Biodiversity and the Countryside

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for tabling today’s debate. It has been a very interesting debate, and I thank everyone for their contributions. I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to restoring and protecting nature, but we recognise the challenges that we face. I will talk about the progress that we are making and some of the actions that we are currently taking to deliver change.

In England, we are committed to delivering the Environmental Act targets, which have been mentioned during the debate, to improve species abundance, reduce species extinction risk and restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat. Alongside this, we are also determined to deliver on our international commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land and sea by 2030, but, clearly, this is a challenge. The programme is adaptive, so we can update it and make changes as we get more information and evidence on the progress that we are making. We simply cannot be the generation that lets nature slip away. We need to allow our children to inherit a wild and beautiful Britain that is richer in nature than it has been before.

The 2025 spending review announced the largest investment into nature in history, with over £7 billion directed towards nature recovery. This includes £5.9 billion for environmental farming schemes, £816 million for tree planting and £86 million for peatland restoration. These investments are designed to improve water and air quality, and to create spaces where biodiversity can thrive. The environmental improvement plan was mentioned by noble Lords, and I am very much looking forward to its publication. This will be our long-term plan for improving the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it.

Obviously, farming was mentioned a lot in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about the importance of nature-friendly farming, for example. Farming is central to our ambitions for nature. The sustainable farming incentive and Countryside Stewardship were mentioned; we are looking to evolve those schemes so that they work for both farmers and nature. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and others asked about the next round of Countryside Stewardship. Applications will be by invitation from Natural England and the Forestry Commission. We are currently working with farmers and land managers to develop the application. It will include some farmers and land managers who are in existing agreements, as well as those who will have new agreements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, was clear about the importance of certainty in farming. Farmers need to know how to plan for the future, and I fully understand that; it is something that I talk about in the department. As noble Lords mentioned, we have announced a one-year extension for more than 5,000 Countryside Stewardship agreements to help farmers deliver vital environmental work, including managing hedgerows. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked about the review being carried out by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, and when we are likely to see it. The Secretary of State for Defra confirmed this week that it will be published before Christmas, so noble Lords should look out for that.

The landscape recovery programme is one of the most ambitious parts of our farming programme. It aims to deliver large-scale nature restoration. We have two landscape recovery projects—Boothby in Lincolnshire and Upper Duddon in Cumbria—which are restoring habitat and boosting species abundance now.

The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked specifically about action on and delivery of habitat targets. We are starting to see encouraging signs of progress in nature recovery. Since January 2023, action has been taken to create or restore more than 38,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, for example.

My noble friend Lady Young asked about tree planting; it is now at its highest recorded rate in over 20 years and we are delivering our manifesto commitment to create three new national forests. The Western Forest, which we announced in March, is the first new national forest in 30 years. Last week, we also confirmed the second national forest, which will be between Oxford and Cambridge. Early next year, we will launch a competition to decide the location of the third forest. They will see millions of trees planted in the years ahead, as part of our wide commitment to allocate over £1 billion in this Parliament to tree planting and to support the forestry sector.

We are also taking action to protect and restore peatland. We have invested £85 million in peatland restoration and lowland peat management, which will take us through to 2030.

We are also supporting the recovery of threatened and declining species. The noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, talked about declining species such as the curlew. We recognise the importance of stopping those species further declining and we need to look at how best to restore them. We have a species recovery programme, which works in partnership with organisations across the country, as it is absolutely right to respect those who are already working to re-establish species to support that recovery.

We think that such partnership working is essential. We need to work with farmers, as the noble Lord, Roborough, said; the private sector, which is a really important investor; civil society; and landowners. We have established the National Estate for Nature—the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, might be interested in this—which is a group of major public, private and third sector landowners which collectively manage around 10% of England’s land.

The local nature recovery strategies are also supporting local partnerships to identify the priority places for nature recovery. Last November, the first ever local nature recovery strategy was published. We now have 16 more, and the remaining 31 are expected soon, over the coming months. The idea is that they will cover the whole of England.

A number of noble Lords talked about the land use framework. The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, talked about the competing pressures on land use, and that is what it is designed to do: to deliver for nature recovery alongside housing, infrastructure and food security. All these have been discussed in the debate, and we recognise that England’s land is limited and the demands on it are growing. My noble friend Lady Young and others have asked about the timing on the land use framework for England. We are currently looking at the consultation that ran earlier this year and are working across government to see how best we can use the responses from that to develop the appropriate proposals through it. I cannot give an exact date, but we are actively working on it at the moment.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was obviously mentioned by quite a few noble Lords, and there has been a lot of interest in it. I think it is important to remind noble Lords that we did table a number of amendments in your Lordships’ House to better protect nature and the environment and for it to work better with development. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked, we are still actively in discussions around further concerns that noble Lords have on that. I also agree with my noble friend Lady Young that development and the environment do not have to be in conflict, and I am certainly not a fan of nature bashing.

I remind noble Lords that we also have a clear role for green finance, which is why we are working to strengthen private finance for nature recovery. We have a natural environment investment readiness fund that actively works in that space.

I have a few minutes to go through some of the specific questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, asked some pretty detailed questions—which are important questions to ask—around how land is managed, who owns it, and incentives and support for recovery. I would suggest that these matters really need to be dug into more deeply. I would be very happy to sit down and go through them with her, because she is far more experienced on this—and my maths is dreadful. It would be really good to have a bit of time with her if she is happy to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Grayling, asked about biodiversity net gain. We recognise that BNG is working as is intended but also recognise that its implementation can be challenging for SMEs. We have had a consultation to explore options for improving BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development, which is also an important part of this. The feedback we have gathered is that we want to balance environmental outcomes with their actual deliverability, and officials are looking at that at the moment.

Bottom trawling—a really important subject, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech—is clearly a damaging activity. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Anyone who saw David Attenborough’s programme will be very clear about what the damage is. Our approach is to restrict fishing which is assessed as damaging to the specific protected features in each marine protected area, based on advice from the statutory nature conservation bodies. I am sure the noble Lord is aware that a consultation on the latest round of proposed fisheries by-laws, which proposes further restrictions on bottom trawling, closed at the end of September. The Marine Management Organisation—MMO—is now carefully looking at all the responses that were received. It may be that we need to pick this up together, because I know of the noble Lord’s specific interest in this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked about our little slogan, “food security is national security”. My understanding is that this is about our ability to feed our population and that is a fundamental pillar of our stability, safety and security. Food production and its supply chains should be considered part of our critical infrastructure. That is my understanding.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about a number of things, but I want to comment on the important things he said about rural communities and the economy and the fact that there are challenges in the rural community around that. We are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, because thriving rural communities and a prosperous rural economy make such a difference to the overall economy of the country. We need to underpin that through improvements in rural connectivity. I am not just talking about digital; I am also talking about transport, which is often a big issue. We need to ensure that affordable housing is available, that the energy supply is secure and affordable and that community services are available to rural communities. A Defra-led rural task force was set up earlier this year to gather evidence on those potential opportunities and challenges in rural areas, in order to look at how we can deliver growth and support sustainable rural communities. The noble Lord may be interested to look at that task force.

The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, talked about our energy policy. I am sure he is aware that planning for renewable energy projects, as for any project, requires extensive up-front surveying. There are important checks and balances that need to take place, because decision-makers need to ensure that statutory environmental and habitats assessments are conducted as part of the planning determination. Those assessments consider the likely impact on the environment and protected species and habitats. If significant adverse impacts are likely, developers have to put in place measures to avoid, preferably, or reduce, mitigate or compensate for those impacts. I hope that is helpful.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked some specific questions. She asked whether we agree with the CLA’s assessment that 3% of England’s land counts towards 30 by 30. The answer is no. The government analysis is higher. We have identified 7.1% of England’s land that already meets the 30 by 30 criteria and counts towards the target, but on the other specifics I will write to her.

I hope I have covered most of the questions that have been asked. If I have not, I will check. I thank noble Lords once again. It is important that we consider these debates in the round and I think we have done so today.

Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Protection (Wet Wipes Containing Plastic) (England) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 16 September. I welcome the chance to set out the action that this Government and the devolved Governments are taking to ban the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic right across the UK.

The Government are committed to bringing forward root and branch reform of the water system to secure better outcomes for customers, investors and the environment and to restore trust and accountability. A key part of this is enabling pre-pipe drainage and wastewater solutions, including better management of our rainwater and preventing pollutants entering the sewerage network and our waterways. Banning wet wipes containing plastic is integral to this ambition.

Wet wipes containing plastic are a growing source of plastic pollution. They are often found in our natural environment, including in waterways and on our beaches. They break down into smaller pieces when in the water, contributing to microplastic pollution, which may be harmful to human and animal health. Banning them will reduce plastic and microplastic pollution as well as the volume of microplastics entering wastewater treatment sites when wrongly flushed. This is part of a wider commitment to encourage more sustainable behaviour around the consumption of single-use plastic. Ultimately, we want to encourage a shift towards reusable and/or plastic-free alternatives. In our 2023 public consultation, 95% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the proposed ban on wet wipes containing plastic.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are supportive of these regulations, which seek to ban wet wipes containing plastic. We commend the Government on pressing ahead with this important measure, which was first initiated by the previous Conservative Government in 2024. It is both a long-overdue and necessary step in tackling the scourge of plastic pollution, which finds its way into our rivers, on to our beaches and, ultimately, into our oceans.

These regulations are sensible, proportionate and practical. However, while this statutory instrument will eliminate one major source of plastic pollution, it will not solve the wider problem of what we are flushing down and into our sewer system. Wet wipes and other waste continue to create enormous fatbergs in our sewers. Oils, grease and wipes congeal into solid mounds that block the network, leading to flooding and enormous clean-up costs. Water UK tells us that 93% of sewage blockages are caused by wet wipes, costing around £100 million per year to clear. We have seen gruesome evidence of this: the 250-metre fatberg in Whitechapel in 2017, which weighed in at 130 tonnes, and, more recently, the so-called wet wipe island on the Thames near Hammersmith Bridge.

Even so-called plastic-free wipes are not a simple solution. Whether they are made from cotton, bamboo or viscose, they remain single-use products with significant environmental footprints and the liquids they contain often include palm oil or chemical preservatives that can damage our rivers. Nor does “biodegradable” mean what many people assume it does, as highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Bennett. In laboratory tests, everything eventually breaks down, but our sewers are not—and should not be—laboratories. As the Rivers Trust has pointed out, these wipes are not designed to disintegrate quickly, so they continue to block pipes and form fatbergs. The only gain is that they no longer shed microplastics.

While His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support this ban, we must not imagine that it will end the fatberg menace. Plastic-free wipes, whether cleaning, make-up or baby wipes, behave nothing like toilet paper. They cling to grease, oils and other debris, creating the vast sewer monsters that cost millions to remove and drive up consumers’ water bills. Only last month, Thames Water cleared a 100-tonne fatberg from a sewer in Feltham in west London. Some 10 metres below ground, engineers had to blast, chisel and vacuum out 125 metres of congealed fat, oil and wet wipes—a blockage weighing as much as eight double-decker buses. The waste had to be craned out in skips and sent to landfill. Thames Water described the clearance as “hugely complex” and reminded us that, while some fatbergs weigh the same as 25 elephants, most blockages begin in small local pipes where sewage can back up into our streets, our rivers and people’s homes.

What can we do? Either we press manufacturers to create wipes that truly disintegrate or we accept that fatbergs, floods and higher water bills are here to stay. This statutory instrument is a necessary and welcome step and we commend the Government on carrying forward the initiative begun in 2024, but please let us not assume that our drains will run clear all of a sudden. Until both product design and public habits change, the fatbergs will keep on coming.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate and for their contributions. I am very pleased to have had the opportunity to bring this important debate to the House of Lords. It has been a really interesting discussion. I am grateful for the broad support but, clearly, there is a range of views as to how best to introduce this measure and what it should contain. It is clear that we are all quite passionate about this, so it has been a really good debate. I will try to pick up most of the issues and questions raised.

A number of noble Lords asked about the issues around manufacture. Banning the supply and sale of wet wipes containing plastic is in line with most other recent single-use plastic bans where manufacture of the products has not been banned. One problem is the size of the wet wipes industry in the UK, and because of that we need to act carefully to ensure the ban is both proportionate and effective, much as the noble Earl just said.

We need to mitigate any economic impact of the ban and reduce the possibility of job losses in the industry. It is also important, however, that our domestic wet wipes manufacturers remain competitive in international markets; I will come to that later. We want to continue to encourage manufacturers to move to a position where all their wet wipes are plastic free. Most manufacturers have already started this transition to producing plastic-free wipes; the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the amount of notice they have been given. I confirm that we are not ruling out a ban on manufacture at a later date. We will consider whether this is necessary once the ban on supply and sale has come into force.

River Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to tackle river pollution from sources other than sewage.

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

My Lords, cleaning up our rivers is a top priority. To tackle agricultural pollution, we are increasing regulatory compliance, reforming environmental land management schemes to prioritise water and promoting innovation. To tackle pollution from abandoned metal mines, we are investing in a programme of water treatment schemes. Finally, we are working with the Department for Transport to review our approach to tackling pollution from road run-off, including tackling chemical contaminants.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her response. According to the Cunliffe review, agriculture is the single largest cause of river pollution, with pesticides and nutrients ultimately leading to poor environmental outcomes dangerous to public health and blocking developments in affected catchment areas. If we ignore agriculture, little will be done. Can the Minister say how the Government plan to address this source? Will they need primary legislation to do so, and if so, when can legislation be expected?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On agricultural run-off pollution specifically, which the noble Baroness asked about, we are doubling the funding to the Environment Agency farm inspections and regulatory enforcement team, which will enable it to conduct at least 6,000 inspections a year by 2029, in order to work with farmers to raise standards, which is really important.

The catchment sensitive farming grant—of which my husband and I have been recipients—is designed to address the specific needs of each farm. For example, we have fenced off the river to stop cattle going down and causing pollution and damage to the riverbanks. This supports capital investment in specific ways to stop livestock going in watercourses, for example, as I just mentioned. That also includes improving drainage to manage run-off more effectively.

The sustainable farming incentive scheme pays farmers for actions that protect and enhance our natural environment. That includes things that reduce run-off and erosion, and that will maintain soil cover, create buffer strips and so on. We are also looking at improving farm pollution regulations, which need to be both simple and effective. We have also issued amended statutory guidance on the farming rules for water to set clearer expectations on enforcing the regulations.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the Canal & River Trust has removed litter bins from the canal network throughout England and Wales, on the tow-paths. It has a statutory duty to manage litter in England and Wales. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of water pollution on biodiversity and wildlife on our waterways?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is important that we do not have litter blowing into our rivers, causing further damage and pollution, or litter generally, not just going into the watercourses. The Canal & River Trust can make its own decisions, but we work very closely with it and urge it to consider pollution in its decision-making.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, there was a report last week in the Guardian about the operators of intensive chicken and pig units that are apparently withholding their emissions data from the public. Would the Government now follow the recommendations of the Government’s 2022 and 2023 Environmental Audit Committee inquiries and adopt a presumption against expanding intensive chicken and pig production in polluted catchments until there is a plan as to how to reduce the amount of pollution we already get, which is estimated at 70% in the River Wye from the chicken farms alone?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that pollution from chicken farms, particularly in the River Wye, is a huge problem. I have met with people with interests in the River Wye to look at potential solutions to that, and the department is considering how best to deal with it. Planning is an important part of how we manage our sustainable agriculture going forward, and I know that the Farming Minister has been taking a particular interest in how we can look at planning to improve both pollution and animal welfare.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I know that this Question relates specifically to river pollution, but my noble friend will no doubt be aware that there has been a major pollution event in East Sussex on Camber Sands in the recent past. That has resulted in some very necessary clearing up having to be done by a wide range of agencies, but as yet, as I understand it, there is no clear indication of where the pollution came from. Since it represents a serious threat to wildfowl, among other things, in the area, can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on identifying the source?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend an update on where we are on Camber Sands and Southern Water at the moment. The pollution incident is really worrying, and it is disappointing that it has happened. We are pleased that Southern Water has now taken responsibility for this plastic pollution incident. The Environment Agency is currently conducting a thorough investigation. It is also looking at what regulatory action should be taken and is working with Rother District Council on the clean-up operation. It is absolutely unacceptable that something like this should happen. For too long, these serious pollution events have not been taken seriously. It is absolutely right that the Environment Agency is looking thoroughly at this incident so we can understand exactly what has happened in order to try and prevent it happening again in the future. We need swifter penalties to clamp down on polluters. We have given £104 billion in private investment to help cut exactly this kind of pollution incident.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Water (Special Measures) Act, the Cunliffe review and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill all offer the potential for the mobilisation of greater private capital in dealing with non-sewage pollution in our rivers. Can the Minister inform the House what progress is being made with private sector investment? How big a contribution is planned and how much will therefore be saved for the benefit of the taxpayer? I refer the House to my registered interest as a land and river owner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As part of dealing with any major area that requires investment and funding, we will of course consider how private investment can support what the Government are trying to achieve. We believe that it is important for us all to pull together to make the right kind of progress.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the release of millions of toxic bio-beads happened two weeks ago. Southern Water at first refused to take responsibility and, even now, it is not in charge of a clear-up that would benefit people and wildlife. When will this Government accept that the water companies are incompetent and badly managed and should be nationalised?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is aware that the Cunliffe review made a number of recommendations, and we are acting very quickly on nine of them. She will also be aware that it is our intention to bring forward a second water Bill in order to tackle properly so many of the issues that we still see in our water industry that are simply not acceptable.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, the Inter-Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last met in June this year; it was very high level and all the top Ministers from the various nations were there. An extensive communiqué was issued in September, but it made no mention of this important topic. Can the Minister assure us that, the next time that the interministerial group meets, this topic will be on the agenda? Can she tell us—directionally, at least—when it will meet again?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am afraid that I do not have any information on when it will meet again. However, I am more than happy to pass on the noble Earl’s suggestion and concerns to the new Secretary of State in Defra, who I am sure will want to take the best action possible at the next meeting.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a key challenge for this Government is the lack of effective planning enforcement? I have a classic example from my own village of Goring-on-Thames in connection with a retrospective application for an Airbnb on a zone 1 flood plain. The Liberal Democrat council accepted a work of fiction by so-called professionals, Taylor Consulting, which even named the wrong village and the wrong river in its report, which was entirely accepted by South Oxfordshire District Council. It completely ignored all kinds of water going into the river, including treated pool water.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, I cannot comment on a specific case. It is important that, when planning applications are put forward, they are properly considered in the context of pollution.

Energy Market Reforms

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what further consideration they have given to the case for energy market reforms following their decision not to implement zonal pricing.

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

My Lords, the review of electricity markets arrangements has concluded. This Government have decided to retain a national electricity market pricing regime and have established a programme called reformed national pricing. The purpose of the new programme is to deliver a cohesive package of reforms to improve the efficiency of our future power system. We will publish further detail on the reformed national pricing later this year, which will give market participants and investors clarity on our approach.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

We still have some of the highest energy prices in Europe. Does the Minister agree with me that reducing the costs of energy for everyone has to be an absolute priority? What progress is being made on producing a clear programme to redistribute energy levies, and will the Government examine in detail the Greenpeace policy proposals to remove gas plants into a regulated asset base, which it is claimed could save £5.1 billion a year by 2028?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Delivering lower bills and a secure energy supply for families and businesses is absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to achieve through these reforms, particularly with moving towards renewables—that homegrown renewable energy sprint, as we are calling it—in order to get where we can as quickly as we can. The quicker we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the more quickly we can reduce bills and do more about getting off the gas grid, which I think is at the heart of the noble Earl’s second question. Of course, the Government are always happy to look at contributions from different groups and NGOs, but the important thing is that we focus on that transition to renewable energies to bring those bills down.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

On energy market reforms, should His Majesty’s Government not take advantage of the news that the North Sea oil reserves are now considerably higher than anticipated, and of a better quality and cheaper than imports of gas and oil, and therefore help to bring down energy prices?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have just said, the Government’s focus to bring down energy prices is moving away from reliance on fossil fuels, and I am sure the noble Lord is aware that oil is a fossil fuel. Our focus is on moving to a more renewable energy market, to take away that reliance and bring down energy bills through that route.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister can assure me that the Government are still very focused on helping with the development of small modular nuclear reactors and that she will ensure that they are built in this country —for example, in places such as Sheffield Forgemasters.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. Nuclear energy is part of the Government’s strategy in order to have sufficient energy for this country and to move away from gas power stations, for example. Personally, I am keen on small modular reactors: they are very important as part of our nuclear energy mix. I know that colleagues of mine in Cumbria have been pressing that we should have them there, as well as in Sheffield.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action. The warm home discount—for those households in greatest fuel poverty—has remained at £300 for the last few years. What plans do the Government have to increase that figure so that the poorest, most fuel-impoverished households will receive more money off their bills?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is absolutely critical that we support families who struggle to pay their electricity bills. We do not want people to be cold in the winter. I am not aware of any plans to increase that payment at the moment; I will get back to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is important to bring down bills but also to work with energy companies on their support for vulnerable customers, because there is a role for energy companies to play in that aspect.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. In response to the Government’s Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan published last week, Nigel Topping, the chair of the Government’s statutory Climate Change Committee, said:

“Our number one recommendation remains to make electricity cheaper. This means taking policy costs off electricity bills”.


Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, one of our key priorities is to reduce bills for consumers, particularly for vulnerable customers. We will look at all aspects of how best to do that.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, energy companies made £30 billion profit last year, which is over £500 per household. This fuels inflation and poverty. Some 128,000 people die in fuel poverty each year. There is an urgent need to end profiteering by excluding gas-generated electricity from Ofgem’s marginal pricing formula. Can the Minister explain why, after 35 years, Ofgem’s pricing formula has not been reformed?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend asks about marginal pricing and refers to gas, because gas and electricity prices have been coupled together for many years. The market currently operates on the principle of marginal pricing, and the cost of electricity often tracks the cost of gas because gas generation frequently sets the wholesale price. It is a complex area. There are good reasons why the electricity market operates on that basis. Comparable countries tend to operate in this way as well. Over time, we need to rely less on gas, which means that electricity prices will become increasingly detached from the price of gas and be more frequently set by other generation, such as renewables. We see that as the way to bring prices down to support vulnerable people and to enable them to pay their bills. That is why our focus is on increasing renewable energy.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Increasing the capacity of the grid —particularly bringing more offshore power onshore—will see a dramatic escalation in the number of overhead power lines to distribute the power, as well as more onshore substations. Given the huge profits made by some of the energy companies, what are the Government doing to mitigate the visual impact of this increase in energy distribution? Can these energy companies not be invited to contribute towards a fund that will see, where possible, the burial of overhead power lines?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

There are two aspects to this. There is the National Grid, and in Scotland there is ScottishPower. We also have the district network operators, so we have different levels of pylons. It is not quite as straightforward as having a simple pot. The important thing is that we build the renewable energy that we need. We also need to look at battery storage. Not all electricity generation needs to be connected up through power lines. The last figures I saw on burying power lines showed it to be about 11 times more expensive. It depends where they are—through a national park, for example—and what the current situation is. It is important that we have the renewable energy connection, and we want to bring down prices, but we must build the connections in the right place. Connections are not just built in a straight line. Electricity companies spend a long time ensuring that the route chosen is the best one: they talk to people. This is part of creating the renewable energy future that we need.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, alongside decarbonisation, one way to reduce prices for many people would be to encourage them to use flexible electricity? In other words, through battery storage and other modern techniques, consumers can be encouraged to use electricity at a time of abundance and thereby reduce their bills. The Government set up a task force this summer. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that it can spearhead reform in this area?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I just mentioned battery storage, so that is a very appropriate question from my noble friend. As I said, over the summer we announced our decision not to introduce zonal pricing and, instead, to implement this ambitious package of reforms to improve the effectiveness of our current national pricing model. We will publish more detail later this year—including on the role of flexible assets such as storage and consumer-led flexibility in addressing constraints, because flexibility will be a critical part of lowering costs and achieving our clean power ambitions. We recently published the Clean Flexibility Roadmap, which contains a comprehensive, actionable plan for unlocking the kind of greater flexibility to which my noble friend refers.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, the decision not to implement zonal pricing will mean the continuation of payments to turn off wind farms when they produce excess power, which are projected to reach £8 billion by 2030. Given the scale of this, and following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Winterton, asked, do His Majesty’s Government agree that they should focus their efforts on securing a baseload of energy by investing in nuclear power in order to offset the strain placed on wind farms?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We need both. We need renewable energy—I have talked about including wind farms and solar, for example—but that baseload of nuclear power is also important. That is why we are also investing in nuclear and making commitments to nuclear power. It is about finding a balance and getting both, because we need to make sure that we have sustainable, secure energy for the future.

Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this Government’s deal with the EU allows Europe to retain around 40% of the fishing rights in our exclusive economic zone and territorial waters for a further 12 years. This undermines the substantial expansion of the private tax-paying fishing sector that should have been possible. The fishing and coastal growth fund from taxpayers’ money’ is poor compensation and unfairly distributed, particularly as regards Scotland. Can the Minister explain how this can be in tune with the Government’s pro-growth agenda?

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

The funding is being allocated using the Barnett formula, which is the normal mechanism used by HM Treasury to determine funding for the devolved Governments. That is the mechanism used and, while allocations are not directly linked to the size of each nation’s fishing industry—the noble Lord mentioned the Scottish fishing industry—devolved Governments have full flexibility to target this funding to best meet the needs of their coastal and fishing communities, so there is an opportunity. This is extra funding on top of other funding that has been granted, so it is providing a support to coastal and fishing communities.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that the botched Brexit deal that the Conservatives negotiated has done great damage to our coastal and fishing communities? Fish exporters have been wrapped up in red tape and penalised with extra costs for trading with our closest neighbours. To better support our communities, what steps are the Government taking to address the delays and implement the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement as soon as possible?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness mentioned the Brexit deal agreed by the previous Government, which provides de facto guarantees for EU boats to UK waters beyond 2026. What we have done is to secure a deal with the EU that ensures returns for our fishing community, including scrapping red tape and restoring shellfish exports to the UK. This demonstrates that we are absolutely committed to the long-term prosperity and sustainability of our fishing industry. On the SPS agreement, I am sure the noble Baroness knows that negotiations are due to start shortly. I cannot give any further details until we move further down the line, but we absolutely want a really good deal for our country.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister would agree that there is no point investing in our fishing industry if there are no fish to catch. The sad truth is that, according to Oceana UK’s latest report, Deep Decline, over half of the UK fish stocks are being overfished, particularly the top 10 species. What plans do the Government have to ensure that fishing quotas are set on a sustainable basis, so that the stocks can recover and provide our fishermen with livelihoods not just today but in the future?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: overfishing has been a real problem and we absolutely need to ensure that it does not happen in the future and that the fishing quotas that are agreed are sustainable. In fact, they are, in theory, sustainable at the moment, but we need to get the best data we can in order to make the best decisions in the future. Clearly, we hope that working with the EU more closely will enable this.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, before Britain left the European Union, the inshore fishermen, the under-10 fishermen, were promised an increased quota of cod and other fish—before the waters warmed up and they went elsewhere. Under the coastal fund, will there be anything for the inshore fishermen, who are now the largest number of fishermen in English waters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to refer to inshore fishermen, who are a really important part of our industry. Regarding detail, we are negotiating with stakeholders. We are looking to work very closely with all the different groups that are interested or have an impact with this growth fund. Clearly, they will be an important group as part of our discussions.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it has occurred to me that the noble Baroness might not have seen the Oceana report, Deep Decline. It is absolutely excellent, if a bit depressing, but it gives some very good recommendations, so perhaps I could make sure that she gets a copy.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would be absolutely delighted to receive a copy from the noble Baroness.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, for a number of years, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, there were considerable complaints about the illegal landing of black fish. Are the Government satisfied that material quantities of illegally caught black fish are not landed in this country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The kinds of issues that the noble Lord refers to are ones that the Fishing Minister is obviously aware of and will monitor, because we absolutely do not want to see illegal fish landed. It is really important.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, given that 80% of fish caught in our waters are exported, I ask, as the chair of the International Chamber of Commerce in the UK, what priority are the Government giving to exports in general? We hear about the economy and growth, but what about exports, including our fishing exports?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Exports, whether that is of fish or in other parts of our food industry, are a really important part of how we can continue to grow the economy in this country and support both our farmers and our fishermen. Exports dropped fairly significantly after Brexit, so one of the things we want to achieve with the SPS agreement is better export conditions to increase opportunities for both our farmers and our fishers.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this exchange of questions demonstrates a certain absence of knowledge about how much damage was done by the terms in which Brexit was embedded, which has resulted, as she says, in a sharp drop in our exports? Would the Government find it useful to put into the public domain a little bit more of the factual basis for the sort of questions we have had this afternoon in the House?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, one reason we want to do the EU reset and get an SPS agreement and a better working relationship with the EU is to ensure that we have the best economic growth we can possibly get in this country. However, it is also important that we can work efficiently and effectively with our closest trading partner. The noble Lord has made some very good points about the kind of information that should be available, and I hope that the EU reset will start to reset some of the difficulties that he is referring to.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I must say that I find this conversation surprising. The Government seem to have given 12 years of fishing away in a negotiation without getting any very clear benefits in exchange. Our fishing has been an enormous issue right across the country, so I am slightly surprised by the tone of this conversation. Can the noble Baroness, whose views I always respect, help me on this matter?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not see that this Government have “given away”. As I said earlier, we have secured additional funding, in addition to the spending settlement that the UK Government provide to each devolved Government, to provide more support for the fishing industry. I do not remember that the agreements made by the previous Government following Brexit were particularly welcomed by the fishing industry. As part of the reset, we are trying to improve our working relationship with the EU in order to continue to support our farmers, our fishers and our businesses more broadly.

Musical Instrument Certificates

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of introducing a fee for musical instrument certificates on touring orchestras and musicians, as proposed in the open consultation on reforming domestic implementation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

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

My Lords, the Government have not yet fully assessed the impact of introducing a fee for musical instrument certificates for touring orchestras and musicians. We will do so based on the information submitted by stakeholders during the public consultation, which will close on 23 October. That consultation forms part of Defra’s wider work to ensure that our regulatory framework is both proportionate and effective, in line with the Corry review. We will continue to engage with DCMS, recognising the music sector’s importance.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. It is very welcome that the Prime Minister made pledges to help our touring artists as part of improving the UK’s trade relationship with the EU, because since Brexit, UK musicians touring the EU have had many extra costs, including for visas, work permits and carnets. Can my noble friend assure me that her department will now look again at its proposal to start charging for applications for musical instrument certificates, which would add to those barriers for touring musicians? I also ask that it looks again at proposals to introduce civil sanctions, which would mean musicians travelling without a certificate, or even with a certificate not correctly stamped at the border, would become liable for a financial penalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said in my initial Answer to my noble friend, we are currently consulting on this range of proposals; it is part of the way we reform our CITES regulatory framework. The idea is that the reforms will support economic growth, reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens and ensure effective protection for endangered species. The options include a proposal to revise the fees for permits and certificates, including those for musical instruments. This is in line with other countries. As I said, we are consulting, and we will look at all the information submitted to that consultation before we reach any final decision.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, this proposal for charging for musical instrument certificates clearly goes entirely against the promise the Government made in their election manifesto to help facilitate musicians touring the EU. Does this not illustrate the need for someone, preferably a Minister, who can oversee this promise, and the decisions made in relevant departments, to avoid such backwards steps, because for musicians, Brexit is such a cross-departmental concern?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The availability of the musical instrument certificates simplifies international travel for musicians with instruments. It is important to note that they are valid for three years. Currently, the musical instrument certificates are the only CITES permit or certificate available to applicants at no cost, so it is important that we consider through this consultation whether this is fair or proportionate as we move our current charging regime to full cost recovery.

I emphasise that no decisions as yet on fees have been made. The consultation is seeking feedback from stakeholders to ensure changes do not put disproportionate burdens on industry and businesses, including touring orchestras and musicians. The Government are supporting artists through measures such as the orchestra tax relief, the Arts Council England funding and the £30 million music growth package which supports talent development, music exports and grass-roots venues.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the burden on touring musicians of the botched Brexit deal has been so very punitive? Does she share our concern about any danger that this consultation will add to that botched Brexit deal and increase fees for those touring musicians? Could she please elaborate for the House on discussions that have taken place between her department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that this vital export to the UK is fully supported?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are continuing to talk with DCMS; it is an ongoing conversation. We are also continuing to constructively engage with the European Commission to tackle the challenges that face both creative and cultural professionals. To support touring artists, the Government are actively engaging with the EU on this specific issue. At the first ever summit between the UK and the EU, both sides recognised the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists, and we have committed to continue to support this.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Musicians’ Union, led by the excellent general secretary Naomi Pohl, which has been campaigning against this proposal. In my view, it is the sort of proposal that in a joined-up government should never have seen the light of day. Musicians and orchestras are facing great difficulties as a result of Brexit and already have additional costs. There is no current charge; the Minister is right in saying that. The difference is that now, if the Government introduce a charge, it will place a massive additional burden on musicians who are already suffering greatly in terms of being able to tour as a result of Brexit. I understand why she has to say in legal terms that the consultation is going ahead, but when it is over, I urge her to drop this proposal.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As my noble friend rightly pointed out, this is an ongoing consultation. As I said in response to other questions, we will take all views into account. The consultation does not close for another few days, so if anyone has concerns and they have not taken part, I urge them to respond.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the Independent Society of Musicians has called this proposal “disappointing” and “incomprehensible”. We have just heard about the dismay it has caused to the Musicians’ Union, and, as the noble Earl said, it flies in the face of the Government’s manifesto commitment to help touring artists. The Minister has been at pains to say that no decision has yet been taken, but the consultation document invites people to choose between two options: a cost of £61 for all permits and certificates, or a charge of £200 for all applications. Does that rather leading question suggest that the Government have made up their mind that there should be a cost of some form for people bringing instruments into this country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The consultation is on CITES, which covers all sorts of areas and not just musical instruments. As I said, we are carrying out a consultation and will take the responses into account. It is important to show that we are supporting music. We support orchestras through the tax system and funding. At the Autumn Budget last year, the Government confirmed that, from April this year, orchestra tax relief on production costs was to be set at a generous rate of 45%. We also support orchestras through the Arts Council England investment programme; 23 orchestral music organisations are funded through its national portfolio investment programme for 2023 to 2026. We are keen to support the arts.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister cited the common understanding that emerged from the May summit earlier this year. Can she say—if not now then in writing—exactly what efforts have taken place since that meeting to support travel and cultural exchange?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness with that detail.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that the Government are still consulting, so I hope that my supplementary question can be part of that process. I am one of many Members in this House who are concerned about the future of youth orchestras. Can my noble friend say whether the current proposals imply that, in the future, youth orchestras would be subject to the charges involved? That would be an extremely serious additional burden to place on them when they are already facing difficulties in touring.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are in consultation. A lot of assumptions are being made by many of the questioners. To reiterate, the consultation is an opportunity for the music sector to make its voice heard and to provide us with evidence about the kind of impacts being mentioned in this Question Time.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

Perhaps I may add to the question that I raised earlier. The musical instrument certificate is a very small part of CITES, and for the burden it will put on musicians, it will not raise very much money. Could that be an additional part of the consideration?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that if, the noble Baroness would like that to be part of the consultation, it could be taken into account. However, others may well have mentioned it already.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree that hedgehogs, rather like frigates, are an endangered species, and that there is a need to look at some positive action by the Government to help protect our hedgehogs in this country?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am always impressed by the way in which my noble friend manages to get some sort of shipping into every question, no matter what the topic. Hedgehogs are endangered—we know that there is a problem there—but whether they are related to musical instruments is another question.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, I will return to the subject of touring orchestras and musical instruments. As the Minister said, the important point about the reset negotiations in May is that this might have been discussed. Looking to the future negotiations, particularly on the reset, the Minister mentioned the involvement of her department and DCMS, but can she assure me that the Cabinet Office will also be involved? That would enable the Cabinet Office, through Nick Thomas-Symonds, to look at this issue in the round, because a number of other issues come into account.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can assure my noble friend that there is not much that the Cabinet Office does not get involved in.

Waste Crime

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beamish]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle waste crime.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling waste crime. We are preparing significant reforms to the waste carriers, brokers and dealers regime and the waste permit exemptions regime. We are also introducing digital waste tracking to make it harder than ever to misidentify waste or dispose of it inappropriately. We have increased the Environment Agency’s funding, including the amount available to tackle waste crime, to continue to increase the pressure on illegal waste operators.

[Lord Beamish (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I asked her a Question about what evaluation has been made of the joint waste crime unit. Her reply was that there has been none. I also asked the justice department about the incidence of prosecutions for landfill tax fraud over four years, only to be referred to a website with statistics that does not categorise landfill tax fraud as a crime. The 2022 NAO report into waste crime said that waste crime costs the economy £900 million a year, £200 million of that in landfill tax fraud. It also said that 41 of the 60 organised crime groups in the UK are involved in waste crime. When are we going to get really serious about this? I have been campaigning on this for many years, not only because of the cost of fraud to the economy but because of the cost to the environment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to say that this is a really serious problem, and the Government need to get to grips with it. That is why we are taking specific actions to try to start making a real difference in the amount and impact of waste crime in order to genuinely start to reduce what is a terrible blight on our country. We want to crack down. As I said, we have increased the EA’s budget for waste crime enforcement by over 50% this year. The Joint Unit for Waste Crime has nearly doubled in size due to the extra funding we have given. The Environment Agency has been able to increase its front-line criminal enforcement resource. We are also looking for further recruitment to enable enforcement work in the new duties that they will be given. The Environment Agency’s economic crime unit was launched last year and is specifically targeting the financial motivations behind waste crime, which are often huge, so that we can bring in asset freezing and freeze the proceeds of crime actions. We are looking to do a number of things to genuinely get to the bottom of this and tackle the outcomes.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will no doubt be familiar with the case of Hoads Wood in Kent that was exposed by the BBC a while back. Hoads Wood is a site of special scientific interest in which trees were cut down and 30,000 tonnes of illegally dumped waste were deposited. It took four years for the Environment Agency to impose a restriction order to prevent this continuing, and now we are faced with a £15 million bill for clean-up. The Environment Agency has said that there are six other sites like Hoads Wood where illegal waste dumping is happening on a large scale. Can the Minister please tell this House, either now or in writing, where these sites are and what is being done to clean them up and prevent continued illegal waste dumping?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I will have to write to the noble Lord and the House about exactly where the sites are because I do not have that information in front of me. When we came into government, we acted to put pressure on to get that area, Hoads Wood, dealt with, because it had been dragging on for far too long, as the noble Lord is aware. That is also why we have brought in the changes that we are making, increasing the Environment Agency’s budget and looking to do more about enforcement, because we do not want these situations dragging on. The blight on the countryside is just too grim.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that, despite the excellent work of the Environment Agency, a report in July showed that only 27% of waste crimes, and 12% of crimes on private land, are reported? What can the Government and the Environment Agency do to ensure that these waste crimes, often connected to organised crime, are reported and acted on at the earliest opportunity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really good point. One of the issues around non-reporting is that people think it is pointless. That has been the case in the past. There has just not been enough action taken, not just in tackling waste crime but in supporting people who are victims of it. That is why we are investing in the new schemes, why we are looking at data tracking to better understand it and why we are hoping that the investment in the Environment Agency is going to improve enforcement. If people can believe that it is worth reporting, they are more likely to. That is one of the reasons why we need to get people to trust that if they report a crime, something is going to happen about it.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we cannot continue, in effect, to subsidise organised crime in England on waste, costing our taxpayers £1 billion a year? Will the Government ensure that the Environment Agency can use environmental permitting income and start to tackle this criminality, given that so far we have not had a single conviction?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, the lack of convictions has been a problem, which returns me to my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is the fundamental reason why we have increased the Environment Agency’s budget for front-line criminal enforcement: so that we can actually start to do this. The purpose for having that specific funding is to exactly address the issue the noble Baroness raises.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 9 of the Crime and Policing Bill grants Ministers the discretionary power to issue guidance to local authorities on fly-tipping enforcement. As we all know, fly-tipping is a serious problem, blighting communities, impacting everyone’s quality of life and polluting our natural environment. Can the Minister give the House a timeline for the issuing of new guidance and explain why Clause 9 will not come into effect on Royal Assent? I refer the House to my registered interest as a landowner.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise the issue of fly-tipping. A lot of people think it is just a mattress dumped in a hedge, but it can be incredibly serious and expensive and challenging for landowners to clear up. In specific answer to his question, following Royal Assent the intention is to consult. We will consult, as required by Clause 9, prior to publishing any statutory guidance. We want to make sure that any guidance that we produce and publish is as useful as it can be, and we want to hear the views of local authorities and others to ensure that it is going to be effective. Once we have had the responses and the opportunity to analyse them, we will then publish it as soon as practical—as soon as we can. The clause will be commenced ahead of the guidance being finalised.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, to continue the theme of fly-tipping, do His Majesty’s Government recognise the unfortunate link between environmental regulation, fly-tipping and the regrettable decrease in permissive access to rural areas? As regulation of waste increases, so does the cost of disposing of it and therefore fly-tipping increases, which requires landowners to fence and barbed-wire access points to nature that might otherwise be enjoyed by local communities. I note my interest in the register as a victim of fly-tipping.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl is absolutely right that this can be a really dreadful problem for landowners, and it can be very expensive and difficult to clear up. He may be interested to know that we are working with a range of interested parties to specifically look at these issues through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group. That includes organisations such as the National Farmers’ Union, the CPRE, the Countryside Alliance and the CLA, because we need to work with landowners on how they can prevent fly-tipping on private land. I know it is not always possible, but the better guidance people have and the more they can work with organisations, the better. We are also developing practical tools on how councils and others can then bring robust cases to court, because that is important as well. We have a large fly-tipping issue, and it is important that the perpetrators are punished.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, one way to reduce waste crime is to reduce waste. Have the Government set a date for a ban on single-use plastics?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Government are working hard on reducing waste, particularly through the circular economy strategy that we are developing at the moment. We are committed to reducing the amount of plastic waste, and the noble Baroness will see progress and development on that as time goes on.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

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

“The Secretary of State may make the EDP”—


that is, approve it—

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

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

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

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

My amendment proposes deleting

“the Secretary of State considers that”,

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment 245A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

Deforestation

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

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

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

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

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Trees (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

Considered in Grand Committee on 10 September.

Motion agreed.