It is important to get this into perspective, because a huge country cannot change overnight. However, this country can provide global leadership in working with other countries as they move to the change they need to move to. I welcome that China is looking to invest in non-fossil fuels and move forwards and that it has set targets. That is very important, because it was not the case a few years ago. We need to have it within the global bubble if we are to continue to make progress.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, the debate we have had on the Statement illustrates the value of maintaining the cross-party consensus that we have had on this subject to date. I was going to ask my noble friend the question that the Opposition have asked about maintaining public engagement in this debate, so I invite her to go one step further and ensure that, in that public engagement towards a just transition, we make clear what the science says about the implications and costs of us failing to act in the way that we have heard about from the Front Bench.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an extremely good point. As I said earlier, if we are going to move forward in the most efficient and effective way, we will have to take the public with us, because they will have to make big changes and, in many circumstances, choose to make those changes—the more information people have, the more the Government can support the changes that need to be made, but it must be done in a way that demonstrates the real science behind it. Too much science around climate change is not proven, so it is really important that we have proper scientific evidence and advice when we are talking to people.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 29th 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, in heading off the ever-growing tide of waste which blights our planet, we must prioritise both responsibility and fairness. Those who create waste must rightly take responsibility for its safe treatment at the end of its life, and those costs should be shared fairly and borne by those who also make the profit.

As your Lordships know, we are facing a mounting waste crisis and electrical waste is no exception; in fact, it is the fastest-growing waste stream globally, and the UK is the second-biggest generator of electrical waste in the world. Many electricals, including those sold from the online retail and vaping industries, are ending up in our bins, littering our streets and, too often, harming our natural environment. This is not sustainable economically, environmentally or socially. We must reduce the amount of waste that goes to landfill and, in doing so, we must ensure that those who benefit from selling electrical items pay fully and fairly for their treatment at end of life.

This legislation will address two key areas. I will start by addressing the issue of sales of electricals placed on the market via online marketplaces and overseas sellers who are not meeting their obligations. The sales of electricals from sellers based overseas via online marketplaces, such as eBay and Amazon, are skyrocketing, with over 0.5 million electricals being sold every year via these platforms. I am sure that many Members of this House have recently made just such a purchase. However, when UK businesses sell an electrical item, they incur an obligation to pay for its recycling at the end of its life, and most overseas sellers using these platforms are not meeting their financial obligations to do the same. This is wrong, not least because compliant UK-based businesses are picking up the costs for those free-riding under the existing regulations. We believe that this must stop.

I now turn my attention to the issue of vapes, e-cigarettes, heated tobacco and other similar products, which for convenience I will refer to simply as “vapes” for the rest of this debate. The Government have already banned the sale of single-use vapes—a vital first step in taking an environmentally harmful product off the market—but our work does not end here. Other types of rechargeable and refillable vapes continue to be sold, and we need to ensure that their collection and treatment is properly and fairly funded. Producers of electricals, including vapes, are already required to finance the cost of their treatment when they become waste. However, existing regulations mean that producers of other types of goods—toys and leisure equipment, for example—risk cross-subsidising the waste management costs of vapes. This cannot go on. Vapes are difficult and expensive to recycle, as they contain hazardous substances and can cause serious fires if not treated correctly.

Unfortunately, a friend of mine suffered from such a fire in a recent incident. He has a haulage company, and he was called in the early hours of the morning to be told that one of his lorries had caught fire. By the time that the fire service was able to put the fires out, he had lost nearly all his lorries. It was absolutely appalling, and it was all down to a consignment of vapes in one of the lorries. So this is a serious issue, for health and for business purposes, which we really need to address.

We believe that the responsibility for dealing with vapes when they become waste must fall squarely on the shoulders of those who produce them. This is why I am pleased and proud to introduce these regulations, which will hold those producers directly accountable for the environmental impact of the vapes and other similar products that they place on the UK market. This instrument is about fairness for UK businesses. It is about supporting them to do the right thing and ensuring that the right people are paying their fair share of the waste management costs associated with their products. In doing so, we send the clear message that environmental responsibility is not optional; it is part of doing business in a modern, circular economy.

Transitioning to a zero-waste economy is one of five priorities that Defra will deliver as part of a mission-led approach to government. Our circular economy strategy later this year will set out further plans to stem the rising tide of electronic waste. This Government are committed to putting the “polluter pays” principle into action. We are on the side of those businesses that behave responsibly to protect our planet, and we are rooting out those that are not doing their fair share. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I warmly welcome and support. In the case of her road haulier friend, I hope that he had good insurance and was able to recover the costs and get back on the road again. I have a couple of questions in order to understand more of the detail of how the regulations will work.

The Minister mentioned Amazon and eBay, but one that keeps bobbing up, although I have never actually used it, is Temu, which seems to be everywhere for everybody. I welcome what the Minister is proposing in respect of online marketplace operators, but my question is how it will work in connection with the electrical goods to which the regulations refer. When one makes a purchase—obviously, I have used one of the companies to which the Minister referred, which I do not want to advertise, as there are others available—at what stage will the regulations kick into effect? How will her department police the operations as smoothly as the regulations envisage?

Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states:

“There are difficulties with enforcement of the 2013 Regulations against non-UK based suppliers”.


Obviously, one of the reasons that electrical goods are cheaper online is because the suppliers have not been paying for the costs of disposal. One question, therefore, is: will they now be more expensive as a result of the regulations, although people will be competing more fairly? It is no secret that the rise in online shopping has been one of the greatest challenges to traditional retailers up and down the country, including out-of-town shopping centres and market towns. I personally want to see market towns recover, although I know that there are a number of other issues, including parking. Paragraph 5.5 goes on to say:

“The intention of this SI is to ensure that OMP operators who facilitate these sales into the UK are responsible for those costs, ensuring the costs are distributed more fairly”.


Presumably, the reporting that the statutory instrument is making a requirement will ensure that such operators are in the system, so to speak.

The Minister has identified how flammable and how dangerous some of these items can be. My other question is: what is the normal disposal mechanism for, in particular, e-cigarettes, vapes, heated tobacco products and other similar items? In previous debates on statutory instruments in this very Room, we have discussed how important vaping is in getting people to switch from smoking and in the prevention of smoking in future, although there are obvious dangers where young people are vaping for the first time, which I know the Government are seeking to address.

It seems odd that, originally and currently, e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products fall within category 7 under the WEEE directive, which category also covers toys and leisure equipment. Will they be recategorised, so that vapes are taken out of that category? The Minister will not remember, but there was a toy safety directive when I was a Member of the European Parliament, and I was even a Member of the European Parliament when the WEEE directive appeared in its first incarnation. The toy safety directive covered such things as teddy bears’ eyes—if a child could eat them, they had to be carefully disposed of—and it impacted charity shops on the high street, which had to deal with them separately.

I should like to understand how these e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products will be disposed of and what the financial costs of the collection, treatment and recovery are estimated to be. Will the onus be on the user of these products to dispose of them safely and in a responsible manner?

With those few remarks, I wish the Minister well with the regulations, and I hope that they go on to make a positive impact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

My Lords, the Bells are ringing for us. We will adjourn the Committee for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I shall continue to try to cover noble Lords’ questions and comments.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about compliance and guidance. New guidance will be published to help online marketplaces understand the new obligations; it will, I hope, help with compliance if there is clear guidance on what the expectations are. This will include guidance on the transitional arrangements so that online marketplaces understand their obligations in respect of the data that they submit after the regulations come into force in 2026. We are looking at doing this to make sure that people are clear on what their responsibilities are and to increase compliance with the regulations.

Costs were asked about. The impact of the policy means that online marketplaces—the producers—will be liable for end-of-life costs, as I explained in my introduction. Currently, that obligation is supposed to be met by overseas sellers, but there is a high level of non-compliance. This again comes back to compliance. The new obligations on online market producers therefore represent either a cost transfer from their overseas sellers or a fairer reallocation of costs that currently fall disproportionately on UK businesses. We think that these costs are likely to be passported back to overseas sellers via their contractual arrangements with their online marketplaces. The new costs are, therefore, related primarily to familiarisation costs; we estimate that they will be between £1,014 and £3,926, which is quite precise, depending on the size of the business.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the circular economy strategy and how this measure will fit into that. The strategy and the road maps are designed to create a future where we keep our resources in use for longer; where waste is reduced; where we accelerate the path to net zero; and where we see more investment in critical infrastructure. Within the scope of the circular economy strategy that we are developing, we will also develop a long-term road map for reforming all the different key sectors. Electricals is one of the sectors for which we are going to develop a road map; that will set out a number of short-term, medium-term and long-term interventions to make the sector more circular. We are planning to publish that circular economy strategy in the autumn, after which it will go out for consultation. The noble Earl may be interested in looking at that when it is out.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned enforcement in the first place. The WEEE regulations are enforced by the Environment Agency and by its equivalents in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales because, obviously, this matter is devolved. They will need to ensure both that online marketplaces are registering with the producer compliance scheme, as I explained, and that they are submitting the data. Again, that data will enable us to ensure that compliance is being met and, where it is not, to enforce. Similarly, the producers of vapes and other similar products will also need to submit data to the Environment Agency on the amount of products that they are placing on the market in the new category, which has been discussed.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about timing and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about timescales. Following the consultation by the previous Government, which took place in the first half of last year, both measures were supported: 87% supported our measures on online marketplaces and 91% were in favour of the proposal on the new category for vapes, which is pretty conclusive. Because of that, we are bringing the legislation forward now so that the changes can be made ahead of the compliance year next year; we thought that, because there was so much support and it is such a problem, it was important to move forward quickly.

Resources were also mentioned—and here is my brief, as if by magic. We are working very closely with our regulators to ensure they have all the necessary resources they need. I believe strongly that there is no point in bringing in legislation if you cannot enforce it, and you cannot enforce it if you do not have the resources. An example of this is that we have already provided £10 million to trading standards for vape and tobacco enforcement. We are taking that very seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the obligations are going to come into force. They would come into force 21 days after they are made, which, if approved by both Houses, we would expect to be later on this summer, or potentially in the autumn, but we are hoping to do this quite quickly. That would mean that they would pick up the financial obligation in the 2026 compliance period. They would be required to pay the registration fee to the producer compliance scheme when they join on 15 November, as I mentioned earlier. We think that most of the schemes would look to spread the costs throughout the year, and many would also likely invoice their producer members on a quarterly basis.

The new obligations for producers were mentioned, particularly the new category 7. As we have heard, for vapes and similar products, we are creating this new electronic and electrical equipment category in Schedule 3 to the regulations. We took that decision because it is not right for vapes to be currently categorised as toys, leisure and sports equipment. We thank noble Lords for their support for that decision. The creation of the new category is to ensure that producers of vapes and other similar products pay fairly for the treatment, recovery and environmentally sound disposal of the goods they place on the market. Again, the reporting of the data under the new category will kick in as soon as the regulations have come into force. This new category, of course, is particularly aimed at:

“Any device … intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products, nicotine or any substance containing nicotine, non-nicotine liquids, herbal smoking products, vaping substances, nicotine-containing vapour or any other such products”


or electricals. It covers the whole broad spectrum. The examples of the devices will be in Schedule 4 to the regulations, which I stress is non-exhaustive.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about the single-use vapes ban and its effectiveness. It came into force, as noble Lords know, on 1 June. Obligations for review are set out in the legislation and include a review of enforcement and civil sanctions as soon as practicable after three years and a post-implementation review at least every five years. We are currently collecting the baseline data on the wholesalers and retailers of single-use vapes in England to support future assessments. Also, the Department of Health and Social Care monitors the current rates of smoking and vaping through various surveys, including the periodic survey on smoking, drinking and drug use among young people and the Action on Smoking and Health annual surveys. We will continue to monitor the effects of this legislation within that.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Three years is a long time if the effective ban on single-use vapes is not stopping them and the electronic waste and plastic waste associated with them. Is there some mechanism—after six months, say—for the Government to see if this really is not working and, if so, are the Government prepared to take some rapid action? Three years seems an age in this context.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, most legislation is reviewed after five years, so three years is a fair time. It would become fairly obvious if the legislation were completely failing and not working. Presumably, any legislation that is not working needs to be reviewed and looked at in that context. I think three years is probably a fair point to start from and to have within the legislation.

On the question of whether the manufacturers could circumvent the ban, the way in which the ban and the legislation was drafted was to address many of those concerns. For example, there were suggestions that manufacturers could simply add a USB port to the end of a single-use device then call it reusable. To be legal for sale, a vape must be refillable, rechargeable and have a replaceable coil. It has to meet all three criteria. When that ban came in, those considerations were looked at—and, of course, local authorities act as the regulator for the ban and are responsible for enforcing the regulations.

Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 June be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motion agreed.

Forest Risk Commodities

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make regulations under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 to ban the import of forest risk commodities.

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

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

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I thank the Minister. The problem is that there is no way in which to stabilise our warming planet if we continue to destroy vital sinks like forests. The UK has a real opportunity to show ambition in tackling deforestation at the upcoming COP 30 in the Brazilian Amazon. Will the Government’s ambition be greater than that of Schedule 17, and will it align with the EU deforestation regulation, which is more robust and wide-ranging?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm that we are ambitious and committed to delivering on a shared commitment that was reflected by the parties to the global stocktake at COP 28, so we have ambition in that area. Regarding the EU regulation, the UK and the EU share a common commitment to tackling deforestation in supply chains. As I am sure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are aware, we are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU, and that will lead to closer engagement on issues exactly like this on deforestation. We also recognise the need to take action to ensure that the UK’s consumption of forestry commodities is not driving deforestation. Clearly, business also needs certainty, so it is absolutely something that we are looking at along with the EU.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, since the Environment Act was passed in 2021, the deforestation footprint from direct imports grew by more than 39,300 hectares, which is larger than the area of our New Forest. Does the Minister agree that action is a matter of extreme urgency?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I absolutely agree that we need to take action on this. The Government are looking at the best way to do so in order to be most effective. The EU reset is also part of that because the EU’s deforestation programme that it is working on is ambitious and we need to look at how we align with that. Also, the DBT is undertaking the responsible business conduct review, looking at the effectiveness of the UK’s regime in preventing human rights, labour rights and environmental harms, and deforestation is part of that, so other action is taking place as we move forward in this area.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, analysis by Global Witness shows that the UK’s imports of cattle products are associated with the highest levels of deforestation, yet it is predicted for 2025 that beef imports to the UK will rise by 12%, while our own beef production will fall by 5%. Given that, in terms of methane production, we produce a kilogram of beef at something like a quarter of the global average—a figure which does not take account of the negative effects of deforestation, which largely apply to imported beef and not home-produced beef—does the Minister agree that we should be supporting and expanding our beef production and relying less on imports?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We look at how we can improve our food production and food sustainability in this country. It is important that we support our own food producers in doing that and that we protect them against substandard products coming in from abroad.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure I am going to be disappointed, bearing in mind the Minister’s first Answer, but would she commit to publishing a firm timetable to introduce the secondary legislation that is needed on this issue of forest risk commodities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that we are looking at the best way to bring this forward at the moment. I cannot commit to a timetable, but I can confirm that Defra is absolutely committed to bringing in this legislation and is working within government to ensure it is done in a timely fashion.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, she cannot point to a timetable, but after three years of delay, can the Minister point to any government analysis that quantifies the environmental cost of this inaction? Does she accept the estimates of Global Witness and the WWF that UK consumption has destroyed an area of forest larger than the New Forest? Do the Government have any analysis to refute that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There are different things we can look at. Forests are a priority for the UK’s international climate finance spend—the ICF—and we are delivering ODA programmes to deliver improved forest governance, support sustainable trade and investment and mobilise finance for forest protections and restoration in developing countries. Since 2011, it is estimated that the UK ICF programmes have prevented 750,000 hectares of ecosystem loss, which is the equivalent of around 1 million football pitches. There is work taking place, but I absolutely understand why there is frustration that we have not brought in this legislation as yet.

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

My Lords, as the Minister is aware, a large percentage of the forests of the United Kingdom are in Scotland. Would the Minister consult with the Scottish Government about this and let us have their views?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I reassure my noble friend that I regularly talk to my counterparts in the Scottish Government, as I do with the Welsh Government and the Northern Irish Government. Working closely with the devolved Governments is very important, and we can learn from each other.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, the last Government announced on 12 December 2023 that they planned to introduce these regulations. I appreciate that the general election has intervened, but Labour has been in power for over a year now. Can I press the Minister on clarification on what the Government intend to do and when we may see the regulations? Will the Government keep the exemption proposed by the last Government for small companies with a turnover of under £50 million or using under 500 tonnes? Given the challenges in tracking supply chains, can the Minister outline what practical measures will be in place at UK borders to verify compliance and whether this will require additional resources for customs and enforcement agencies?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked me quite a few specific questions as to exactly what the legislation is going to look like when the Government bring it forward. I am afraid I am not in a position to give the detail of what that legislation would look like at the moment, but I can only reiterate that we want to see it coming forward as soon as practically possible. We are looking at a number of different options of how we can do that, because it is important that, when we bring this forward, it is going to work for smallholders, for example, and small businesses, and that it will be effective and genuinely tackle the issue.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

Of course the biggest threat to forestry in this country, and particularly to our native broadleaf trees, is the grey squirrel. Can the Minister tell us when the England grey squirrel action plan will surface?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl takes every opportunity to talk about squirrels. The important thing is that the action plan is well under way. I spent quite some time on it myself, because, again, it is important that we make such pieces of guidance effective so that they will make the difference. We know that there are issues with grey squirrels damaging trees, as well as the impact on red squirrel populations. As I said before, I am very pleased that we have red squirrels in our garden, so I want to see them protected. I have very much appreciated the work that the noble Earl has done on the grey squirrel action plan, and I appreciate the conversations and discussions that we have had and the work that he and his colleagues have done. I look forward to continuing those discussions as we publish the plan.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, as a Defra Minister, will the noble Baroness welcome, and help the House consider, amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that better protect ancient woodlands?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Lord is aware, I will be taking forward Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I very much look forward to working with the House on that part of it. I understand that amendments are being discussed at present, and I am sure that we will see those in due course.

Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 2 June. I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 5 June in relation to the draft instrument. This corrected a typographical error on page 20, in Schedule 2, in the heading to the second table, “Table 1”, which should read, “Table 2”. This does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation. Copies of the correction slip have been made available to Members.

I probably should declare an interest as sheep are kept on our smallholding.

For years, industry has been calling for mandatory sheep carcass classification and price reporting. This instrument will bring the sheep industry in line with the beef and pork sectors, where mandatory carcass classification and price reporting has been in place for many years.

This instrument mandates sheep carcass classification and the price reporting of sheep carcasses for larger slaughterhouses—those which slaughter at least 2,000 sheep per week. Smaller slaughterhouses that slaughter at least 1,000 sheep per week can voluntarily decide whether the regulations will apply to them. The legislation will also provide a process for the introduction of a system for the authorisation of automated sheep grading methods for slaughterhouses that wish to use automated carcass classification.

The reason we are introducing this legislation is that slaughterhouses are currently able to set their own standards for preparing and presenting sheep carcasses for classification and weighing. As a result, carcass weights across the sector lack consistency due to variations in the way the carcass is prepared, trimmed and presented. This inconsistency leads to a lack of transparency across the industry, with non-comparable prices being quoted or recorded. Consequently, farmers often struggle to achieve the best payment for the quality of their sheep carcasses when they sell their stock.

We want to see a more transparent, productive and efficient sheep market. By addressing this long-running supply chain fairness issue, we will both encourage farmers to improve productivity and ensure that they are paid a fair price based on the quality of their sheep. Producers can then also rear lambs that will better fit the market’s specifications and consumer demand.

The legislation will also introduce a consistent and robust mechanism for the evaluation of the carcasses of sheep that are aged less than 12 months old at the time of slaughter; this encapsulates the prime lamb market. The instrument requires the use of the EUROP grid, as it is commonly known, to assess conformation—that is, the shape—and the degree of fat cover. The meat industry is familiar with this carcass classification scale through the mandatory schemes for pig and beef carcasses. Several abattoirs have already been using it when voluntarily classifying sheep carcasses.

The new system will require operators to ensure that sheep carcasses are presented in a consistent way post-slaughter, at the point of weighing and classification. Regulated slaughterhouses will have to use one of two specified carcass presentations at this point.

The regulated slaughterhouses will be required to report the weight of the carcass and its classification details, along with the price being paid for sheep sold on a deadweight basis—that is, where payment for the sheep is dependent on the classification and weight of its carcass. These carcass and pricing details must be reported both to the supplier of the sheep and to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will process the information under contract to Defra, as it currently does for beef and pork.

The instrument will apply a licensing regime to classifiers and to automated classification methods. The Rural Payments Agency, which will monitor and enforce the regulations, will assess and license carcass classifiers. This means that both manual classifiers and automated classifying technology in regulated slaughterhouses will need to be licensed for sheep classification. Provision is made for automated classification methods to be first subjected to an authorisation testing process, which must be passed before the automated equipment using that method can be put forward for licensing in regulated slaughterhouses. This will ensure that the method being used for automated classification can repeatedly and accurately classify carcasses. The Rural Payments Agency will be given the powers to inspect the regulated slaughterhouses and to take enforcement action where there are breaches to the regulatory requirements. The sheep industry, including farmers and meat processors, has been pressing us to create a mandatory carcass classification and price reporting system for sheep carcasses, which this instrument delivers.

I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for, and congratulate her on, introducing these regulations, of which I wholeheartedly approve. This must be the most consulted-on SI in the history of SIs; obviously, it is a brilliant piece of work, because it was started under the outgoing Conservative Government.

I declare my interest in that I own one lot of shares in the Thirsk Farmers Auction Mart. For the purposes of Hansard, that is one lot—a very small group—of shares, not a lot of shares. I am also a patron of the Huby & Sutton Agricultural Society Show, which is not happening this year, sadly, because of the animal diseases that were prevalent earlier in the year.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I welcome the fact that there is a de minimis rule and that small abattoirs will be excluded. Is there any crossover with the requirements of the BSE and foot and mouth provisions, or are these are entirely separate? This instrument is stand-alone in that regard, I think.

My concern is that abattoirs are reducing in number. It is not my fault but the first time that this happened was, I remember, when there was a European directive on abattoirs. It might even have been under a Conservative Government. We gold-plated it, over-egged it and implemented it in a way that was never intended. That was down to the Home Department, I am afraid, which thought that birds flying around an abattoir was not a good idea when, in fact, all the carcasses were washed before they were cut up.

Since that time, the number of abattoirs has greatly reduced. The NFU is, as I am sure the Minister is aware, very concerned about the implications of abattoir numbers reducing for livestock farmers generally. Has the department done an impact assessment on where we are with the current number of abattoirs? I welcome the fact that, for one thing, this SI applies only to small abattoirs; and that, as the Minister said, we are equating sheep with pork and beef.

If we are not careful, though, all abattoirs will be large abattoirs because there will simply be no small abattoirs left. It is causing great concern among livestock producers, as well as—dare I say it very softly—among the animal welfare lobby, because animals have to travel further to slaughter. Obviously, given the extreme heat that we have seen recently, that is not something to be commended.

With those few remarks, I endorse entirely what farmers and the NFU are saying: we need more smaller abattoirs. Are the Government likely to look at this? I know that there was a small abattoir fund up until 2023. Locally, a lot of the Thirsk livestock went to Kilburn abattoir, but that is now gone. This is not acceptable. It is not fair on farmers that they must have this additional worry and the cost of sending their livestock a longer distance. I therefore welcome the regulations and congratulate the Government. I know that there were a number of reasons for the delay, but I would welcome the Minister’s support for small abattoirs; it would be good to see where we are in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, these schemes, long established in the aforementioned beef and pork sectors, have provided transparency, accountability and consistency across the market. It is only right that the sheep sector now be afforded the same standards.

The proposed regulations, based on the existing Carcase Classification and Price Reporting (England) Regulations 2018, would require regulated slaughterhouses to submit weekly reports detailing price data by carcass classification for individual sheep under 12 months of age. Not only is this move logical, it is also timely. It will enable producers to better understand whether the prices they receive reflect the true value of their animals. It will also support better forward planning, evidence-based policy-making and market monitoring.

As it stands, the absence of a mandatory classification and pricing system has created a fragmented and inconsistent marketplace. While some abattoirs have voluntarily adopted classification systems and reported prices to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, others have used their own internal standards for trimming and weighing carcasses. This misalignment of practices has led to inconsistencies in carcass weights and a lack of price comparability, leaving many sheep farmers at a disadvantage.

Non-standardisation presents real-world consequences. It means that farmers often struggle to negotiate fair payment for the quality of their livestock and lack the data needed to make informed decisions that may improve both their businesses and productivity.

The proposals put forward today have been supported by a consultation held by Defra and the Welsh Government last year, which found broad support from stakeholders. Notably, the National Farmers’ Union, which has long campaigned for the reform, welcomed the proposals. David Barton, chair of the NFU livestock board, greatly looked forward to the proposals, which will benefit farmers, processors and customers all across the wider supply chain. The Meat & Livestock Classification has also voiced its support, recognising the potential of these changes to promote transparency and high standards in the British sheep industry.

Those processing 2,000 sheep or more weekly will be required to comply, and smaller abattoirs slaughtering between 1,000 and 1,999 sheep weekly on a rolling annual average will have the choice to opt in. This threshold strikes the right balance, capturing approximately 85% of all sheep slaughtered, while avoiding unnecessary regulatory pressure on smaller operations.

The instrument also includes a licensing regime for classifiers and automated classification methods, with an authorisation process in place to ensure the reliability of automated systems before they are approved for use.

I shall briefly touch on the subject of mobile abattoirs and smaller abattoirs, as referenced by my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lady Shephard and Lord Deben. I know from personal experience that abattoirs are on the decline; I do not know the exact statistics, but the decline has been significant. Will the Minister come back to us on what has already been asked, but also on the small abattoir fund, a fund that we introduced, of around £4 million? What are the Government’s plans for that fund? Will it remain? Will the funding be increased? How are the Government promoting it to smaller abattoirs? What regulations can we look at changing in order to make mobile abattoirs easier to be set up and used throughout the country?

In conclusion, we welcome today’s statutory instrument, which seeks to ensure that sheepmeat producers get a fair price for the product. It is a sensible, proportionate and long-overdue step towards a more transparent and equitable marketplace. It gives sheepmeat producers the clarity and confidence they need to ensure that they are receiving a fair price, and it should result in the system operating to a higher standard.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to today’s debate and their strong support for these regulations; it is much appreciated. These regulations are important, so it is very good that we can bring them in smoothly.

The key issue raised in the debate is that of small abattoirs: every noble Lord who spoke mentioned the problem of the closure of small abattoirs. One of the reasons we wanted to exempt small abattoirs from the scheme, in order not to put extra administrative regulatory burden on them, is because we know what pressures they face. I am acutely aware that many small abattoirs have closed over, I would guess, the last decade. It is much harder for abattoirs to stay open, and I am very aware of the extra stress that that puts on farmers. Farmers like to know where their animals are going, and with abattoirs becoming more centralised and larger, they do not necessarily know the abattoir and the people running it in the way they used to. As noble Lords have said, animals have longer travel distances, often in hot vehicles, so it is not great for animal welfare.

When I was president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, we had a campaign around small abattoirs, so this is something I know quite a lot about; it is very close to my heart. In fact, last year, I chaired the Oxford Real Farming Conference session on small abattoirs and talked to people from the industry, as well as to the people running mobile abattoirs, who were represented at that meeting.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, talked about the small abattoir fund, which Defra was running at that time. That fund was for a fixed period, which has now come to an end. I have been talking recently to the Farming Minister, Daniel Zeichner, about small abattoirs—I know that he has a particular interest in them—and what we can do next to support the industry, because we in Defra are extremely aware that this is particularly challenging in more rural areas. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is from Yorkshire, others are from East Anglia and I am in Cumbria, and we all have the same problem. Our nearest abattoir is probably a two-hour drive in a farm vehicle.

One of the issues we are coming up against is the skill set. It is an extremely skilled job, and there is a problem with staffing abattoirs. We need to look at that, because it is all very well having funds, but if we do not have people with the skills to do the job, and people who want to train to do that job in future, we are never going to solve the problem. We are looking at how we can encourage people to look at this as a career choice. It is not always an easy career choice to sell, but it is an important and valuable job and it can be very well paid.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising this matter, because I understand that part of the problem was Brexit—in particular, attracting Spanish vets and people who would have done the job. Are the Government planning to find a means of recruiting people to that role?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, the EU reset is looking at all sorts of different things and it is not something I can particularly comment on. What I can say, though, on the issue of vets being present, is that we have also been in discussion with the Food Standards Agency on the regulation of smaller abattoirs, the presence of vets, the level of inspection and so on. We are also working with the FSA on that.

The simple thing for me to say is that I do not have an answer to how we resolve the issue of the closure of small abattoirs. It is not just about them closing but about how you get them to reopen, because that is really important; the small abattoir fund was only to support existing abattoirs, not to open new ones. It is quite a complex issue, but I reassure noble Lords that it is very well recognised in Defra. We have officials who really know and understand the problems around this, and Ministers who are committed to try to do their best. If noble Lords have helpful information they would like to share with me, I will be very pleased to receive it.

On other issues, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked specifically about whether this instrument is separate from issues around FMD and so on. It is completely separate, just to reassure her on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked what happens if a small abattoir gets bigger. The answer is that, if it is then caught by the regulations, the abattoir itself has a duty to report it to the department so that it comes under the regulations properly.

Finally, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for recognising the broad industry support for these regulations, because it is really important to recognise how important they are for industry. He also mentioned the devolved Governments. We have worked very closely with the devolved Governments, and they are working to ensure that retrospective legislation comes into force at the same time so that we have consistency across the country, because farmers and food processors need to get the value that their products deserve.

This instrument is an essential tool in our efforts to increase the fairness of the supply chain. It will establish a much-needed scheme that will result in a more open, fair and transparent sheep market.

Motion agreed.

Plastic Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to secure agreement to a global treaty to counter plastic pollution.

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

My Lords, the UK Government are committed to securing agreement to a global treaty on plastic pollution when the negotiations resume in August 2025. At the UN Ocean Conference in June, the UK joined over 95 signatories of the Nice wake-up call statement to demonstrate support for an ambitious treaty. We are working with other countries, including allies in the High Ambition Coalition, to develop text options to facilitate an agreement.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

In the last 20 years, global plastic production and plastic waste have doubled, despite national and voluntary initiatives, so it is fantastic that the Government have signed up to the Nice declaration. Can I press the Minister to ask exactly what conversations and discussions are being had to ensure that the minority of low-ambition countries and narrow interests do not derail the opportunity for a legally binding, ambitious plastics treaty in Geneva?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a really important question. We are high ambition, but we are working closely with low-ambition countries—some are developed countries, and there are others such as the Gulf states. We made progress previously, and it is important that we continue to do so. We are doing a number of things, particularly Minister Hardy as the leader on this. She is working closely with others to develop a shared position on how we can finance the treaty and take the lead on engaging with the private sector, for example. We are doing some co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design. We are co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic. Minister Hardy co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN Ocean Conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries with different positions and ambition levels to look at how we can move forward. She hosted an interesting round table last week attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, who is the INC chair. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to ensure we get the best possible result out of next month’s conference.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, plastic pollution starts with packaging. Will the Minister therefore join me in commending the British retail sector, which has done so much, particularly recently, to produce packaging of a better environmental nature for recycling and to draw to the attention of all customers who visit retail outlets the benefits of these improvements?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to commend any producer or retailer that wants to reduce the amount of damaging plastic that goes into our environment. The noble Lord is right: a lot of work has been done in recent years by some very forward-looking companies. However, there is still far too much plastic going into our environment. We have to do more to progress this. Others have to come on board, which is why I am really pleased that the UK has been absolutely clear that the treaty should address the full cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, a large amount of British plastic waste is not recycled because it is too complex to sort. What steps are the Government taking to encourage innovative research which will allow for new ways of recycling complex plastics and ensure that more plastic is recycled and less ends up in incinerators?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course, we need to do more to ensure that less plastic ends up in incinerators. Research is not just about what you do with complex plastics but about ensuring that the plastics produced are recyclable in the first place. We should also ensure that that then happens and that they do not get dumped somewhere. The work that Defra is carrying out on the circular economy is really important and will look at exactly these sorts of issues.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government have any plans to restrict the export of plastics through powers under the Environment Act to encourage recycling at home, rather than offshoring the problem?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, we really need to move away from this. Many members of the public, me included, put their plastic into recycling bins in very good faith and expect it to be recycled—I buy things made out of recycled plastic—but we have to look at how we can stop plastic that should be recycled just being offshored and dumped. We have seen too many photographs of the appalling outcomes of that. That is why we want to get this treaty finalised, why we are really determined to move forward and why we are also concentrating on having a genuinely effective circular economy strategy within Defra.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Minister on the work being done on plastics. One other major threat to marine life is illegal and unauthorised fishing around the world. What steps are being taken by the international community to address that problem?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. I think that anyone who has been to a beach will have seen abandoned fishing gear on the beach, particularly the rope stuff—the blue twine that fishermen use. Rope stuff is the technical term; you can tell that I am not a fisherman. Abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear is one form of plastic that causes the greatest harm to the environment. The UK has been looking at ways that we can use alternatives—alternatives are being explored—so that we do not constantly end up with blue bits of plastic scattered over every single beach that we see in this country.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I want to move the agenda on to microplastics, which are endemic in our water systems, in our bodies and now in our soils. A lot of research is showing that crop fertility—in other words, crop yield—will go down quite dramatically in the next 10 years because of microplastics in the water system. While I do not expect an answer directly, I would love to know what the Government are doing in the way of researching this, working with people such as at the John Innes Centre, which is looking at what on earth we do about this, because it is pretty difficult to get rid of.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an extremely good point. We were probably all quite shocked recently at the figures showing how endemic these tiny pieces of plastic are in our drinking water and, indeed, in ourselves. It is extremely worrying, and it is incredibly important that research is carried out. I know that the John Innes Centre does great work. I am not involved with that, but my colleague Minister Hardy is. I will go back to her, find out exactly what work we are doing and then get back to the noble Baroness, if that is okay.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, to return to the plastics treaty, at the last round of talks, fossil fuel interests sent 220 lobbyists. They are known to be the people who are fighting very hard against any targets for putting less plastic into the soils, into the water and into our bodies. What are the Government going to do to block the influence of those fossil fuel interests? Could we not do as the WHO has done with tobacco and ban people with fossil fuel interests, who should have no place in these talks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are trying to move forward on a global scale while bringing people with us. This treaty will have more impact if every country is signed up to it. Because of that, we were very disappointed that we were not able to conclude negotiations last time around. However, behind the scenes, a lot of work has been going on to try to move forward. My understanding is that the countries that the noble Baroness refers to are more concerned about including methods of production in the treaty, and that is something we are looking very hard at resolving. We want to see the ambitious treaty that we and other high ambition countries want to achieve. We are working very closely with middle to low-income countries to get there.

Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and therefore beg to move formally.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I hope my words did not provoke last night. I was reminiscing with Northern Ireland Members about those days in the 1980s and 1990s in the Commons when we used to speak all night on Northern Ireland business and then my late colleague Eric Forth and I pulled the stunt of having a renegade vote. I have a certain admiration for the stunt that colleagues pulled last night, but I see that there is a full Labour House tonight. If you want to know the Official Opposition line, you will find it in yesterday’s Hansard, column 577.

Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

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

My Lords, this instrument will help ensure the security of food supply to Northern Ireland and maintain consumer choice for the people of Northern Ireland. The purpose of this legislation is to deliver the UK Government’s long-standing public commitment to safeguard the supply of retail goods into Northern Ireland and protect the UK internal market, by providing for a contingency power to introduce “not for EU” labelling in Great Britain if required. It upholds commitments made under the Windsor Framework, reiterated in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, both of which commanded broad support across this House. It facilitates the movement of goods throughout the UK while also protecting the biosecurity of the island of Ireland.

I begin by setting out the background to this policy. The Windsor Framework, which replaced the original Northern Ireland protocol, was agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union in February 2023. A key component of the Windsor Framework is the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which simplifies the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It removes the costly certification and controls that were necessary under the original Northern Ireland protocol and allows for goods to be moved on the basis of UK food safety standards. To benefit from these arrangements, business operators must label retail goods in scope of the scheme “not for EU”, and these labelling requirements have been introduced in phases, with the final tranche of products coming into scope on 1 July—tomorrow. From this date, a much larger group of retail goods will need to be labelled to be eligible to be moved via the scheme from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Given the size of the retail market in Northern Ireland, which is approximately 3% of the entire UK market, certain businesses may decide that the cost of labelling their goods only to move them to Northern Ireland is too great. They may choose not to label, leading to product removal from the Northern Ireland market, known as delisting, if an alternate route to market is not available. This would negatively impact Northern Ireland citizens, since they would not have access to the same range and availability of food goods as the rest of the UK that they rightfully deserve. We do not believe that this is an acceptable outcome.

This brings me to the purpose of the regulations before us. The instrument provides a contingency power by which the Environment Secretary can issue a notice to require that a certain product be marked “not for EU” in order to be sold in Great Britain. Before doing so, the Secretary of State will consider a range of evidence. This includes intelligence from stakeholders and market monitoring data, the latter of which will highlight patterns in the distribution of retail goods throughout the UK internal market and highlight anomalies and changes as they arise.

By extending the labelling requirement for certain products to the much larger GB market, we will take away the incentive for businesses to remove products from Northern Ireland. It will use the size of the whole UK market as an economic incentive to label their goods. This ensures continued product availability and consumer choice in Northern Ireland and upholds the commitments we made in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper.

In recognition of the fact that food labelling is a devolved matter, the Secretary of State will consult Scottish and Welsh Ministers before making a determination. He may also engage the Independent Monitoring Panel, established through the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, for its views.

The timing of this instrument is critical. With the final phase of labelling requirements under the scheme commencing on 1 July, we must make this legislation now in order to provide a credible and timely mechanism to deter product delisting and to have the ability to act should a serious effect on availability look likely.

I will now set out the fundamental elements of these regulations. After making a determination that the supply of a specific retail good will be or is likely to be seriously adversely affected as a result of the “Not for EU” labelling requirement, the Secretary of State must issue a marking notice. This will specify which goods must be labelled in GB and from which date. The notice must also be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes, as well as a Written Statement setting out the rationale. We will support compliance by promoting and explaining the new requirement to businesses through various fora.

The new labelling obligation falls on the relevant business operator who first places the goods on the market in Great Britain. This is typically the manufacturer responsible for producing the product, who will have the greatest ability to affect its packaging. There will be exemptions that will apply to qualifying Northern Ireland goods, food for special medical purposes and small companies, which is in line with this Government's commitment to support growth. These regulations will also support our relationship with the European Union.

We and the EU, through our common understanding that was published on 19 May following the UK-EU summit, have confirmed that we will jointly take forward a range of measures as part of our reset in relations, including a UK-EU SPS agreement. Once finalised, this will remove a broad and wide-ranging set of SPS and agri-food requirements for goods and plants moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We also expect that this may remove the need for businesses to label the majority of their goods as “Not for EU” when moving them into Northern Ireland.

However, achieving such benefits relies on the UK being a reliable partner that delivers on its existing commitments. To that end, we are clear that we must implement the arrangements for the Windsor Framework in a full and faithful way, even where our ambition is that those arrangements may not be needed in the future. Therefore, this SI is vital to maximise compliance with labelling requirements in the meantime, meeting the expectations of the EU and also encouraging the movement of goods into Northern Ireland.

To conclude, our approach to this statutory instrument is a pragmatic and proportionate response to a genuine risk. This legislation will help protect consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It will support the continued flow of goods throughout the United Kingdom. It delivers on our commitments under the Windsor Framework agreement and, most importantly, safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying out the regulations in detail. She will not be surprised that she has not convinced me. I hope that the short debate that we have tonight—even though there is not much interest on the Labour Back Benches or even the Conservative Back Benches—will get down in Hansard and people might read why many of us will be opposing these regulations.

One of the critical problems arising from the Northern Ireland protocol was the way in which—apart from the democratic aspect of disenfranchising people in 300 areas of law—it threatened Northern Ireland’s supply chain. This was said by many people, including noble Lords in this House, from the beginning. The Windsor Framework was supposed to fix that, but the regulations before us today come with Explanatory Notes that recognise that the Windsor Framework green lane “Not for EU” labour provisions, which come into effect tomorrow—in just a few hours’ time—threaten Northern Ireland’s supply chain.

Paragraph 5.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“A much greater range of products will be brought into scope of labelling requirements in July 2025, increasing the potential risk of product delisting. Therefore, the government requires a means of intervention to manage this risk and deter businesses from delisting products by providing a credible threat of enforcement”.


That all sounds very good. The chief executive officer of Marks & Spencer has described the labelling as “madness”. This madness is particularly pronounced in Northern Ireland, which those of us who live there can appreciate much better than those living in Great Britain.

The rationale for the application of “Not for EU” labels was to help protect the integrity of the EU single market, preventing goods produced in Great Britain crossing the border into the Republic of Ireland, the EU territory. The problem is, however, that these labels, which generate huge costs to the UK economy both in terms of packaging and threatening our supply chains, are completely useless.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, being here tonight reminded me of some of those wonderful days in the House of Commons in the 1980s and 1990s, when we used to do Northern Ireland business on Wednesday, and it would go on until 10 pm, 11pm, one, two or three in the morning, before Tony Blair changed the hours and we could no longer do it—I was reminiscing about that tonight.

I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, a statutory instrument that addresses a complex issue which is the result of the Windsor Framework. The regulations aim to safeguard the continuity of retail goods into Northern Ireland, enabling the Secretary the State to mandate “not for EU” labelling on certain goods sold in Great Britain, but only in response to clear evidence that the supply to Northern Ireland would otherwise be seriously disrupted. Noble Lords have challenged that.

Once again, I find myself having considerable sympathy with many of the points made by my noble friends from Northern Ireland, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, made a key point that we are now dealing with minutiae and some of the absurdity of these regulations which, as the noble Lord, Lord Weir, said, are a kind of sticking plaster, but the real problem goes back to what was negotiated six or seven years ago, when the then Government caved in to the demands of Varadkar, and we ended up with the Northern Ireland protocol—now the Windsor Framework. The noble Lord described it as one of the worst agreements ever negotiated by any Government. He and his noble friends can say that; I, of course, could not possibly comment.

Given the comparatively small size of Northern Ireland’s retail market, we acknowledge the risk that businesses may consider delisting products rather than incurring added costs of compliance. In this context, the contingency power created by this instrument appears to be a proportionate tool, aimed at protecting supply chains and consumer choice in Northern Ireland. It would be utterly unacceptable that goods only for Northern Ireland were labelled, because they would then be delisted. It is slightly less absurd that we try to label them for the whole UK, or certainly for England, but I hope other countries as well. If they are labelled for everybody, there is less chance that we will delist them for Northern Ireland. That is one of the hoops we must go through now we are stuck with the Northern Ireland protocol, or the Windsor Framework.

We do not oppose these regulations, but I seek clarity from the Minister on a number of points, which are essential for ensuring that this policy is both proportionate and effective in practice. As an aside, was there not someone who had a big shed on the border, half in Northern Ireland and half in the Republic of Ireland, and the cattle used to move to and fro between them? Listening to noble Lords from Northern Ireland, I am surprised that someone has not opened a huge supermarket a few yards inside Northern Ireland and encouraged everyone to come up there for their shopping. That is not an official policy, but it seemed to me that it is bound to happen if goods in supermarkets in Northern Ireland are so much cheaper.

First, on the thresholds of evidence, can the Minister outline what specific types of evidence will be required to trigger a notice? Secondly, with regard to the impact on business, while we welcome the exemption for small businesses, what practical support—whether it is financial or advisory—will be offered to those just above the threshold to mitigate undue burdens, particularly for SMEs? It is all very well being exempt at 50, but if you have 51 or 60 employees, then you are caught by it and the burden could be astronomical.

Secondly, they have been quoted already, but I read the concerns raised by industry and they should be carefully considered. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer, Stuart Machin, described the current requirements of “not for EU” labelling as “bureaucratic madness”. He highlighted the potential for added costs, confusion for consumers and disruption to supply chains. He also said that more than 1,000 M&S products will now require labelling for Northern Ireland and a further 400 will be subject to red lane checks. Such feedback underlines the importance of ensuring that any new burdens placed on retailers—especially those operating across the UK’s internal market—are genuinely proportionate and that government support is made available where needed. I would be grateful if the Minister can tell me why Mr Machin has got it wrong.

Thirdly, on enforcement and consistency, given that enforcement will fall to local authorities across England, Wales and Scotland, what steps will be taken to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the rules across the devolved nations?

Fourthly, on public understanding, do the Government have plans for a co-ordinated public communications strategy to ensure that consumers both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland understand what the “not for EU” label signifies—that it does not reflect on the quality or safety of the goods in question—because that could be misconstrued?

Fifthly and finally, on future adaptability, as UK-EU trade dynamics continue to evolve, how will these regulations be reviewed—and, if necessary, revised—to reflect changes in market conditions or the operation of the Windsor Framework? Can the Minister confirm how soon Parliament will be updated following such a review?

As all noble Lords opposite and the noble Baroness have pointed out, while these regulations are technical in nature, they are far from trivial in effect. I understand the points made by noble Lords opposite, that, in their opinion, they affect the fundamental sovereignty of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The issues they seek to address go to the heart of supply chain integrity, consumer protection and the delicate balance of the UK’s internal market.

We welcome continued dialogue on the implementation of these powers and look forward to the Minister’s reassurances on the points raised.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I think my feet have gone to sleep—it is very cold on the Front Bench.

I start by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to this evening’s debate with such passion and energy. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for considering my welfare so carefully.

Obviously, much of what has been said today goes wider than the scope of the debate’s title, as other wider concerns have been raised. I want to draw noble Lords’ attention back to the need for this legislation to protect the supply of retail goods to Northern Ireland. As I said earlier, the legislation delivers on a key commitment of the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper. As colleagues know, this is what provided the basis for the return of the Northern Ireland Executive. I will do my best to address the points raised by noble Lords. It is late; if I miss anything out, I will go to Hansard and respond further in writing.

The delisting of goods and the impact on business was a very strong theme. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, rightly expressed her concerns about the potential delisting of products into Northern Ireland and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, talked about the impacts on business. Of course, I am aware of the comments that came recently from Marks & Spencer. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are engaging comprehensively with businesses right across the United Kingdom to understand their state of readiness for 1 July. I also take this opportunity to say that we very much recognise the efforts and commitment of businesses that serve Northern Ireland.

It is also our strong expectation that the long lead-in time to prepare for the phasing in through the announcement of these changes last October—although the legislation has not been with us until today—and the ongoing support being provided by government to adapt will deter businesses from removing goods from sale in Northern Ireland. However, in the event this appears likely, the Government will not hesitate to act by introducing labelling in Great Britain to prevent this.

The noble Lord, Lord Weir, asked whether the SI applied only to GB goods. To confirm, all products of that type need to be labelled to be placed on the market in GB, no matter their origin, whether they are made in GB or imported from elsewhere. This is to help ensure that Northern Ireland has the same range as the rest of the UK.

I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that this is a power of last resort. My officials continue to work closely with businesses across the United Kingdom to encourage them to move their goods to Northern Ireland. Obviously, if the evidence proves that we need to take action, we will not hesitate to intervene.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, mentioned Article 16. We are concerned that triggering Article 16 would be contrary to Northern Ireland having stable arrangements for trade, both now and in future.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked about the impact of the policy on economic growth and inflation. The policy, as intended, is expected to have a negligible impact on economic growth and inflation. It has been specifically designed to minimise any negative impacts, such as price ranges or changes in availability, through the targeting of the legislation to balance achieving the policy objective with minimising economic impacts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her very comprehensive responses, but could she just say something about the issue raised by a number of us about the ridiculousness of protecting the EU’s internal market with the “Not for EU” labels? Hundreds of people are coming over every weekend buying “Not for EU” labelled goods in Northern Ireland and taking them into the Republic. It is a nonsense.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I mentioned, we are currently in discussions regarding an SPS agreement in order, I hope, to be able to remove many of the requirements, if discussions meet our ambitions. But the EU has made it quite clear that we are expected to meet our obligations under the Windsor Framework until the outcomes are known. At the moment, we do not know what those outcomes are and this falls under those obligations.

As I was saying, I would really like to say that I am committed to common sense whenever possible; I think a lot of people are. I find the regular meetings with our Northern Ireland colleagues extremely useful. Although I make it clear that we believe this instrument is making an important contribution to safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union, which we are very deeply committed to as a Government, we need to continue to try to move together forward constructively. The EU reset is going to make big changes, and it is important that those of us who have an interest in Northern Ireland understand the implications for Northern Ireland and that we can work together as we move forward. I know we will never agree on everything, but that is an important—

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

The Minister mentioned the meetings she has had and intends to have with the Northern Ireland Peers. On the meetings that she has had, can she list issues where she has changed her mind, having listened to what the Northern Ireland Peers have said? I would like to hear that, and that would maybe encourage us a little.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would say—it is the same with anyone I have meetings and discussions with—that I always listen, and listening to people has an impact on how you respond and how things are often pulled together or drafted. To make a list of where one has changed your mind is a different thing altogether.

Finally, I beg to move.

Food Allergens

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following recent reports of a restaurant serving a meal containing nuts to a severely allergic customer in Stoke-on-Trent, what plans they have to promote information on allergens in England and Wales.

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

My Lords, the Food Standards Agency works with businesses and consumers across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to improve allergen management and information, including offering free training and running awareness campaigns. It has recently published new guidance to help people with allergies eat out safely. The guidance sets out how businesses can provide clear allergen information, encourage communication about allergens between staff and consumers, and ensure that a consumer with allergies receives the right meal.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

Too many food-allergic customers are still being put at risk when eating out or ordering food from an online platform. New research by the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation has found that more than a quarter—26%—of young adults have had, or know someone who has had, an allergic reaction to takeaway food. I understand that the Food Standards Agency has produced much-welcomed guidelines asking businesses to ensure they provide written and verbal allergen information to customers, but they are just guidelines. I therefore ask my noble friend: do the Government agree with me and the FSA that its new guidelines should be mandatory? Will she meet me and Natasha’s foundation, for which I am a parliamentary ambassador, to discuss this and its new research into the issues faced by those with food allergies when using food delivery apps?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I applaud my noble friend for her dedication and passionate advocacy on this issue. As she said, we published the best practice guidance in March this year and, as noble Lords will appreciate, any new guidance requires time to embed and be adopted by businesses. We hope to carry out an evaluation one year after the implementation of the guidance to assess both its uptake and its impact, and to better inform Ministers on the need for any potential legislation. This means that our evaluation work is likely to begin in spring 2026, and the gap between the launch and when the impact of the guidance can be meaningfully assessed ensures that our evaluation is based on a representative and reliable picture of how the guidance is actually working in practice. This will be very helpful in our understanding of the need for and any potential impact of any future legislative options. We very much welcome the opportunity to meet and to review the new research, which we have not yet had sight of. It would be invaluable to examine these findings alongside the FSA’s research in this area.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, although the guidelines are very welcome, and I applaud the Food Standards Agency’s work in this area, does the Minister share my concern about whether local authorities have the resources to do the necessary work to visit the establishments concerned to ensure that the guidelines are being applied? I think most restaurants in my area ask whether you are allergic. Does she also share my concern about the increasing amount of passing off of one food substance as another? We had the horsemeat scandal some 12 years ago, and we do not want to see a repeat of that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we absolutely do not want to see a repeat of that. As she says, local authorities enforce allergen rules, typically via trading standards and environmental health officers. The number of trading standards officers has dropped, although staffing rose slightly in 2023, so we are looking at how we can improve that. The FSA has backed a level 6 trading standards apprenticeship, for example, and is training over 100 new officers in one year. The FSA will continue to monitor that, and will continue to support training guidance and the food law code of practice with local authorities.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

If the FSA has pushed for compulsory written allergen information on menus, as it appears to have, is this not too long a wait for the Government to carry out an assessment? Also, will the Minister give us some sense of how it is possible to help smaller establishments in particular to access decent staff training in order to fulfil some of the requirements of having compulsory written information?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Of course, the law states that you have to state allergens. In the guidance, the preference is that that should be written first, verbal secondary. We will assess how that is working, as I just said. Regarding smaller businesses, the guidance has been designed with business to ensure that it is fit for purpose no matter what size your business is, because it is really important that every business can implement this effectively. The FSA has also created free tools, such as allergen icons, signage templates and a matrix, which are all available on its website. They are designed to be both flexible and low cost, because we need to ensure that all businesses, no matter their size, have proper access to the information and can ensure that customers and consumers understand what is being sold in that business.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, one in three people lives with allergic disease, which affects so many aspects of everyday living, not just in accessing healthcare but in ensuring a safe education and employment environment and, as this Question shows, better understanding in the hospitality industry. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that this requires cross-departmental action and that the appointment of an allergy tsar could be a way to achieve that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Is it not the case that retailers, particularly the smaller ones, would be more likely to take guidance seriously if there was a mandatory requirement to list the food hygiene scores on the premises? Why is England the only one of the four countries where this is not mandatory? It does not cost a penny in public funds. They already have the labels; they ought to be required to promote them. Those who are not doing so now would then take other guidance more seriously.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a serious question. We need to ensure that the information is readily available and clear. We spent some time pulling the guidance together to address a lot of the issues that he raised while ensuring that it was accessible and flexible to businesses to ensure that they had the facilities to implement it in a way that was effective for their business. I hear the points that he made and will take them back to the department when we review the efficacy of the guidance that we have produced.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of studies showing that exposure to trace amounts of potential allergens builds resilience? I think specifically of the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy study, which tracked a number of children who were thought to be vulnerable because they had intolerances to other things, eczema or other indicators. Only 3% of those exposed to trace amounts of peanuts in infancy developed the intolerance, as opposed to 17% of those who were completely denied them. We in the public eye must be careful not to send out a message in the aftermath of cases such the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, refers to that we should clear our shelves of all potential allergens. That may be behind the increase in the number of cases that we have seen over the past 20 years.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, there has been an increase in hospitalisation, which is why this is such an important issue. I think the noble Lord was referring to Palforzia, where people take a tiny trace of the allergen every morning and slowly build it up in order to have a resilience to it. It is an incredibly interesting piece of research. I saw a programme on it and was fascinated at this new approach to tackling allergy. However, any new treatments must go through NICE to be approved for the NHS. We need to make sure that they work for everybody because this is a very sensitive, complex area.