Draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Vaping Duty Stamps (Requirements, Reviews and Appeals) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. The draft regulations make provision for when vaping products must and must not bear a duty stamp, and ensure that decisions made in relation to United Kingdom representatives are subject to rights of review and appeal. They do so by setting out the stamping requirements that will apply under the vaping duty stamps scheme, and by amending the Finance Act 1994 so that relevant decisions fall within the existing review and appeal framework. The draft regulations provide part of the detailed framework needed for the administration, control and enforcement of vaping products duty and the vaping duty stamps scheme.
At the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor confirmed the structure and rate of vaping products duty; the new duty will be charged at a flat rate of £2.20 per 10 ml on all vaping liquid from 1 October 2026. Vaping duty stamps are the primary compliance mechanism for the new tax, requiring every duty-paid vaping product to carry a highly secure, scannable label. These stamps provide a visible and traceable confirmation that duty has been paid, enabling His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other agencies to assess compliance, and strengthening enforcement in a market with high risks of illicit activity. They also give retailers and consumers confidence that the products they are purchasing are legitimate.
Let me summarise the three measures in the draft regulations. First, they set out when vaping products must bear a duty stamp. Under the draft regulations, vaping products produced or imported on or after 1 October 2026 must be stamped at or before the point at which they pass an excise duty point. Products produced or imported before 1 October 2026 must be stamped by 1 April 2027.
Secondly, the draft regulations set out where the duty stamp requirement does not apply. They apply exceptions for products possessed by a private individual for that individual’s own use; products to be exported from the United Kingdom; products to be shipped or carried on a ship, aircraft or train as stores; products to be used in an export shop; and products that are afforded relief from excise duty.
Thirdly, the draft regulations provide for reviews and appeals in relation to United Kingdom representatives in the vaping duty stamps scheme. They achieve this by amending the Finance Act 1994, so that decisions relating to UK representatives fall within the existing statutory review and appeal framework. This means that decisions made by HMRC in relation to such representatives—those acting on behalf of overseas businesses for duty stamps purposes—can be reviewed and, where appropriate, appealed in an independent tribunal. This is an important safeguard, as the vaping duty stamps scheme expressly provides a role for UK representatives where overseas manufacturers wish to supply to the UK market.
I hope that members of the Committee will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be talking about vape duty stamps again, Ms Vaz. We spent hours talking about these provisions during the passage of the Finance Act 2026, and the approach that the Minister has set out broadly follows the one that the previous Conservative Government had in mind. None the less, I have a few questions for him.
The first question is about the implementation timeline. HMRC opened applications from 1 April for manufacturers, importers and warehouse keepers, with the duty obligations due to go live on 1 October and a sell-through period to 1 April 2027. Are the current timelines for implementation on track, particularly in relation to the digital stamps duty system? What assurance can the Minister give legitimate businesses that apply in good time that they will be approved and able to continue trading by 1 October? Can he update us on how many have applied so far?
Having spoken to industry representatives, I know they are working hard to be ready, but the key is getting clear guidance as soon as possible. I have heard concerns about some of the timelines. Can the Minister give an assurance that the appointed supplier of duty stamps will give timely information to the industry ahead of the 1 October deadline?
I turn now to illicit trade and enforcement. In Committee stage of the 2026 Act, I raised the example of Italy, where vape sales reportedly fell by 70% after a similar duty was introduced. That was not because people stopped using vapes; it was because they shifted to black market and unregulated online sellers. Experience with alcohol duty stamps shows the problem of counterfeiting. What has His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs learned from the shortcomings and successes of the alcohol duty stamps regime? The Conservatives supported the powers in the 2026 Act for tougher enforcement to shut down premises, but have the Government considered giving trading standards further powers to seize products and issue penalties directly, rather than having to go through HMRC to do so?
The Minister did not mention the cost of this measure’s roll-out, but it is quite significant. Estimates show that HMRC will spend £140 million to deliver it: £20 million on the IT system and £120 million on staffing and compliance. Add in £10 million for UK Border Force, and the total is £150 million straightaway—a significant sum. What assurances can the Minister give that that will provide value for money?
In the spring statement, the Government revised upward the expected revenue from the vape duty from £120 million to £200 million. Will the Minister explain what underlies that estimate? Finally, can he assure us that appropriate due diligence was done before the appointment of SICPA as the provider of the track and trace software solutions, in the light of the fines previously issued by Swiss authorities in connection with acts of corruption?
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Minister knows we spoke at length about this subject in Committee stage of the 2026 Act, and I seek confirmation on a few points that we made back then.
We spoke quite a lot in the Public Bill Committee about enforcement action, which will obviously be a key element. We discussed who would face enforcement action if they were selling products that were not licensed and did not have the correct stamps on them. “The seller” was mentioned as the person responsible, against whom enforcement action would be taken. Can the Minister explain who is meant by “the seller”? Is it the shop owner? Is it the brand? Is it the potentially 18 or 19-year-old shop assistant behind the till, who is just doing the job they are told to do? What assurances can the Minister give that, in using the enforcement powers, we will not penalise young shopworkers, who are simply doing their job as directed and who have no power, if they are doing something that is later found not to be compliant because of what their managers or retailers are doing?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the Opposition spokesmen for their questions and continued scrutiny of this important new measure that the Government are introducing to support our vaping products duty.
I am satisfied that the timelines are appropriate: registration opened on 1 April, giving businesses six months to apply. As I mentioned, products imported to the UK before 1 October this year will have a longer period before they are subject to enforcement.
There is always a risk that increases in rates of taxation will change consumers’ behaviour.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
I declare an interest: I have not smoked for more than a decade, and I vape. Does the Minister agree that we have to be careful that the language we use does not discourage people from changing from smoking to vaping? Vaping has been shown to be successful in getting many people to stop smoking. The health benefits are there. None of us wants young people to vape, but vaping is successful in getting long-term smokers to move off smoking.
Dan Tomlinson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The emergence of vapes in recent years has provided people up and down the country with a route away from smoking. That is to be welcomed. At the same time, the chief medical officer is right to highlight the risks and health impacts associated with vaping, although they may be lower than the impact of smoking cigarettes.
Vicky Foxcroft
The Minister says they may be lower. I believe it is said that they are significantly lower.
Dan Tomlinson
I am not an expert on the differences in the health impacts, and I trust my hon. Friend’s expertise and experience in this space. However, the chief medical officer is clear that there are still health impacts, and he supports the changes we have made. It is worth highlighting that, although the vaping products duty will be introduced at the rate of £2.20 per 10 ml, we are increasing the duty on cigarettes so that the tax differential is maintained. I thank my hon. Friend for her interventions and the insight she has brought to today’s debate.
On enforcement, HMRC is in the process of recruiting more than 300 new compliance officers. As the shadow Exchequer Secretary mentioned, £10 million of additional funding will be made available for Border Force. We are confident that the cost of implementing this measure will be outweighed many times over by the benefits to the Exchequer of the additional revenue it brings in. Unlike the one-off set-up costs, that additional revenue is there for the long term,. The vaping products duty will bring in £565 million by 2030.
The shadow Exchequer Secretary is always right to mention the need for timely and up-to-date guidance, and I will press officials to make sure we get the guidance out as soon as we can if more clarity is required. When it comes to individual procurement decisions, I am aware of the case he mentioned. HMRC assures me that it followed robust and proper processes in that case, as it does in all procurement. The bids underwent thorough evaluation and assurance process, and we follow strict procurement rules when awarding contracts, ensuring value for money for taxpayers. As for the subject of HMRC enforcement action, we will make sure to enforce against the appropriate person or business in each relevant case.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 17 March. Since 2011, the warm home discount has supported low-income and vulnerable households by reducing energy bills during the coldest months of the year, when support is most needed. The Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 ended on 31 March 2026; the draft regulations will extend the scheme in Scotland for a further five years until 2031, providing certainty for households, suppliers and delivery partners.
As the Committee will know, fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. Under the Energy Act 2010, as amended by the Scotland Act 2016, Scottish Ministers have powers to design their own fuel poverty scheme, subject to consultation with and agreement from the Secretary of State. To date, the Scottish Government have not made use of those devolved powers. They have instead requested that the UK Government prepare regulations to lay in this Parliament, on their behalf, to continue the warm home discount for the next scheme period. Scottish Government Ministers must consent to the making of such regulations before they are made; I have sought and received their formal consent.
Let me set out some of the background. In September, the Government consulted, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, on proposals for the next scheme period. Consultation responses relating to Scotland were shared with Scottish Ministers, who have determined the eligibility criteria for the next scheme period within the agreed spending limit, as set out in the draft regulations. That spending limit will be £92 million for this year, as well as for subsequent years. The draft regulations will continue to require energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic customer accounts across Great Britain to participate in the scheme. Suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts will be able, as they are now, to participate on a voluntary basis.
The draft regulations will continue to provide for £150 rebates to be provided by scheme suppliers under the data-matched core group and the application-based broader group. Participating suppliers will continue to be obliged to provide a £150 rebate to eligible households in the core group, applied directly to their electricity bill. The draft regulations also set out new eligibility criteria for the core group in Scotland, aligning qualified benefits with those of the Scottish winter heating payment, as of December 2025, for the next scheme period. It is estimated that 345,000 households will receive a core group rebate each year, an increase of roughly 250,000 on 2025-26. The draft regulations will continue to oblige scheme suppliers to allocate the remaining balance of their Scottish spending obligation through non-core group support, delivered via the broader group, and optionally though industry initiatives.
The draft regulations will update the mandatory eligibility criteria for the application-based broader group, which suppliers must consider when providing support via the broader group. The number of rebates available within the broader group is finite and is dependent on the size of each supplier’s obligation in Scotland. Suppliers will continue to determine their own application processes and decide which eligible households receive the rebate within their obligation.
Suppliers will continue to have discretion, subject to Ofgem approval, to extend their eligibility criteria further to other households that are wholly or mainly in, or at risk of, fuel poverty. Under the core group and broader group, around 560,000 rebates are expected to be provided each winter to Scottish households for the rest of this decade, which is almost double the number supported in winter 2023-24, before the scheme was expanded by this Government for winter 2025-26. In addition, the draft regulations will introduce provisions for a late rebate to be issued where a household eligible for the core group did not receive support in the previous scheme year because of an administrative error by a supplier, Ofgem or the Secretary of State.
The draft regulations also include a new power to allow the Secretary of State to direct suppliers to communicate additional information about the scheme directly to successfully data-matched core group customers. Households that are not automatically matched by the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to be notified by the Government, and they will be directed to the warm home discount helpline to determine their eligibility for the core group rebate.
By continuing the warm home discount scheme, through the draft regulations, we are securing vital support for eligible Scottish households each winter—the coldest time of the year, when support is most needed. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. As the Minister has outlined, the draft regulations set out provision for the continuation of the warm home discount in Scotland through to 2031. The Conservatives will not oppose them: with a few changes, they will simply extend to 31 March 2031 the current scheme, which ended on 31 March 2026. However, it will have escaped no one’s attention that today is 27 April—not 31 March, which was four weeks ago. Will the Minister address that apparent delay?
The Conservatives do not want to see anyone struggling to pay their energy bills or having to choose between heating their home and going cold. That is especially important in Scotland, where it does not need saying that the winters are very long and very cold. Some of my constituents in Gordon and Buchan and others across Aberdeenshire live in areas that often record low temperatures each year. However, we have some reflections on the mechanism by which the warm home discount helps with bills. At its core, it is a taxation-funded redistribution mechanism. It does not reduce the cost of electricity; it takes money from all taxpaying bill payers, including those who are struggling themselves, and redistributes it to a defined group. It does not make electricity affordable for everyone.
There is an alternative to the warm home discount, which could be implemented immediately if the Government so chose. The Conservatives’ cheap power plan would eliminate certain costs completely from electricity bills, instead of just moving costs around. It would do so for everyone: for those currently in receipt of the warm home discount and for those who are not, including those who are marginally above the threshold for the warm home discount and are therefore effectively paying more to support others while struggling to support their families or to pay their bills.
The Government came to power promising to cut energy bills by £300, but without a plan to do so. Today, bills are £73 higher than when Labour took office. In comparison, our cheap power plan would cut electricity bills by 20%, saving all households £200 and cutting electricity bills for businesses, without costing households a penny and without—
Harriet Cross
We can. This is an alternative to the warm home discount, Sir Desmond.
Harriet Cross
The warm home discount, as I say, moves bill payers’ and taxpayers’ money around; it does not reduce the cost, and it does not take money off bills. People are still paying it, but in a different place. People who can just manage are paying it for those who just cannot. It is an unfair mechanism that penalises those who are just above the margin. Although we recognise the importance of making sure that bills are affordable for everybody, that does not mean that those who can just pay should be penalised. That is why we brought in, and we support, the concept of a warm home discount to help make bills affordable, but there must be an alternative via the cheap power plan to ensure that we can help everyone.
I would be grateful if the Minister answered a few questions. Why have the regulations only been put before us today, when the 31 March 2026 deadline has already passed? The Minister mentioned that the measure will cost £92 million. I believe that that is for the next five years.
Harriet Cross
It is per year. Does that fall completely on the Scottish Government’s budget, or is it shared between the Governments of Westminster and Holyrood? Given that there is an alternative, via the cheap power plan, that would eliminate the costs rather than moving them, and given that the Government have already addressed some of the costs by removing some of the carbon taxes, why would they not go further and implement more of the Conservatives’ cheap power plan?
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
If the Minister will allow me, I will make more of an intervention than a speech. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the £150—thank you very much—but I suspect that that figure was worked out on the basis of the average UK energy costs of approximately £1,750. In sunny Inverclyde, where people are wandering around in their Speedos, that would be fine, but an average fuel bill in the highlands of Scotland or the outer isles is much more likely to be £3,000 than £1,750, so £150 does not cut it. The outer isles and the west highlands have the highest level of fuel poverty in Britain.
In my office in Fort William, electricity costs 27p per kilowatt-hour; in my flat in London, gas costs 6p per kilowatt-hour. In the highlands, we are paying four times as much. I can only say that the current Government will have achieved their aim when they make it the same price to heat a property in rural Britain as in the middle of London.
Martin McCluskey
I thank hon. Members for their speeches. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan asked why there had been a delay in laying the draft regulations. The delay was because of continued negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. At the outset of the discussions with the Scottish Government, there was ambiguity as to what was devolved and what was reserved; that took us some time to agree with the Scottish Government. Scottish Government Ministers then took some time to determine eligibility for the scheme. The reason that we are putting the draft regulations before the Committee today, rather than having done it before the 2022 regulations came to an end, is that we had to wait for the Scottish Government to decide what the criteria for each of the groups would be.
The hon. Member asked about the cost of £92 million per year. That £92 million is set by the Secretary of State within the part of the regulations that is reserved. That is proportionate to the overall UK figure; £92 million is the amount that goes to the Scottish Government. That is where the reserve power is. There is a UK-wide figure, so UK—in this case, GB—taxpayers will bear the responsibility for the cost of those bills across the country.
The hon. Member also spoke about the Tory cheap power plan, which I have read with interest. I have to say that it is quite thin on detail, and I would argue that some of the suggestions in it would probably bring about further instability within our electricity market.
Let me talk about some things that the Government have done in just the past few months. Our £150 warm home discount is offering targeted support to the most vulnerable people. There is also universal support, in the form of the 7% price cap reduction in the current price cap period. Last week, we announced the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which provides support for industry. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero also announced last week how we will go further and faster in our mission for clean power by 2030.
It is important to emphasise to hon. Members that the way to get our energy bills down permanently is through home-grown clean power that we control and can control the price of. It is not through continued exposure to volatile fossil fuels like oil and gas that at this very moment are leaving us exposed to volatile wholesale costs, which are still the largest part of each of our energy bills.
I can guarantee the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire that I have noticed no one in Speedos in Inverclyde. Even on the sunny banks of Gourock this weekend, there were certainly no Speedos on display, despite the warm weather. The hon. Member made an important point about the impact of rising energy bills on rural homes and businesses; he will know that provision has already been put in place for additional support for those who use heating oil, with over £50 million delivered by the UK Government and now a £10 million scheme in Scotland. We have always said that we will keep that under review. To my knowledge, the Scottish scheme is nowhere near exhausted, but we will keep under review the amount that might be required for additional support.
I also point the hon. Member towards the decisions in the Budget to remove costs from energy bills, which disproportionately reduce electricity users’ bills over those who have dual fuel, because most of the discount came from the electricity part of the bill. That will have made a difference. However, we also need to close the spark gap between electricity and gas. The action that the Secretary of State took last week, alongside the Chancellor, to move electricity generation to longer-term contracts for difference will help to close that gap. However, I agree with the hon. Member that there is still room for further measures in future.
As I mentioned, fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. The draft regulations, which we are making on behalf of the Scottish Government, will help more households in Scotland who are facing financial challenges or fuel poverty to receive support each winter, the time of year when support is most needed. This Government are ensuring that lower-income households benefit the most from energy bill reductions.
I should also address the point that the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan made about redistribution. This is where we will probably find an ideological difference in our approach to support for the most vulnerable. The Labour party supports redistribution. We support the fact that those with the broadest shoulders are being asked to pay a little more on their energy bills for support—
Harriet Cross
Does the Minister think it fair that someone who is £1 or £10 over the limit will have to pay for someone who is £1 or £10 under the limit? This redistribution is penalising people near the limit to such an extent that those who are just outside it will end up worse off than those who are just inside.
Martin McCluskey
That is why we need a balance of universal and targeted support. Currently, through the price cap, those on dual fuel bills will be receiving an average reduction of 7%. Alongside that, we have targeted support for the most vulnerable people in society. I think that that provides us with the right balance to ensure that widespread support is targeted at those who most need it.
We acted in last year’s Budget by taking money off energy bills to tackle the cost of living. These significant changes to how energy is priced have ensured that energy bills have fallen by 7% for an average dual fuel customer paying by direct debit. Once again, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Courts and Legal Services (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026.
This instrument, which was laid before the House on 19 March, marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform to introduce a fairer, more consistent and more sustainable fees framework in the property chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector implemented by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark change: we will abolish section 21 no-fault evictions, strengthen the rights of tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases, and enhance local authority enforcement powers. Taken together, those measures represent the biggest expansion of renters’ rights in a generation.
However, rights only matter, and are only meaningful, if people can enforce them. That depends on a tribunal system that is sufficiently resourced and is accessible for all. Currently, around 250 types of application can be brought to the property chamber, but only about half of them incur a fee. That is because they originate from various legislative provisions, some of which are not referenced in the current fees order. That has created an inconsistent system that neither reflects the cost of administering proceedings nor supports a fair and proportionate contribution from its users.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister is right that the fees are not proportionate, but they also sometimes do not meet the cost of the tribunal. Does she agree that that is one of the reasons why this legislation is so important?
Sarah Sackman
I was just coming to that. The cost of delivering the service that the property tribunal provides far exceeds the fees we are talking about today, and that cost is borne by the taxpayer. We think that it is right and fair that, provided that fees are set at a level that does not impede access to justice, we recover some of the cost of providing this essential service from the users of the court.
As I say, the current system has created a patchwork, inconsistent system that neither reflects the cost of administering proceedings nor supports a fair and proportionate contribution from all its users. The new framework will consist of a £47 application fee for applications to appeal a rent increase and to challenge terms of a successor tenancy, with no hearing fees applicable; fees of £114 for applications and £227 for hearings in cases where access to justice is paramount; and a standard fee of £200 to bring an application to the tribunal and £300 for hearings. Alongside this framework, fee exemptions apply for urgent issues such as seeking a remedial order for an unsafe residential building, as well as for potential low-value claims, including cases where tenants are recovering unlawful fees charged by their landlords.
The estimated cost to the taxpayer of an average case brought to the property chamber is more than £900. Even after this framework is fully implemented, the property chamber will continue to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. A standard application fee of up to £200 therefore represents an important but modest contribution, and illustrates our commitment to access to justice, which has been the guiding principle in developing the framework. The property chamber deals with a wide range of cases involving users with varying financial circumstances, so it is simply not possible for a single fee to accurately reflect every type of application. Instead, the work that we undertook reviewed every type of application individually to identify the types of users and barriers they may face when seeking to bring a case to the tribunal. That led us to introduce a tiered framework that best reflects the varied work of the property tribunal. The new framework will create consistency in the charging of fees for applications that can be brought to the property chamber, increase levels of cost recovery and reduce the burden on the taxpayer, all while maintaining our commitment to ensuring that access for justice is protected for all.
This instrument will introduce fees for applications in the residential property division of the property chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act. It is made under the powers provided by section 42(1)(a), section 42(2) and section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
First, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will extend the right to apply to the property chamber to challenge a proposed rent increase to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants will also be able to apply to the property chamber within the first six months of a tenancy to request a termination if they believe that the starting rent is above the open market rent. The Renters’ Rights Act also includes the right of tenants to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase in the tribunal. Under the instrument, those applications will attract a £47 application fee and no hearing fees will apply.
Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under the instrument, those applications will also attract a fee of £47. If the application proceeds to a hearing, no hearing fee will apply.
Thirdly, the instrument applies our proposed standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act. It is reasonable and proportionate for landlords who choose to appeal to contribute to the cost of that process.
Finally, the instrument brings new rent repayment order routes, created by the Renters’ Rights Act, into the existing fees regime. Applications will incur a £114 application fee and a £227 hearing fee, matching the fees that already apply to comparable applications.
Turning to the impacts of the instrument, it is important to be clear about what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in the instrument relate to the introduction of new or amended rights implemented by the Renters’ Rights Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. That reflects the move, as I have said, towards a more consistent fees framework across the property chamber. Fees have been set at varying levels below cost to balance the principles of cost recovery with the principle of access to justice. It is important to note that, in the case of rent appeals, the balance between cost recovery and access to justice is more acute.
I reassure Members that the introduction of a fee for those cases has been carefully considered and calibrated. In those cases, the consequence of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant potentially more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, especially as tenants are often in a vulnerable financial position, given cost of living pressures. Given those considerations, a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. The fee is one of the lowest payable across the courts and tribunals system, and ensures that tenants will not be deterred from exercising their right to appeal a rent increase by the fee.
In addition, there are other mitigations for rent appeals that ensure that fees do not deter or disadvantage tenants. The help with fees remission scheme will remain available to eligible applicants on lower incomes or in receipt of qualifying benefits who cannot afford to pay a fee. In the last year, we remitted £91 million pounds’ worth of fee income. Furthermore, under the Renters’ Rights Act, any rent increase will ordinarily take effect from the start of the first rent period following the date of the tribunal’s decision, rather than being backdated. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the date on which the rent increase takes effect by up to two months after the date of determination. That helps to ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge excessive proposed increases without fear of incurring additional financial pressures. Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord in the end.
Without these measures, we would not be able to keep the tribunal service running, and the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a far greater proportion of the cost of the courts and tribunals systems. Thus, this instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is there for all those who need it while ensuring that access to justice is protected. I believe that the measures are fair and necessary, and I hope that the Committee will support them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, and to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this Delegated Legislation Committee.
It might seem that this is a narrow measure, but, in reality, the draft order is part of a poorly implemented Act of Parliament. As the Minister explained, it introduces a £47 application fee for rent appeals, a £47 application fee for succession of assured tenancy rights and a £200 application fee, plus a £300 hearing fee, for financial penalty appeals, which are where landlords appeal civil penalties imposed by local authorities. That reflects the expanded scope of rent repayment orders under the Renters’ Rights Act, so it is clearly not an isolated change. The order is being introduced because, as the Minister described, Government legislation is creating new routes into the tribunal system, and Ministers need to introduce a fee structure to go with those routes.
There are two immediate problems. The Government have not done an impact assessment for the order because, they say, no significant impact is foreseen, but that is hard to accept. The order introduces new fees into a system that the Government are making more widely applicable, and it is doing so in a sensitive area where access to the tribunal may matter a great deal to tenants and landlords alike. It simply does not look credible to say that there is no significant impact worth assessing.
The Opposition have been clear for some time that the Government’s rental reforms will put more pressure on the courts and tribunals system before it is ready. Regardless of the changes that the Government make to the fee structure, such relatively minor, short-term changes in the income available to courts will not change that situation overnight. Our court system is simply not in a position to manage the influx that is likely to result from the Act, but Labour is pushing ahead without first showing that the wider justice system can cope. The Government are adding further operational pressures to the property chamber at a time when there are already problems across all elements of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. The Government should deal with those broader pressures first, not build new demand into the system and adjust the fee structure around it.
There is also real concern about incentives. Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, has warned that the rules under the Renters’ Rights Act could incentivise tenants to apply to the first-tier tribunal in respect of every rent increase, simply to delay its implementation. That is because even when a rent increase is upheld, it will take effect only from the date of the tribunal decision, not from the date of the notice being served, meaning that even unsuccessful challenges could delay higher rent payments for months. If that is the case, Ministers may be creating a much greater volume of tribunal work than they are willing to admit, and I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that particular concern, which was raised by someone with significant credibility..
The broader truth is that Labour is failing to listen to those who understand the sector. No serious impact assessment has been done, there have been clear warnings about incentives and workload, and there are longstanding concerns that the wider Act will reduce supply and increase rents, yet Ministers are pressing on regardless. Our objection to the order is straightforward: it is not just a technical amendment, but part of a wider framework that places more reliance on a tribunal system that is already under strain. It comes without a proper assessment of impact, and helps to implement a wider Act that we believe will leave the rental market less, not more, stable. For those reasons, the Opposition cannot support the order.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the broader context. The Minister rightly highlighted the broader context of the Renters’ Rights Act, the reforms it introduces and the implications they have for the sector. She also quite rightly highlighted that rights matter only where they are enforceable. Given that context, I have a few questions and points of clarification that I hope the Minister can help me with.
I will confine my remarks to the property chamber, which is one of seven chambers at first-tier tribunal level. The Minister gave the example of having a £900 cost versus a £200 fee for a case, and the significant public subsidy that goes into the system, even with the fee changes. Will she set out the overall cost per annum—the cost with regard to the resource departmental expenditure limit—of Government administration of the property chamber?
Picking up on a point highlighted by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, what assessment have the Government made of the increased demand for property chamber services in the context of the changes in the Renters’ Rights Act? How many additional staff may be needed in that chamber to avoid any lengthening of case wait times, for a listing or similar? In essence, how many additional cases annually do the Government anticipate will come forward as a result of the Act?
Again, the Minister was absolutely right that the challenge is to balance cost recovery and access to justice. What formula or process was used to calculate the numbers for these fees? She said that cases are effectively still subsidised by the taxpayer, but what was the calculation that said that £47 or £200, for example, was the right fee? What went into coming up with that, and discounting it in the way that she has?
Paragraph 5.16 of the explanatory memorandum states that
“the rent appeal right is substantially different to what existed before, and so our confidence on the effect of a fee on people’s behaviour is lower than normal.”
That is understandable, but how do the Government propose to measure—once the fees have been operating for, say, a year—the effect on people’s behaviour? What data will be collected, as a baseline, to measure whether people are using the tribunal service, and why they are or are not using it—that is, both the quantitative and qualitative data?
Finally, paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The underlying costs of activities for which fees are charged will be reviewed on a yearly basis”.
Will that annual review of the fees come to this House, or will it be an internal process in HMCTS or the Ministry of Justice that comes to this House, with an order, only if something is identified as having diverged?
Sarah Sackman
I will endeavour to answer as many of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions as possible. Any that I do not answer—
Sarah Sackman
That was exactly what I was going to suggest: I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman. I will write to him on his first question, which was about RDEL and the exact running costs of the property chamber.
We expect an increase in the volume of receipts that the property chamber will take, and some work is being done internally as to what that might look like. As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, this is an expansion of rights, and as I have said, we have set the fees not to impede the enforcement of those rights but to enable it, while achieving a measure of cost recovery. We want to reduce conflict in our society, but we do not shy away from the fact that the thrust of the policy behind the Renters’ Rights Act is that we welcome people enforcing their rights where rents that are set far outstrip what can be considered reasonable. That is why we have deliberately empowered people by giving them rights that can be enforced.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made a point about the tribunal’s readiness. In anticipating additional pressures on the tribunal, we have been undertaking steps to increase capacity within it. Those have included the recruitment of additional administrative staff and the establishment of a centralised operating hub. We are also working with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a new digital system for rent appeals in the property tribunal, to maintain the efficiency of that. The fees, along with the Ministry of Justice’s operating budgets, will support that capacity, so that those who rely on the chamber, be they tenants or landlords, can expect the capacity of the tribunal to keep up with the demand.
Dr Mullan
Let us say that a landlord proposes to put someone’s rent up by £100 a month, and that it might take two months for the case to be heard in tribunal. They are therefore going to be £150 better off, even if they pay the £48 fee, if they wait for two months and the case goes to the point of a ruling. That is the criticism made by the Master of the Rolls. What is the counter-argument to that? Why would people not simply lodge an appeal knowing that they will make that money back and be in the black on the back of it?
Sarah Sackman
I am familiar with the argument raised by the Master of the Rolls; we discussed it during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act, and I have discussed it with the relevant Minister. That is the subject of a whole series of policy choices that have been made to strike an appropriate balance between the rights of tenants and landlords.
We do not expect that measure to be abused, and there are equities that go the other way. If someone backdates a payment, they will then be forced to pay arrears and additionality in one big lump sum, which can also create unfairness. That is the result of a policy choice that has been made in the Act, although it may be one that the Opposition take issue with. This is now all about ensuring that a tribunal is ready to receive any ensuing rent appeals as soon as possible after the order comes into force on 1 May—it is very exciting.
I did jot down the right hon. Gentleman’s further question, but I am now struggling to read my handwriting, because we are at that point in the day.
Sarah Sackman
Indeed. The other thing to say—this relates to both sets of questions—is that the new Renters’ Rights Act introduces a series of new rights that we want people to take advantage of. By the way, that is done not just in the purview of the tribunal system but in what some academics have called the shadow of the law.
The Act enhances people’s bargaining rights with their landlords when discussing and negotiating rent. It does not necessarily mean that a case will end up in tribunal, although it may, and the fees are not a barrier to that. That is important because when we introduce an extension of rights with such a policy, we have to wait to see precisely how it alters the behaviours and the societal relationships that we are looking to rebalance. The Act is a big extension of renters’ rights, and a greater equalisation between the rights of tenant and landlord.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that we need to see how the demand coming into the chamber looks a year from now, and how the system is operating. Of course, we will need to keep that under review to ensure that the tribunal keeps up with demand. However, with the measures that we have introduced to anticipate the need for additional capacity, we are confident that we will be able to do so successfully. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman on the outstanding points that I have not been able to respond to, because I do not have the detail to hand, and I will ensure that he gets an answer on all of them.
In short, the draft order strikes the right balance between cost recovery and access to justice. It is a necessary step that strengthens the sustainability and fairness of the property chamber. As a consequence, I urge members of the Committee to vote in favour of the draft order.
Question put.
Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 26 February, are a critical part of delivering the Government’s clean power mission. The mission is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, reducing household energy bills, supporting long-term economic growth and tackling climate change. Offshore wind plays an increasingly important role in delivering that energy security at a time when it matters more than ever. The statutory instrument provides a vital opportunity to accelerate offshore wind deployment while delivering meaningful strategic benefits for our marine environment, reflecting the Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand.
Let me begin by outlining the challenges that the draft regulations are intended to address. Under the existing approach, developers are required to follow the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding impacts on protected sites, then minimising and mitigating impacts. Only where impacts remain unavoidable are developers required to deliver compensation, normally through measures that benefit the impacted feature. As offshore wind deployment has been expanded, it has become increasingly difficult for developers to secure compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features. That difficulty has become one of the main causes of delays in offshore wind consenting decisions.
The draft regulations address the issue by increasing the number of environmental compensatory measures available for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available, or where a different measure can provide a greater ecological benefit, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. Those measures will deliver meaningful benefits to ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. For example, developers could support broader initiatives such as programmes to strengthen seabird populations.
Such innovative approaches illustrate how the Government are ensuring that environmental protection and economic growth can be pursued in parallel. The reforms are an essential part of the offshore wind environmental improvement package developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the marine recovery fund, the package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach for offshore wind while enhancing the marine environment.
Before I return to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the statutory instrument. The Committee’s report raised concerns about the SI being laid before the House without the accompanying draft guidance. That approach was taken because the SI is a critical component of delivering the clean power mission. Proceeding in this way has enabled parliamentary scrutiny to proceed without delay while allowing sufficient time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard and, importantly, ensuring alignment with the devolved Governments. The guidance will be published on 21 May, aligning with the SI’s coming into force. That will ensure that stakeholders have clear and comprehensive guidance from day one. The published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.
The SI will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of environmental compensatory measures. Without action to expand the compensatory measures available, we will limit both the growth of offshore wind and our ability to deliver meaningful strategic benefits for nature. The SI applies to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and to certain offshore wind functions in the inshore waters of Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that all makes sense.
The draft regulations introduce a new compensation duty specifically for offshore wind. It will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network. Environmental safeguards are central to the new approach. They will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature.
As part of that, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. Developers must select compensation measures in line with that hierarchy, prioritising those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. That hierarchy is a central pillar to the new approach and a key safeguard. Another is the role of the statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider that expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.
As part of the reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is to bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us to identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact.
I can also reassure hon. Members that the impacts of the SI on both offshore wind developments and the environment will be reviewed. The first report will be published by April 2031, with subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than five years, as required by the regulations. I recognise there may be some concerns about the reforms, particularly where they amend existing and established environmental protections, but let me be clear: this Government remain fully committed to delivering on both our climate and nature ambitions.
In conclusion, the SI implements necessary changes to environmental compensatory requirements to support the expansion of offshore wind deployment. We are confident that it will uphold strong environmental protections while enabling sustainable growth in offshore wind.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address.
First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published?
My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
As I understand it, the purpose of the regulations is to take a pragmatic approach so that developers can develop inshore and offshore wind more quickly by providing a wider range of compensation. If the Government have a change of heart about the development of Rosebank and Jackdaw, does my hon. Friend expect them to take a similar approach to offshore oil and gas?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case.
I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place.
My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs.
The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister share my astonishment that the Scottish Government refuse to talk about so-called spatial squeeze? It is a major issue for the fishing fleet, because it simply cannot trawl in between the wind turbines. The Government appear to deny the existence of the problem, but it is a massive difficulty for the fishing fleet, is it not?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—
The Chair
Order. The Scottish Government have nothing to do with this Parliament. We have to remain in scope.
Robbie Moore
I will absolutely listen to your comments, Mrs Harris. I merely wish to make the point that spatial squeeze is an issue, whether it be north of the border in Scottish waters or south of the border in English waters, where there is a similar challenge to do with offshore wind farm development. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish Government addressing the issue, I would like to understand from the Minister what they are doing to address the concerns about spatial squeeze that our fishermen have raised, and how they will address their concerns in the future.
Briefly, I would like to make a point about the establishment of marine recovery funds. I know it is hoped that marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet they are not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It is also important to note that marine recovery funds are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of marine recovery schemes to be, and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?
To conclude, the central concerns that I present on behalf of the Opposition about the statutory instrument are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, the Opposition support the development of affordable home-grown energy sources, which is why we are fighting so hard to oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North sea.
With all subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer while being responsible and honest caretakers of our ecosystems. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns I have laid out.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. The Liberal Democrats support the expansion of offshore wind and renewables as part of our commitment to achieving 95% decarbonisation of power by 2030. We are equally committed to the principle that climate and nature must be tackled together, not as competing priorities. With carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. But we are concerned that these changes represent a shift away from existing safeguards that prioritise the protection of specific sites towards a more flexible framework that may not always ensure direct or equivalent restoration of affected habitats.
Without sufficient compensation measures, a surge in offshore wind could push declining sea bird populations and other species and habitats over the edge. If rushed and implemented poorly, it could result in the collapse of entire marine ecosystems and undermine the environmental and economic security of those areas. We are further concerned that key details about how this new framework will operate in practice have been left to guidance that has not yet been finalised. That limits Parliament’s ability to fully scrutinise the real-world impact of these changes, and raises questions about how consistent and robust the new framework will be once it is applied. We will therefore abstain on this statutory instrument.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am always pleased to take part in a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I am particularly pleased to speak in this one, given that it reminds us that it is imperative that we build the infrastructure we need for net zero, and ensure that it is backed up with appropriate support and mitigations for the environmental impact it may have. On a similar note, when it comes to onshore wind, I have concerns about how we best understand, avoid and mitigate the impact of building wind turbines. We should ensure that regulation that rightly protects peatlands from housing is extended to energy projects like those.
These regulations are a good example of that awareness. We must understand the impact of renewable energy on nature and act accordingly. I am really glad to see that DEFRA has committed to taking a role, and I am proud to support these regulations in the hope that it continues to do so.
Emma Hardy
I am grateful to hon. Members across the Committee for the considered points they have raised. Without these reforms, vital offshore wind projects will continue to encounter obstacles in securing appropriate environmental compensation measures, delaying progress towards clean renewable energy. This SI puts forward a balanced and pragmatic new approach to the environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind, one that supports faster deployment of renewable energy and, crucially, unlocks new opportunities to improve the health of our marine environment.
I reassure the Committee that environmental protection sits at the heart of this policy, and our commitment to maintaining strong environmental protection remains firm. This SI makes targeted amendments to specific parts of habitats regulation in relation to compensatory measures for offshore wind. Robust environmental safeguards have been put in place to ensure that those changes will not weaken our existing protection, and to ensure continued compliance with all domestic and international environmental commitments.
In response to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, this approach is fully consistent with the Government’s wider environmental ambitions, including our commitment to 30 by 30. The UK has already designated about 38% of our seas as marine protected areas, demonstrating our determination to protect the marine environment at scale. Under the Environment Act 2021, there is a statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features in English waters to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition. We know that some of these sites continue to face significant pressure.
Let me turn to the points on the guidance made by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. In response to the concern that important policy details have not been included in this statutory instrument, I reassure the Committee that we have been fully transparent in the published policy note on what the statutory instrument policy intention is and on what the accompanying guidance will cover. The guidance will explain the key elements of the statutory instrument and how it should be implemented and understood. It will also provide clarity on broader elements of existing habitat regulation requirements.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns regarding the Department’s decision to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament ahead of publishing the draft guidance. However, the statutory instrument is essential in delivering the clean power mission and ensuring that progress is not delayed. Although the guidance is an important supporting document, it is a technical and operational, designed to explain to practitioners how to put the policies into action.
We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders on its content. Alongside that, we have worked closely with the Scottish Government to ensure alignment as far as possible with their respective guidance. I reassure hon. Members that that engagement has strengthened the guidance, ensuring that it will be robust and fit for purpose when published on 21 May.
Robbie Moore
Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.
Emma Hardy
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point on fishermen now—let me rearrange my papers. Regarding the impact of the statutory instrument on fishers, we are actively considering how best to engage marine users, including fishers, in the development of wider compensatory measures, particularly where those measures may affect their activity. Any future compensatory measures enabled by these reforms that could impact the commercial fishing industry will be fully assessed and DEFRA will work closely with the fishing industry to discuss practicalities, ensuring that any proposals are developed and implemented in a fair and workable way.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about spatial squeeze, which is a real issue for the fishing community and one that we certainly recognise in DEFRA. We have looked at the cumulative restrictions on the fisheries from offshore wind, as well as nature protection and how that impacts the spatial squeeze, and the Crown Estate is working with the sector to get its input into the processes to refine sites for future offshore wind leasing.
In many areas, different activities can co-exist and are able to work together. Marine Management Organisation data shows that there is some level of fishing in around 80% of the English sea. Depending on the fishing gear used, fishing can overlap with other activities. For example, fishing can still take place over telecom cables or in some other areas.
Robbie Moore
The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?
Emma Hardy
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of all the people that we have engaged with. I have been reassured by the Department that the engagement has been substantive and extensive across all the different organisations. Of course, if what I have just said is found to be not correct, I will make sure that I correct it for him, but that is certainly my understanding.
How it will work with the marine recovery fund was also mentioned. That fund is exciting, and the statutory instrument works with it to support the acceleration of offshore wind development. By looking at the different types of compensatory measures available for offshore wind impacts, the statutory instrument will increase the number and range of compensatory measures that can be added to the library.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley raised an important point about moving through the hierarchy. To be fair, a number of non-governmental organisations have said that they do not want developers to go straight down, and asked how we ensure that the hierarchy is in place and a developer does not go straight down to tier 3. I welcome the opportunity to expand on that now.
What we are going to be doing—[Interruption.] I have had inspiration—it just arrived; it happens like that sometimes. The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument. I thank my officials for that inspiration.
There are two circumstances where it is permissible to move through the hierarchy, as outlined in the proposed compensatory hierarchy, published in the policy note. The first applies to the availability of measures for a developer to move to tier 2, or in some cases tier 3, if they can demonstrate that no, or insufficient, suitable tier 1 measures are available, or they can progress to tier 3 if no suitable tier 2 measures are available.
The second circumstance allows a developer to progress through the hierarchy if they can demonstrate that doing so will enable a greater ecological benefit. Progression to tier 3 will be allowed only if a developer can demonstrate that no tier 1 or tier 2 measures are available, or where tier 3 measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. Developers must submit clear evidence to the consenting authority who will assess proposals on a case-by-case basis, informed by advice from statutory nature conservation bodies before allowing progression to tier 3.
Where tier 3 is permitted, developers must draw from the library of strategic compensatory measures. Measures can be added to the library only once they have been approved by the relevant Minister. We have tried to put in various safeguards throughout to ensure that tier 3 measures cannot become the default or easy options.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley for the important issues he often raises—I am sure he will continue to do so. He is a passionate supporter of his constituents. I thank him for his support for the statutory instrument. I hope I answered all the questions from all hon. Members. I thank the Committee, and commend to it the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.