Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important Bill in the other place and for taking it through so eloquently. I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for assuming responsibility for the Bill in this House, and I recognise her long commitment on this issue. I am delighted to speak and to confirm government support for the Bill, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and support. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Tenby, for his eloquent maiden speech. I look forward to his further contributions and welcome him warmly to our House.

As we have heard, dog ownership and the number of livestock kept in the UK have drastically increased since the passing of the 1953 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, mentioned the survey that had been carried out by the National Sheep Association on the number of dog attacks now experienced by farmers—with 87% of them having experienced attacks in the last 12 months and 96% saying they experience between one and 10 cases of sheep worrying every year. The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, spoke about a particularly harrowing attack, which demonstrates why the Bill is so needed.

To speak personally, a few years ago, our neighbour had some sheep on our top field. Unfortunately, there was a dog attack there. Luckily, no sheep died, but it is still horrendous when it happens. Unless you have seen it, it is difficult to truly imagine the damage and stress. The scale of these attacks is really concerning now, which is why the Government are so strongly supporting the Bill. We need urgent measures to protect our farmers and their animals.

We have heard about the devastating consequences—injury or death of animals, aborted lambs and flocks of birds being smothered—all of which are appalling to the farmers who own the livestock. The National Sheep Association’s survey showed clearly the concerns that farmers have raised. It also agreed that there is a need for additional police powers. We must go further to protect our agricultural sector from this, which is why we so strongly support the Bill.

Livestock worrying does not have just an emotional impact; it also places a large financial strain on farmers. A 2025 survey carried out by the National Farmers’ Union found that the total cost of livestock worrying across the UK reached £1.8 million. In England, the Midlands was the worst hit region in terms of cost, with dog attacks on livestock costing an estimated £452,000. This clearly shows how detrimental it can be for farmers’ livelihoods.

The Bill will address farmers’ concerns by strengthening police powers. These include extending powers of seizure, modifying entry powers and introducing a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs. Under current legislation, the police can seize a dog found and suspected to have attacked or worried livestock only for the purposes of identifying the owner. Under the Bill, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe there is a risk that a dog could attack or worry livestock again, they will have the power to seize and detain it. The dog can then be detained until an investigation has been carried out or, if proceedings are brought forward for an offence, until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn. Additionally, the police can currently enter a premises only for the purpose of identifying the dog. The police powers will be extended to allow the police to enter and search premises with a warrant to seize a dog and take samples if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed.

The Bill will also introduce a power to enable the police to take samples and dental impressions from a dog or livestock where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the dog has attacked or worried the livestock and that the sample or impression might provide evidence of the offence. These powers give the police the tools they need to bring offenders to justice and will help ease the worry that many farmers feel when it comes to dog attacks on their livestock.

To better deter livestock worrying offences, the Bill will also increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine. This measure reflects the severe consequences that these incidents have for livestock and their keepers and the significant resources required by the police to investigate.

My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked about guidance on these penalties. The courts will determine the appropriate fine amount, and that will take account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender. The level of the fine will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive. There were further questions around enforcement that I will come to in a moment.

Furthermore, the Bill will modernise the definitions and scope of the livestock worrying offence by extending the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, and it will expand the species scope to include camelids, which are commonly farmed. The Bill also amends the wording of the offence of livestock worrying so that attacking livestock is dealt with separately from worrying livestock. Reframing the legislation so that the term “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock.

I come to the questions around enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about that, and I absolutely understand concerns around enforcement. As I said, there is no point in legislation if you do not enforce it. As the noble Lord so clearly demonstrated, it has not been working effectively enough—another reason for bringing in the Bill. It improves enforcement mechanisms to allow the police to deal with and investigate incidents of livestock worrying and attacks much more effectively. It should help the police take each report more seriously. We have engaged with the police on the measures in the Bill, and we know that the police are very keen for it to go through and get on to the statute.

Most livestock worrying incidents are resolved out of court through the community resolution process, and this usually includes compensation paid by the offender to the livestock owner. There is also a separate regime for farmers to obtain compensation. Section 3 of the Animals Act 1971 provides that anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage by killing or injuring livestock may be liable for that damage. Farmers can also obtain and claim on their insurance in relation to losses incurred because of livestock worrying incidents. When cases are taken through the courts, as I said, the courts will determine the appropriate fine, taking into account the seriousness of the offence.

On the number of people prosecuted, the average number of livestock worrying prosecutions every year is 23. This is based on figures provided by the Ministry of Justice on the number of prosecutions from 2022 to 2024. The average number of people convicted and subsequently sentenced per annum is 20. That is based on the same figures from the MoJ. Because of the measures in the Bill, we would expect the number of prosecutions each year to increase.

The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also asked about enforcement. Just looking at the police recovering costs from seizing and detaining dogs, one issue is whether it will be expensive to enforce, and how that will affect the ability of the police. The Bill will make it easier for the police to reclaim any costs. Any dogs found without an owner or person in charge can be seized by the police and can be detained until the owner has claimed it back and paid all expenses incurred as a result of the seizure and detention. The police also have the power to dispose of or destroy a dog where the owner fails to pay these expenses within seven days of seizure. If the dog is seized and detained due to posing a continuing threat to livestock, the costs incurred can be recoverable if the owner is subsequently convicted. The Bill will enable the courts to make an order requiring the owner to pay whatever sum the court determines reasonable for the costs associated with the seizure and detention of the dog. The magistrates’ courts will also have powers to enforce these orders. The Government take this very seriously; we do not want extra costs on the police.

There was also a question about microchipping—it might have been from the noble Lord, Lord Trees. At the moment, 23 databases, operating independently of Defra, provide microchip data. If you include the dog’s microchip number in any evidence, that constitutes the processing of personal data and would give rise to a number of data protection issues, particularly given that the Bill’s provisions require the register to be made publicly available.

The Bill requires the police to keep a register of all dogs seized in the area, which must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure, and whether the dog was disposed of and how. That register must be available at all reasonable times for inspection by the public, free of charge.

It has also been mentioned that this is an issue of responsible dog ownership, and I confirm to noble Lords that we have brought back the responsible dog ownership task force. We have asked it to do work in a number of areas, because it is important that people understand their responsibilities when they are owners of pets. For example, it is very frustrating when people say, “Look, Fido only wants to play”. There is a complete misunderstanding of the importance of keeping your dog under control in areas where there are livestock. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, also mentioned the importance of socialisation, which, again, is incredibly important. Many dogs were left without this following Covid, so, again, it is an important part of educating owners on how best to look after their dogs.

Just to finish, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked a couple of questions. On petting zoos, it will be for the courts to decide whether a petting farm is agricultural land, based on the facts of each case as it goes to them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Would it make sense, when the regulations come forward, to embrace all commercially produced animals in the definition, for the avoidance of doubt?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am happy to take these issues away. At the moment, it covers grazing land. The definition of grazing land is something, again, that the courts can look at. Perhaps we can consider those definitions further. On the noble Baroness’s final point, that the legislation will lapse in 2034, I would just like to confirm that it is not going to lapse in 2034.

I am confident that it has been recognised here today that the Bill is really necessary to protect our farmers and our livestock. I thank all noble Lords for their time and valuable contributions. The robust measures that this introduces are long overdue. Again, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on continuing to pursue this issue. We must pass the Bill without delay to support our dedicated farmers who have long been calling for these measures.

Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the honourable Member for Winchester, Dr Danny Chambers, as others have, for introducing this important Bill in the other place, and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for sponsoring it in this House. I know as well as everyone here that the noble Lord is a great advocate for animal welfare, and he has followed discussions on the Bill very closely.

The UK is a world leader in animal welfare and has a long history of promoting high animal welfare standards. Many across the House will agree that pets are important members of the family. The noble Lord, Lord Black, mentioned my lovely cat, Sid. I also have a now rather elderly chocolate Labrador called Max. They are very important members of our household.

The Government take the issue of puppy smuggling and low-welfare imports of pets seriously. That is why we committed in our manifesto to bringing an end to this cruel trade, which causes unnecessary suffering to animals, in the pursuit of profit. This is a popular and important policy right across the board. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the organisations that support and have been pressing for this legislation over a number of years.

As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, outlined, the importance of this legislation is that it looks to stop, for example, the exploitation of loopholes in our pet travel rules by unscrupulous traders. Crucially, the Bill reduces the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that are permitted to be brought into Great Britain in a single non-commercial movement under the pet travel rules. That limit, as we have heard, will change from five pets per person to five per vehicle, and three per foot or air passenger. This means that non-compliant traders will not be able to evade the more stringent measures that apply to commercial imports by claiming that that the vehicles full of puppies are carrying their pets.

To clarify, and to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, where the purpose of a movement of a pet relates to the sale or transfer of ownership of the animal, the commercial importation rules should be used. But I am aware that some people, and many in the House today, have called for the measures to go a step further to reduce the limit to three per vehicle. We looked at this very carefully and had long discussions with Danny Chambers MP about it. One of the reasons for that decision was to not create unintended consequences for assistance dog users. There were concerns that that could negatively impact on their travel. But I can confirm for the noble Baroness that the Bill does give us the power to reduce the limit further, should there be evidence that the pet travel rules continue to be abused, and we will be keeping a very close eye on that.

The Bill will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet into Great Britain is explicitly linked to the movement of its owner. The amendments made by the Bill require that, in order to move under the pet travel rules, the pet and the owner will have to travel within five days of each other.

I was asked by the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Black, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, about the disease brucella canis. I can clarify that we take biosecurity very seriously. Disease risk is monitored carefully and kept under constant review. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce, where necessary, preventive health measures to control diseases that are likely to be spread due to the movement of pet animals into Great Britain.

I now turn to some of the exemptions that were discussed. Crucially, the measures will make it more difficult and less profitable for traders to abuse the non-commercial pet travel rules. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned in his introduction, to ensure that the new measures do not disproportionately affect protected groups such as assistance dog users, as I mentioned earlier, the Bill will give the appropriate authority discretion to effectively exempt owners from these measures if needed. I want to reassure the House that these measures—this discretion—will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances, and the process for exercising the discretion will be tightly controlled to prevent misuse.

We do not want this to become a back door for illicit activity or to undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve. By incorporating this discretion, the Bill offers the flexibility needed to support responsible pet owners who could be affected by unforeseen events— something they did not know about in advance, such as a medical emergency or natural disaster that would affect travel plans—and provides reassurance to individuals relying on assistance dogs. As I said, we have the option to review the Bill going forward to make sure that no one is negatively impacted, particularly if we see that it is being abused. But every case will have to be judged on its individual merits. We will work in partnership with the Animal and Plant Health Agency to develop a clear and robust framework for the handling of exemption requests, ensuring that the discretion is exercised only when truly justified.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Sanderson, asked about exemptions to the prohibitions and restrictions that will be introduced within the Bill’s enabling powers. The main enabling powers allow exemptions to come through secondary legislation. We are going to continue to engage with stakeholders as the regulations are developed to make sure that we know that the introduction of exemptions is appropriate.

I am aware of the emails about the rescue and rehoming concerns about mutilated animals still being able to be brought in from abroad. We need to ensure that any pets that come into Great Britain for rescue or rehoming are moved in compliance with the stringent commercial import regime. We have to protect the biosecurity of our country and animal welfare during transport, and we know that bringing a dog from overseas has increased animal health and welfare risks. We recommend that any prospective owners ensure testing for diseases, including Brucella canis, and that that is carried out before movement takes place. We have the powers in separate legislation to introduce extra measures, as I said. The main thing is that any changes that we might make in future to the Bill do not open up loopholes. We do not want loopholes that undermine what the Bill is trying to achieve.

On the regulation-making powers in the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, rightly highlighted that the Government will first use these powers to raise the minimum age at which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain to six months. We will also restrict the movement of heavily pregnant or mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain.

I confirm to my noble friend Lord Grantchester that ear-cropping legislation applies to both commercial and non-commercial movements. In the other place, there was clear and vocal support at Third Reading to close the loophole that allows individuals to claim that mutilated dogs have been imported when in fact the animals have been illegally subjected to cruel procedures here. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly raised the fact that he can buy dog ear-cropping kits in this country on online, which is really shocking. To reassure him, it is an offence in England and Wales under the Animal Welfare Act to carry out a non-exempted mutilation, including the use of DIY cropping kits. Anyone convicted of illegally cropping a dog’s ear may be imprisoned for a term of up to five years, receive an unlimited fine or both. Those convicted of an offence may also be disqualified from owning or keeping animals. At the moment, the Government are focusing our efforts on delivering the crucial measures in this Bill, but doing so will also help us to do more to prohibit the import of dogs with cropped ears and make it easier for us to police the existing offence in England and Wales, as future offenders will be unable to claim that the mutilation was undertaken abroad.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, asked about limiting the movement of pregnant dogs after 42 days’ gestation. The reason for this is that physical signs of pregnancy can be seen from 42 days’ gestation. These signs can be used during identity and visual checks at the border accurately to identify pregnant dogs and cats in the limit. That is why we cannot enforce a total ban on importing pregnant dogs. I spoke to enforcement officers about this, and they felt that this is the right approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about people who deliberately breed dogs with genetic defects, which is just appalling. We are considering a range of evidence, including the Animal Welfare Committee’s opinion on canine breeding and the findings from our post-implementation review of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations. Under the LAIA regulations, anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs or who breeds three or more litters in a 12-month period must have a valid licence from their local authority. Licensed dog breeders are prohibited from breeding dogs if it can reasonably be expected on the basis of their genotype, phenotype or health that this would lead to welfare problems for the mother or the puppies. Elsewhere, we support the work of the UK Brachycephalic Working Group, which works towards a world where no dog experiences health-related welfare problems as a result of being selectively bred. We also support the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, whose work helps online sales platforms to identify and remove illegal and unethical adverts, and we will continue to do further work on this.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, regarding the exemptions to these prohibitions. Delivering these measures via secondary legislation allows us to gather further evidence and discuss the prohibitions with stakeholders, the public and enforcement bodies. It is important that any new restrictions are developed and implemented effectively without any unintended consequences. Any exemptions have to be appropriate. The department has already started discussions with the Kennel Club and Assistance Dogs International because, if there are going to be exemptions, we need to have proper information and evidence that they are the right way to go forward. As I said before, if anything is brought in as an exemption, we have to be confident that it is not going to create an unacceptable loophole.

The eagle-eyed will note that ferrets are not covered by the initial measures. This is because very low volumes of ferrets are brought into Great Britain. Unlike dogs and cats, there is no evidence of a significant illegal trade in or low-welfare movement of ferrets at this time. However, if that changes, we will be able to continue to protect ferrets’ welfare in the future.

A number of noble Lords asked about enforcement. Any new legislation is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Therefore, we are working closely with enforcement bodies to ensure that they have the guidance and tools to enforce these measures effectively. The Bill also introduces new powers to make regulations to provide authorities with additional enforcement powers when they are presented with a non-compliant pet.

I shall answer a few specific questions. Local authorities and the Animal and Plant Health Agency are going to be responsible for enforcing any new pet travel and commercial import requirements, and the Bill will make regulations to give them a clear process to do so. We anticipate limited additional impact on enforcement authorities, but we will continue to work with them to assess funding and resource impacts. In fact, much of what is in this Bill will make their job more straightforward with better outcomes.

We are looking at how to develop guidance so that enforcement bodies have the correct tools they need to deliver these measures. There are powers in the Bill to introduce measures to support and strengthen the current enforcement mechanisms. For example, this could be in relation to the detention and seizure of non-compliant dogs and cats and the costs associated with that seizure and detention, the rehoming of abandoned animals and any financial penalties. In response to my noble friend Lord Grantchester, I should say that the Bill creates the power to make regulations about detention and seizure because they are necessary to ensure that we get effective enforcement. As I said, what is the point if we if we do not have effective enforcement? Delivering those measures through secondary legislation means that we can develop those proposals with the enforcement bodies to make sure they are effective, efficient and proportionate.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, asked about Northern Ireland. EU regulations relevant to pet travel apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Windsor Framework, as the noble Lord said. Therefore, the changes that the Bill makes to the maximum number of permitted single non-commercial consignments do not apply to Northern Ireland. The enabling powers in the Bill allow DAERA to introduce regulations restricting the bringing into Northern Ireland of dogs, cats and ferrets on welfare grounds, as appropriate. Officials and enforcement agencies across all four nations will continue to work together closely to share intelligence, disrupt illegal imports and safeguard the welfare of animals. That should make a difference, particularly as DAERA is currently consulting on some proposals. If those proposals are implemented, it would mean that anyone who sells puppies would need to be registered with their local council and registered individuals would not be able to sell, give away or otherwise transfer the ownership of the puppies that are unweaned, weaned at an age when they should not have been weaned or aged under eight weeks old. This, paired with the fact that third-party sales and sales below eight weeks of age are already banned across the rest of GB means that the issue can be tackled by separate legislation.

Having talked about Northern Ireland, I will say a few words on territorial consent. We have had legislative consent from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We are continuing to engage with the Welsh Government as their legislative consent process continues to progress. They do support the Bill; it is just a matter of it going through their parliament.

Changes to the non-commercial pet travel scheme, including the revised cap on the maximum number that may enter GB in a single non-commercial movement, and the requirement that the journey should take place within five days of the owners’ travels will apply in England, Wales and Scotland—I confirm that. The regulatory powers will extend across all four nations of the United Kingdom, although the duty to enact the three prohibitions the first time the power is used does not apply to Northern Ireland. The Bill does not apply to domestic travel; this is really important. The Bill does not apply to the domestic travel of dogs, cats and ferrets, including movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Those journeys will not be affected by this legislation.

As I said at the beginning, we made a manifesto commitment to put an end to the cruel puppy-smuggling trade. I am delighted that the Government are supporting this Bill so that we can get to work on this. I have backed previously failed versions of this legislation, so I am delighted to be here representing the Government supporting a Bill that we expect to get onto the statute book. Regarding timings, we are serious about this as it was a manifesto commitment, so we will bring in the measures needed as soon as is practically possible. Having said that, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for taking this important Bill through the House today and I look forward to us all working together as the Bill progresses.

Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 19 June 2025. Before I proceed, I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 4 July in relation to the draft instrument. It corrected a typographical error on page three of the draft regulations that are the subject of this debate. The change was from Her Majesty’s Treasury to His Majesty’s Treasury. Clearly, this does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation.

In February 2025 we consulted on expanding the warm home discount scheme, which provides low-income and vulnerable households with a £150 rebate off their energy bills. Today, we are considering the regulations that will allow us to implement those changes and bring this much-needed relief to around 2.7 million additional households. Since we took office, this Government have been committed to alleviating fuel poverty. Our review of the 2021 fuel poverty strategy made clear that progress has stalled and that we need a new plan to speed up progress on tackling fuel poverty. There are two principal ways of doing this. The first is by improving household energy performance and the second by expanding direct bill support to make energy more affordable.

Starting with the first, at the spending review in June, the Chancellor confirmed £13.2 billion for our warm home plan that will transform the housing stock and improve energy efficiency across the country, ensuring that less money is wasted on leaking, ageing homes that are expensive to heat. However, while we press on with that vital work, we recognise that many households remain at risk of fuel poverty and cannot wait until later in this Parliament to feel the benefits. That is why we are also expanding the warm home discount, providing vital support to those who need it most. This support will be available immediately, coming into effect this winter and, importantly, consumers do not need to take any action to receive it.

Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped around 3 million low-income and vulnerable households every year by reducing their energy bills when it is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £150 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills, and more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households also receive rebates.

The statutory instrument before us seeks to amend the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 to allow changes to the eligibility criteria for this coming winter so that more households can receive rebates. It will also extend the time period in which rebate notices can be issued to suppliers, so that as many as possible can be issued before the current regulations expire on 31 March 2026. The SI also amends the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 to increase suppliers’ non-core spending obligation by an amount considered to be commensurate to the expected increase in England and Wales.

This SI is a result of our consultation in February, in which we proposed to remove the high cost to heat threshold that we believed was unfairly excluding some vulnerable households from the scheme. This threshold often meant that families in almost identical circumstances were treated differently, with some receiving the rebate while others missed out. The current system also excludes many households in smaller properties because their home is not classified as high cost to heat, meaning that our support has not been reaching some of those who need it the most.

Removing the high cost to heat threshold will make all energy bill payers who receive a qualifying means-tested benefit eligible for the warm home discount. By bringing around 2.7 million additional households into the scheme, it pushes the total number of households that will receive the discount in winter 2025-26 up to around 6 million, which is one in five households in the UK.

We have a statutory duty to tackle fuel poverty. It is our duty as a Government to break down the barriers that prevent some of the most vulnerable families in the country receiving the support they need. The proposed regulations will help us to achieve this. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate on an important issue for their contributions and for the broad support that the Committee has expressed for this statutory instrument. I shall cover the questions as best I can. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the fact that the scheme relates to electricity bills. She referenced the issues around rural heating—she mentioned Cumbria, where I live. It is a real issue for rural areas. We need to move away from fossil fuels. There are some challenges in rural areas on how we do that. I know that the department is working hard on this to understand those challenges because the transition needs to be countrywide, not just in one area and not another.

The noble Baroness also asked about universal credit. It is probably best if I ask my colleagues in the DWP to respond to that because I do not have the information and officials in DESNZ would not, so we will pass that on to the DWP if that is okay with her. She also asked about lower benefits to households. I stress that the impact assessment is based on our best estimates, but its purpose is to help those who are on low-income and means-tested benefits because that is the best way for us to get directly to the people who need the most support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. There were a few questions, which I believe her officials will have noted. I appreciate that UC and DWP are different, but the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that DESNZ assumes that 28% of people will not get this discount despite the other matter. I am sure that the Government will get the other Minister—the one from DESNZ—to reply, but I am grateful to this Minister for her responses so far.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that we can comb through Hansard and make sure that proper, detailed information is provided to the noble Baroness on the issues that she raised.

This scheme has been running for 14 years now. Over that time, more than £4 billion-worth of direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households. These regulations will build on that legacy by allowing support to reach more people this winter, including vulnerable households that were previously shut out of the scheme.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

I have a point of clarification. The Minister responded to me most kindly about how the Government are going to invest in SMRs. I know that, if the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford—a former Secretary of State for Energy—were here, he would stand up and say, “I’m speaking to all the SMR providers. They’re saying to me that they are ready to go. They’re doing it with other countries, but they need more progress from the UK”. Can the Minister come back to us at some point with a bit more detail on when are we going to see some progress with the SMRs? What is holding us back? Can we action this urgently?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Earl and his colleagues are aware that we have made a very strong commitment to nuclear energy and are pushing forward on that in a way that previous Governments have not done. It is really important that we are investing in nuclear energy with that commitment. The department is working up exactly what that will look like; I am sure that, when the time is right, the noble Earl and his colleagues will hear more about SMRs.

Motion agreed.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to introduce activity regulations under the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023.

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

My Lords, the Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Act 2023 provides a framework for the introduction of future bans on the advertising and offering for sale, in England and Northern Ireland, of low-welfare animal activities abroad. We are currently engaging with both industry and stakeholders to explore the most effective way to protect animals in specific low-welfare activities abroad from considerable suffering and unacceptable practices. We are therefore looking at both legislative and non-legislative options.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She said that this is an important piece of legislation, which was piloted through this Chamber by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood. It is now two years since this important legislation was passed with strong cross-party support from the then Opposition, and indeed from the Minister herself, and we still have not seen these regulations. Can the Minister now give us a clear and transparent timetable for the introduction of the regulations?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct. As he is aware, I strongly supported the then Bill when it went through Parliament, because I do not want to see the abuse of animals in any circumstances. However, having looked at the Act and how to take it forward, there are certain challenges to ensure that it is effective when it is brought in. There is no point having legislation that is not going to do what we want it to do. First, it has to be clear for advertisers and enforcement bodies which activities are in scope, so we are looking at which activities to prioritise and bring into scope. We need to determine whether an advertised activity meets the criteria for being low welfare, because we need to ensure that high-welfare activities are not inadvertently impacted. We also need to ensure that the party placing the advert can be identified. This is complex, because it is about banning advertising only in this country, whereas many advertised holidays are not from organisations based here and the activities are abroad. It is complex, but I am determined that we get this right.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of media reports suggesting that this appalling practice is on the increase? In the light of that, what urgent support and guidance can she provide for the UK tourism industry that could be used right now to reduce this immediately, particularly given the current delay that she described in the introduction and implementation of the Act?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One reason I talked about non-legislative options is that we want to stop people buying such holidays in the first place. One problem is that, when people book a holiday with an elephant ride, they simply do not understand what has happened to that elephant and how it has been treated so that it can be ridden—so there is an education piece. It is currently the case that ABTA, which represents around 90% of British travel agents, offers guidance, working with its own members, as to what kind of activities are considered to be unacceptable. That guidance is there and we have been working with ABTA to look at how we can encourage further uptake—90% is a high number, but it is not everybody.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am so sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I cannot give her a date. All I can say is that it is something I am actively looking at and working on. We are shortly going to be publishing the animal welfare strategy, which I have been preparing over the last 12 months; that will be out before the end of the year. We are including this within the animal welfare strategy as something that we want to deliver.

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

My Lords, following my almost namesake, since we humans are also animals, is there any way the Government can stop Members of Parliament carrying out low-level activities abroad rather than attending Westminster or their constituency—mentioning no names?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would imagine that is probably an education piece.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of taking this legislation through this House, with the support of the Minister. I am profoundly disappointed that, two years after it reached the statute book, it has not been implemented, letting down the 150 charities which campaigned for it and the animals it would protect. Does the Minister recall the terrible fate of 20 year-old Andrea Taylor, who was violently killed on a visit to the Nongnooch resort in Thailand when an elephant which had been brutalised charged her? She is one of the many tourists killed or injured because this legislation is not yet effectively in place. Is it not unacceptable that until this law is implemented by regulation, tragically, there will be more Andrea Taylors?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I congratulate the noble Lord on sponsoring the Bill; I was very happy to support him. I point out that it may be two years since the legislation, but I have not been the Minister for two years. That is not to say that it has not been some time. I have met campaigners and stakeholders, and I am determined to take this through. It is, unfortunately, proving to be more complex than I would have liked, and I am absolutely aware of the tragic case he talks about. That is why we need to work not just on the legislation but more broadly than that. People can still buy these holidays online, advertised from other countries. We need to look not just at the legislation we can bring forward through this particular Act but much more broadly.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, there is a pattern emerging from the Minister’s department, in that we continue to have a similar situation around the regulations on deforestation and forest risk products. What can she do to ensure her department turns the will of Parliament into legislation rather more quickly than seems to be happening at the moment?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am aware of what the noble Lord is talking about regarding deforestation. I have been working with Minister Creagh from the other place on this and we are looking at the best way to take it forward.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the civil servants working on this and other issues have timeframes for these decisions? It seems to me that they should know how long it will take to conduct some sort of investigation and come forward with policies, so that the House will have some idea of when things are going to change.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Civil Service animal welfare team in Defra is extremely committed and works incredibly hard. This is a very broad area, with many areas of animal welfare that we are working on at the same time. This is something that we want to deliver on. I know the team is working very hard with both industry and stakeholders to look at the best way to bring legislation forward.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the commitment previously given to provide an opt-out for certified zoos will be part of these regulations when they are published?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assume that the activities the noble Lord is referring to regarding zoos are high-welfare activities. As I said, we are looking at how best to bring legislation forward. For any activity to be exempt, there would need to be compelling, sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the activity was high welfare and therefore not to be constrained by any legislation coming forward. Part of the work in developing future legislation is considering how best to do that.

Independent Water Commission

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for making time for the repeat of this Statement. I also thank my noble friend Lady Grender for having another critical engagement at this time, thus allowing me to speak on the subject which had become routine for me over the preceding years. The noble Baroness the Minister and I have made many contributions on this subject in the years running up to the general election, both of us vehement about the lack of control Ofwat was exercising.

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s report is lengthy, robust and to be welcomed. We look forward to knowing exactly how many of his recommendations the Government will take forward.

Since 2022, Liberal Democrats have called for the abolition of Ofwat. It is an organisation that is completely out of its depth. It had no real way of dealing with water companies, which seemed to have forgotten that their real remit was to provide a plentiful supply of clean water and dispose of sewage in an efficient and environmentally friendly way. Although some water companies were fined by Ofwat, their sanctions bore no relationship to the number of bonuses and dividends that the executives and shareholders received for doing an abysmal job.

Like others, I welcomed the Government’s ban on bonuses for water company executives who oversaw sewage discharges. However, at least one chief executive and his colleagues got round this by receiving a 100% increase in their pay by way of compensation for the absence of a bonus. It is ordinary water users and taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this, just as they have to contribute to the bill for the increases which will be needed to repair the creaking and dilapidated sewerage system and to build new reservoirs.

The Government have stated that they will cut water companies’ sewage pollution by half by the end of the decade. This is to be welcomed, but how exactly will this be achieved? Bringing the oversight of the water industry under a single regulator which has the means to ensure high standards is essential, but I have some concerns. Previously, we have seen a rotation of officers from the water companies into Ofwat and from Ofwat into the water companies—a merry-go-round of incompetence. Is the Minister able to give the House reassurance that no existing or previous officer of Ofwat or any of the failing water companies will have a role in the new regulator once established? It is essential that the incompetent are not rewarded with having a role in the new regulator. A fresh start has to be just that, and not tainted with previous failure.

We look forward to the interim strategy policy statement giving directions to Ofwat and the Environment Agency on how to move forwards towards the transition plan. The Environment Agency is not without involvement in the sewage discharge debacle. While the EA has been underfunded over recent years, and with ever more responsibilities thrust upon it, a radical rethink of the way it operates has to be part of the solution going forward.

Since Liberal Democrats have been raising the issue of sewage spills in this Chamber and the other place, the EA has found that last year alone, there was a 60% increase in serious pollution incidents. We are at the start of the school summer holidays. Children and their families will be going to beaches and rivers to enjoy relaxation and at least a paddle, as well as swimming to cool down in the heat—which we hope will return.

So many of these children will be in water that is polluted with raw sewage spills, discoloured and stinking. Certainly, I would not want my grandchildren to swim in such waters. Families should be able to take their children for a day out at the beach without having to worry about whether the water is contaminated. The sooner the Government can bring the water companies to book, the better. The lackadaisical approach to sewage discharges has to stop, and quickly.

Last year, water companies breached their permits more than 3,100 times, at the same time as paying out a total of £9.3 million in executive bonuses. No single stretch of river in England or Northern Ireland is in good overall health; no English river is in good chemical health; and just 14% of English rivers are in good ecological health. This is a far cry from my childhood, when the babbling brook ran with clear, transparent water and I could see the minnows swimming along, trying to escape my small fishing net. I am confident that the Minister is as concerned about these issues as the rest of us.

What is needed is: more access for communities and citizens to hold water companies to account, including representation on water company boards; improvements in how pollution is measured and strict targets set, using volume flow meters and penalties for missing targets; an urgent implementation of a social tariff on water bills to help eliminate water poverty; and legally binding targets on the quantity and quality of bathing waters and sensitive nature sites, with independent and transparent testing of water quality. Local authorities, although already overstretched, should have strengthened powers to monitor the health of our rivers, lakes and coastlines in order to restore our natural environment and help tackle climate change.

I look forward to the Minister’s response on this vital issue, which affects every single water user in the country.

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

I thank noble Lords for their broad support for the recommendations that have come out of the Cunliffe report. This is a very important step forward in cleaning up our waterways.

The Statement talks about the five recommendations that we are taking forward immediately, including: the new statutory water ombudsman, ending operator self-monitoring, and the new single water regulator— I think there is consensus that Ofwat has not done its job effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, makes an important point when she says that we should not reward incompetence, and I am sure that will be fed through. There will also be greater local involvement. The noble Baroness talked about communities; we want them to be more involved, and customers to be right at the heart of how we move forward with these changes. That is one of the reasons for bringing forward the regional element: to enable communities and consumers to be more central in water planning and how we manage pollution going forward. There will also be an improved strategic direction, because water strategy has failed abysmally over the last few years.

Of course, this is not the limit of our ambition. We will respond in the autumn in full to the recommendations in the Cunliffe report. We will publish a White Paper, which will be open for consultation, and we intend to follow that up with a water reform Bill. So, many of the questions that the noble Lords asked, and I assume will continue to be asked, will be able to be addressed once we see that White Paper, and that consultation will be available for people to take part in.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked a few questions, which I will address. First, he talked about funding. I stress that it is actually this Government who secured the £104 billion of investment, which is so needed because of the lack of investment in the water industry over many years. That is going to be critical to improving leakage, for example, and providing better service for customers. He asked whether the regulator would be independent of the water industry but also answerable to the Secretary of State and to Parliament. We have said in the White Paper that we are going to have this new, single water regulator. Those are the kinds of questions that will be debated as we move through that process in order to inform our further legislation when it comes forward.

Social tariffs were mentioned by both noble Lords. As I said, we want to put customers at the heart of the new model that we are developing. The recommendations made by the Independent Water Commission talk about national social tariffs and the introduction of compulsory smart meters. These will be considered alongside all the other recommendations as we move forward. As I said, further information will come out this autumn, when we have developed the White Paper.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also talked about the monitoring of overflows and mentioned that in 2010, 7% were monitored, and by 2023, at the end of the previous Government, it was 100%. In answer to that, a lot of this monitoring came in because of public pressure and because of the absolute horror at the amount of pollution that was going into our waterways. People had not been aware of that before. While we are very pleased that the previous Government increased monitoring, there is responsibility to be taken for the amount of pollution that had gone into our waterways and the complete incompetence of the regulators at the time, which is what we are now trying to address.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the target to reduce pollution—50% by 2030—and how that was going to be delivered. We have combined this with the existing commitment in the environmental improvement plan to reduce phosphorus from treated wastewater by 50% by 2028. Together, those two targets form the pledge that we are making on this commitment. Ofwat and water companies previously agreed a commitment for water companies on the PR24 agreement for storm overflow spills to be reduced by 45%, based on a 2021 baseline. To be clear, the data between 2021 and 2024 does not compare, because in 2021, only 88% of storm overflows were monitored. Although it looks less, the amount has increased, as has our knowledge. Our target for storm overflows is based on the 50% reduction in spills from storm overflows by the end of 2029, compared with 2024 levels. We can do that because we now have 100% of storm overflows monitored.

More broadly on communities, we are engaging for the first time on entire river catchment systems. As part of that, we want to bring local people, local authorities —which have an important voice—businesses, and farming communities, of course, into the work that we are doing to improve pollution systems in their local area. As I said, that will be done on a regional basis and then into the catchment model system. That will be more effective, I hope.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister and I have a long and mainly happy history of trying to reform the water industry, including the replacement of Ofwat. I read with interest the 88 recommendations in this very timely and useful report. There is a lot to discuss, much of it welcome, but for now I will focus on two questions.

First, the report underlines the need to recognise the very long-term nature of water infrastructure investment. It says that the strategic policy statements have been too short term and that water company plans, typically of five years, encourage short-term thinking. I have often asked successive Ministers to make it clear that there is no quick fix here. This will be very disruptive to consumers, cost billions of pounds and, crucially, will take at least 25 years to implement. That is five parliamentary terms. The Government need to be honest with the public on this, so I ask the Minister to underline this and to make clear the likely timeline for this refurbishment of the water and sewerage infra- structure.

Secondly, the report summary on page 29 calls for more

“senior engineering and financial expertise”

on its board. I agree with that, but a key problem at Ofwat was that it lacked the financial engineering skills to grasp what private equity investors were up to, which led to so many of the debt problems and other issues in the finances of the water companies that we see today. Will the Minister be pressing for expertise in financial engineering in this area to be included in any new board?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Any new board must have the right expertise if it is to deliver what we want for the industry. The noble Lord makes a very important point that whatever that expertise is, we must ensure that any future regulatory systems are set up to do the job they are supposed to do and that they have the knowledge, ability and skills to do that effectively. Otherwise, we will end up with a regulator that is, again, ineffective, which is not how we want to move forward.

The noble Lord makes a good point—this will take a long time. I hope the general public recognise that this is a long-term rebuilding programme. We are rebuilding a lot of a very old system, and we must get it right. This is also why will be bringing out the White Paper in the autumn, as quickly as we can, following the publication by the committee. From that, we will do the consultation, which must inform the public of what we are looking to achieve and what the timescales will be.

We want to bring in new legislation as swiftly as practically possible following that White Paper. That will also be part of the discussion on how we bring people with us, because people want to see the water industry cleaned up.

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lennie (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the things we discussed in the Climate Change Committee was the performance of the regulator. An issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in her instructive comments, was the revolving door between the water companies and the regulator, in both directions. What action will the Government take to make sure that the door is slammed shut?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have already said, we must get the regulator right, we must get the boards right, and we must move forward with this. There is no point in making the same mistakes that have been made over a number of years, and in not learning from what went wrong before. Getting the regulator and the boards right will be critical to achieving that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate Sir Jon Cunliffe and the Independent Water Commission on their excellent work, and I declare my interest as co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group. What legislative timetable is envisaged? In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that he will bring forward a new water reform Bill early this Parliament. We are more than halfway through this parliamentary Session, so it would be interesting to hear exactly what timetable the Government envisage. Can the Minister also confirm that National Highways will be made responsible for the water run-off and the pollution it contributes to?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the timetabling, clearly, it is not something we can bring in this Session. We do not yet know when the end of the Session will be—we have not been informed about that—but when we have reached the end we will look to see when it will be practically possible to bring in such a Bill. All I can say to the noble Baroness is that this is a government priority.

The run-off from roads and agricultural run-off is being taken very seriously, and our response and how we will manage it as part of our overall approach to water pollution is being worked on.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that Sir Jon Cunliffe was not given the option to look at renationalisation. In the other place, the Secretary of State for Defra has twice replied to Green MPs Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns, saying that his department looked at the cost of renationalisation and it came out at £100 billion. I have two sheets of paper here with lots of ideas about how we could renationalise without that sort of figure being necessary. The most exciting one suggests that, if we stack the liabilities against the assets of these companies, they would be worthless. So, perhaps the Minister could tell the Secretary of State to get new accountants or consult the professor of accounting we have here in your Lordships’ House. I would be pleased to give him these two sheets of paper with all these different ideas.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct: we have ruled out nationalisation. But if she would like to share the paperwork, I would be more than happy to look at it.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, Ministers claim that public ownership of water would somehow cost £100 billion, which is a totally unsound claim. Let me explain. The £100 billion figure is generated by Ofwat, which calls it “recognised capital value”. It is calculated by taking the value of the company at the time of privatisation, adding the annual investment and multiplying it by the annual rate of inflation. It adds that 35 times—that is, over 35 years—and comes up with the figure of £100 billion, which does not represent anything. On the same basis, a £10,000 Reliant Robin bought by Del Boy in 1990 would now have a value of over £50,000. There is no way that Del Boy would be able to sell it for £50,000, because that figure has absolutely nothing to do with value. So, can the Minister explain why the Government consider £100 billion to be a credible figure for the cost of public ownership?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I would just say to my noble friend that we have discussed this on a number of occasions, including with officials in the department. I am sure that we will continue to discuss it.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister have the White Paper consider, and perhaps consider for the Bill, the idea of setting minimum annual investment requirements? I do not know much about Ofwat, but I know a bit about Ofgem. During the time when I was on a power company board, our annual bids to spend our money on improving our network were cut down by an average of about £1 billion a year. So long as the regulators feel that they are under pressure to keep costs to the consumer down, that is what will happen. It seems to me that Parliament and the Government need to take responsibility for setting a requirement on replacing the crumbling infrastructure. That should be at least discussed in the White Paper, and I hope it will find a place in the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Part of the reason why we have got into this mess is the focus on keeping bills low. People do not want to pay high bills, but if you are constantly putting pressure on that and not investing in the infrastructure, that is when you end up with a lot of these problems. That is why in PR24 we gave the most investment ever—to try to turn around some of the problems. The noble Lord makes a good point about what we need to look at going forward, in order to ensure that we do not have these sorts of problems in the future. He is absolutely right that this needs to be part of what we look at following the White Paper. I would be very happy if he has any ideas to share with me following his experience with Ofgem. That would be very interesting.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former water company director—one involved in clean water only, not wastewater. In the speech made on Monday by the Secretary of State, he made it clear as a priority that the customer would come first in all these considerations. The customer matters more than everybody else in terms of the environmental effects and, in particular, in the pricing of this utility. There is a price review going on. Can the Minister confirm that the role of the ombudsman, certainly in the pricing review, will give priority to pricing because of the incredible increases recently in water bills? In particular, will standing charges be looked at thoroughly because, in many cases of low consumption, the standing charge has become an enormous impediment in an awful lot of people’s water bills?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My right honourable friend said in his speech down the other end that the new regulator

“will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past”.

That basically demonstrates that we need to look at the big picture about what went wrong in the past and what we need to do to rectify it in the future. I am sure that we can look at the noble Lord’s suggestions as we move forward to ensure that we have regulation and pricing that are fit for purpose.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I declare my interest as a board member and director of the Water Retail Company. I thank the Minister for the Statement, and we welcome the report. I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking all the members of the public, charities and NGOs who have done so much work to ensure that we are aware of the level of the sewage crisis and the pollution in our water system. I noticed that there is no direct recommendation in the report to support citizen science. What action will the Government take to support these citizens? What is happening with the water restoration fund?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Earl makes an important point about citizen science and input from local communities. He is right that, in many ways, we are standing here today discussing the outcome of the commission because of the recognition by government of the problem that was originally raised by organisations such as Surfers Against Sewage and anglers’ associations, and by individuals such as Feargal Sharkey. It is important to recognise that this was brought to government’s notice because of the campaigns and the work by volunteers and charitable organisations. That is why it is critical that we continue those discussions with those organisations as we develop the White Paper and the legislation, because if you have experience of dealing with problems on the ground, you can bring valuable suggestions to the development of legislation.

Citizen science will be an important part of this. An example is Lake Windermere: there is a local group of people working there that we are trying to work with and support to look at how we specifically deal with the challenges there.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, like others, I would have preferred renationalisation, but a strengthened and unified regulator was my second choice so I welcome much of this report. However, will the next stage, the White Paper and the later legislation, envisage a situation where there is a system closer to franchising than to the total freedom of the water companies to carry on doing a disastrous job, as they have done since privatisation?

My other point is that, in relation to consumers, there seems to be a bit of confusion between the role of the Consumer Council for Water, which represents consumers, and a new ombudsman, which is a quasi-judicial body resolving problems raised by consumers. Possibly the Consumer Council for Water should be run by Citizens Advice, but there should not be confusion between the two jobs.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I take that point, which is a good point well made about that confusion. I am sure we will take it back to the department. The report includes proposals about ownership, which will be part of any consultation from a White Paper. That is another important point that we need to consider.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, some very high salaries have been reported payable to senior water officials. Can the Minister say whether those salaries require ministerial approval?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Water companies are private companies so, on that basis, no, they would not require ministerial approval.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, there are 83 recommendations from the report on which the Government have yet to decide what view they will take. Some of them are quite small wins—for example, the recommendations by Sir Jon on rainwater harvesting to address the shortages in housing. That could be sorted out, before a White Paper, in the Planning and Infra- structure Bill. Will the Government take all reasonable opportunities, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, to address some of the sensible recommendations outlined in the report?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

That is a sensible suggestion by the noble Baroness. I am happy to discuss those considerations with the Water Minister and the Secretary of State to see if we cannot move things forward as quickly as we can.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Having worked so closely with the Minister, I know how dedicated she is to getting this right. I congratulate her and the Government on their decision to act swiftly on Sir Jon Cunliffe’s excellent report. I relay congratulations from my friend, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who was a leading voice in this House on this issue.

What safeguards will be in place to avoid the kind of hideous bureaucracy that we have seen bog down the industry and the monitoring of these water pollution incidents? Will the new regulator—a long called-for and excellent move—have the right remit from the start to avoid the kind of financial engineering that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, referred to? Will it have proper data so that the public can have confidence that they know what is going on, including tying pay for water companies to performance and perhaps having delayed compensation schemes so that, for example, we can get pension funds investing profitably in them for the long term rather than the short-term profitability that we have so often seen?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Investment will be critical. That is a very important point. The answer to most of the noble Baroness’s questions will lie in the consultation and the response to the White Paper on how we move forward. In particular, it is important that we have the opportunity as early as possible to start talking about it and considering how to prioritise what needs to be in place in order to start delivering on our concerns and the outcomes as soon as we can.

It is worth pointing out that the existing regulators will stay in place until the new system is in place. The Government will clarify our expectations to the existing regulation system ahead of that, because we do not want the regulators just to continue as they have been. We will publish a strategic policy statement, which will have ministerial direction attached to it, at some point this year.

State of Climate and Nature

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell (LD)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharma (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

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

Motion agreed.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

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

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

Paragraph 5.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly states:

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

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

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

Motion agreed.

Forest Risk Commodities

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan]

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

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

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

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Trees (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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