Draft Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
(1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The regulations were laid before the House in draft on 19 March. They make targeted but important changes to how we protect endangered species while supporting legitimate and sustainable trade. The regulations are a critical part of the Government’s commitment to securing nature recovery and sustainable economic growth, as outlined in the Corry review, and a practical example of that approach in action.
The UK wildlife trade regulations give effect to our international obligations under the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, or CITES, which ensures that international trade in wild animals and plants is legal and sustainable, and does not threaten species survival. The United Kingdom has long played a leading role internationally in strengthening the convention and combating illegal wildlife trades, and we continue to do so.
In the UK, we deliver CITES controls through a licensing framework administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, APHA. Each year, the agency issues approximately 60,000 permits to businesses and organisations engaged in legal and sustainable trade, ranging from the pet trade to horticulture, cosmetics, zoos, museums and orchestras. While modest in scale, this activity supports diverse livelihoods and interests across the UK, but parts of the system are complex, duplicative and rooted in processes designed for trade within the EU. The draft regulations will modernise that framework. They retain strong protections for endangered species, while removing unnecessary administrative burdens where risk is low. Additionally, they will improve efficiency for businesses and regulators, and strengthen enforcement where needed. When new powers are provided for the Secretary of State, their use will be subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. The measures will be tightly defined, applied in a transparent and consistent way, and informed by scientific advice, and only with a clear conservation or welfare justification to do so.
The draft instrument amends four pieces of assimilated EU law and revokes one that is no longer required. Together, the changes strengthen conservation protections, while allowing the digitisation and modernisation of admin processes. We designed the reforms using a precautionary risk-based approach, informed by consultation with environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives, enforcement bodies and the UK’s scientific authorities. That input ensures that protections for species at risk of over-exploitation not only remain firmly in place, but are enhanced where the evidence supports doing so.
Let me set out each of the key changes in turn. First, for some low-risk species, the existing system goes further than necessary. Export permits issued by the exporting country confirm sustainability, while import permits issued by the UK authorities add a further layer of due diligence. For the most threatened species, that extra scrutiny is absolutely right and will remain, but for species at lower risk, the draft regulations will allow for a lighter touch import notification instead, so that we keep oversight and traceability while cutting out unnecessary duplication and delay for legitimate businesses. We will identify low-risk species using the best available scientific evidence. Examples may include species of artificially propagated plants, such as orchids and cacti, from highly compliant destinations where the risk of specimens being taken from the wild is negligible. These will be kept under close review and revised if risks or trade patterns change.
Secondly, the regulations streamline the article 10 certificate system that governs domestic trade in the most vulnerable species. Many UK businesses legally breed CITES-listed species or produce derived goods for export. At present, that can require both an article 10 certificate and a separate export permit. In future, in clearly defined cases to be outlined in guidance, the draft regulations will allow an export or re-export permit to serve as an article 10 certificate for a limited six-month period, which reduces duplication while keeping necessary safeguards firmly in place.
The draft regulations also introduce an exemption from article 10 controls for three low-risk Mediterranean tortoise species—I am sorry that I do not have the Latin names to hand, because I would have enjoyed saying them—obviously, when trading them domestically, as they cannot live in the wild here in the UK. These species are widely and legally captive-bred, and they are not yet found in the wild in the UK—although who knows? At some point, that might change. The existing controls were designed to protect wild populations elsewhere in Europe, but in a Great Britain-only context, they add little conservation benefit. Importantly, all import and export controls will remain in place, ensuring continued protection against illegal or unsustainable trade.
Thirdly, the draft regulations will deliver practical improvements for touring orchestras and travelling exhibitions—as a former violinist, that is particularly close to my heart. This will be done through recognising certificates issued from other countries, as well as allowing agents to apply on behalf of performers. The effect will be to remove unnecessary duplication and, critically, to support cultural exchange without weakening important conservation controls.
Fourthly, the draft regulations set clear criteria for the temporary designation of ports of entry for CITES specimens. This mechanism will be used, for example, to support urgent conservation or animal welfare cases. These provisions cannot be used for commercial trade and apply only where the necessary staff expertise and safeguards for effective checks are in place.
We estimate that all these changes and amendments in the draft regulations will cut permit volumes by up to 30% each year, which is in the region of 20,000 fewer permits being issued every year. This should generate significant savings for businesses and the regulator, contributing to the Prime Minister’s target to cut the administrative costs of regulation by 25%.
The draft regulations also strengthen enforcement in cases of non-compliance by extending the use of civil sanctions. We will apply civil sanctions to six additional existing offences under the CITES regulations and the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. These offences involve using, obtaining, trading or transporting CITES specimens without valid permits or with false, altered or misused documentation. This change fills a gap between issuing a warning letter and a criminal prosecution, allowing regulators to respond proportionately while maintaining a strong deterrence. However, criminal sanctions will continue to be used where they are to be deemed proportionate to the infraction. We will publish statutory guidance before the civil sanctions are brought into force, ensuring that the application is consistent and fair.
The draft regulations strengthen the implementation of our international CITES obligations. They uphold high standards of species protection and animal welfare, and they ensure that regulation is targeted where it is most needed. We will continue working closely with stakeholders to support implementation and ongoing compliance. Taken together, they strike the right balance between rigorous protection and practical delivery, safeguarding nature while allowing legitimate, responsible activity to proceed. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this important statutory instrument. At a time when the Government have imposed significant new costs and burdens on businesses via their damaging economic policies, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are pleasantly surprised to see the Minister introducing measures to seek to reduce administrative tasks for both traders and regulators. We will, however, seek reassurance from her on a few key points, especially in relation to safety.
Under the regulations, the Secretary of State will be given powers to determine which additional specimens require an import notification rather than an import permit. Can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will be guided only by scientific evidence, and will the criteria used for making such a decision be published? Is she confident that the Secretary of State’s determinations will be regularly reviewed? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that any specimens deemed to be low risk initially but later flagged as high risk are identified to ensure swift action?
When consulting on the changes, it was found that businesses and trade groups viewed article 10 certificates as burdensome and unnecessary under CITES, favouring self-certification and use of export or re-export permits to reduce costs and duplication. In contrast, conservation NGOs and enforcement agencies supported retaining the current system to ensure traceability, prevent illegal trade and uphold environmental commitments. There was, however, broad support for proportionate regulation, so there is a balance to be struck.
Will the Minister assure the Committee that this SI will in no way water down our strong commitments under CITES to protect endangered species? It would be good to get a clear commitment on that. The Minister in the other place was asked to provide reassurance that the Government’s ongoing sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU will not undermine the changes. Can this Minister confirm whether that is the case, or whether the Government’s negotiations might render any of the changes redundant?
What is the Government’s current position on protecting endangered species? Last year, we marked 10 years since the tragic killing of Cecil the lion, a moment that caught the world’s attention, ignited global outrage and inspired the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies into the UK, but despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Sadly, Cecil’s story was not unique, and every year trophy hunters kill tens of thousands precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice that should be consigned to the history books. Those majestic animals should be shot only with cameras, not lethal weapons. The King’s Speech made no reference to animal welfare and no reference to action to protect endangered species. When will the Government act to end the importation of hunting trophies?
Here in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am also proud of the work the Conservatives did on animal welfare in government, such as banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024; banning the keeping of primates as pets; passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024; increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; enshrining animal sentience in UK law with the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, and establishing the Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. I was delighted to co-sponsor the Conservative-initiated and drafted Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 and to support again the passage of the Conservative-initiated and drafted Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury.
We are talking about the importation of products and things that can compromise the biosecurity of the United Kingdom, so it is key that the Government keep a watching brief on this. In that spirit, I put on the record my thanks to all those involved in supporting the UK’s biosecurity standards. The UK’s CITES regime is administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which the Minister cited, with advice from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and is delivered by Border Force and the police. Those bodies are all fighting on the frontlines to keep our nation safe and our biosecurity firing on all cylinders.
The UK sees ever-rising risk from biosecurity threats, amid the advance of foot and mouth disease and African swine fever across Europe, on top of avian influenza, bluetongue virus and tuberculosis, which are already in the United Kingdom. We are all deeply indebted to the staff who keep our country safe. I again stress the importance of the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and thank its staff for all that they do. Although we should always look to introduce efficiencies, which is what this SI is about, we must do so safely. Ensuring that we have safe, robust systems that are kept under review must be a priority for the Government. The case for that has never been more urgent.
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important points and for contributing to the debate. I say “citeez” and he says “cites”—let’s call the whole thing off. We will have to agree to differ on the pronunciation, but I will respond on to the important work that he cited. He rightly paid tribute to Border Force and Customs and Excise officials involved in the operations to track down and detect illegal wildlife trade. Members in all parts of the House are in passionate agreement on wanting to eradicate that trade.
The other day, I had the privilege of seeing the Animal and Plant Health Agency exhibit at the Chelsea flower show. Last year, it discussed the Colorado potato beetle, which thankfully has now been eradicated. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the biosecurity risk: if such animals got in—for instance, if somebody brought a brightly coloured beetle back from America and it suddenly hit the potato crop—we would be in a world of trouble. This year, APHA had a sniffer dog who was trained to help by sniffing out infected and diseased wood; later that day, the dog had the privilege of meeting His Majesty the King. World-leading science is going on in our Animal and Plant Health Agency.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the role his party played in banning keeping primates as pets. I was heading up to Manchester on an Avanti West Coast train when an animal, which turned out to be a spider monkey, escaped from its holder. Sadly, the wi-fi on the train was quite shonky, but I was pretty certain that it was illegal to have a monkey as a pet. It was being kept in a transparent cat carrier, and by the time we got to Manchester, I was feeling like saying, “See it, say it, sorted—there’s a monkey on the train.” My first thought was, “Does it have rabies? I don’t want to be bitten,” and my second was, “I’m pretty certain that this animal is not being kept in an enclosure that is suitable for its needs,” so I reported it to the British Transport Police. I also took a photo of the person who had the monkey, but given that, when asked by somebody on the train, he said that he had gotten it off a bloke at a market, I felt pretty certain that there was no CITES certificate for the monkey and that it had been brought into the country illegally. There is a point about legislation, about enforcement and about what you actually do when you see a monkey on the train.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the new deal for the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement and CITES controls. CITES is not currently in the scope of the SPS agreement negotiations. The CITES convention allows for the waiving of controls only where a comprehensive customs union agreement, such as the EU customs union, is in place, so any SPS agreement would not provide a sufficient basis for the waiving of CITES controls between the UK and the EU. However, the reforms in the statutory instrument seek to reduce the burden of CITES controls for movement to and from the UK. Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the border and the police enforce them inland. The amendments in the statutory instrument will support their efforts by introducing civil sanctions and other changes, giving them a greater range of tools to help the targeting of efforts to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the article 10 regime. We have taken a deliberately targeted and risk-based approach to article 10 certificates. We have not removed the framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering. We have simplified requirements in a very small number of low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit, or where there is duplicate paperwork. Those changes do not weaken protections. They apply only in a very small number of low-risk circumstances, and strong controls remain firmly in place for higher risk species and activities. We will keep that under review and consider further changes where they are supported by the scientific evidence.
On the import of annex B, we have taken a targeted and risk-based approach on those import permits as well. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling higher-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited, low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or duplicate paperwork. Import permits remain firmly in place for higher-risk species and activities, and core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply.
A low-risk list will be developed and kept under review based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence. All annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, and the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight so that we can respond to changes in risk.
Dr Hudson
The Minister is talking about low risk and high risk, and I welcome her comments. Can she give categoric reassurances that the Department and all the enforcement agencies can actually flip to make sure that we can clamp down and change and classify something as high risk if it was classified as low risk initially but subsequent evidence then shows that it has become a higher risk? It needs to be dynamic. Can the Minister assure us of that?
Mary Creagh
I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. One of the things that we are currently discussing in CITES is the classification of funga. I know the hon. Gentleman is a fun guy—that is my attempt at a joke. I better not do that again.
Mary Creagh
Okay, I will do some more then—play to the gallery shamelessly.
Funga, as it is called, is neither flora nor fauna. It is a third form of life. With the brilliant mycologists at Kew, we are looking at how to protect fungi in the wild, and at how we bring them in and out. That is because as mushroom kits get more popular, that causes issues for some of our native plants.
The annex B imports list will be drawn up in consultation with the scientific board, and it will be readily reviewed and published. Other activity and work will continue. I can assure the hon. Member for Epping Forest that in other parts of the Department we have adopted a much lower risk appetite for certain other things than was originally recommended to us. We are also developing a process whereby the chief scientific adviser also reviews some of that. As Ministers, if there is any science advice from different agencies that we are concerned about, we have a kind of peer review process on the science.
I really do take the hon. Gentleman’s point about ferns that have almost become extinct in Brazil because of the actions of Victorian plant hunters who stole them, not for their intrinsic value, but just to grow orchids in greenhouses back here. That shows the despoliation that has been going on for at least 200 years since Darwin brought his first samples back on the Beagle. I will be going to Kew on Thursday to do the final digitisation of some of these herbarium samples. They are just incredible and our gift to the world.
Semi-complete, pre-issued permits are currently used in limited circumstances for businesses that meet strict criteria and have shown consistent compliance over time. We will seek to extend their use for certain low-risk imports and exports of live annex B and C specimens to speed up processing for genuinely compliant traders and to reduce routine administrative delay. That is not an automatic entitlement; eligibility will continue to be assessed case by case by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Standard permits may still be required where they are appropriate. Any abuse of the system will lead to appropriate enforcement action, including revocation of eligibility to use semi-complete permits.
We are retaining annex D, which plays an important early warning role in monitoring trade in species and responding to emerging trade risks for vulnerable species—whatever is in fashion on the Instagram reels at the moment—as the shadow Minister rightly said. At the same time, we are modernising how annex D operates by digitising import permits, which will reduce time and expense for businesses. We will continue to keep those species under review, based on scientific evidence.
Moving to the shadow Minister’s questions about animal welfare—I hope that I answered the permit questions adequately—I am grateful for his co-operation on getting the puppy-smuggling ban through. That was a great moment. As a Government, we are committed to delivering the most ambitious animal welfare programme in a generation, as set out in our animal welfare strategy, published in December 2025. Our trade strategy set out that the Government will always consider whether overseas produce has an unfair advantage. Where necessary, we will be prepared to use the full range of powers at our disposal to protect the UK’s most sensitive sectors.
The 2025 puppy-smuggling Act will close loopholes in the non-commercial pet-travel rules that are abused by unscrupulous traders, and it will give us powers to prevent the supply of low-welfare pets into the UK. We will use the powers to prohibit bringing into Great Britain, puppies and kittens under six months old, dogs and cats with non-exempt mutilations; and heavily pregnant dogs and cats. We are committed to introducing those measures as soon as possible, while recognising the importance of timely development to ensure against any loopholes that could be open to abuse.
The EU accepted that in a number of areas under the SPS agreement we need to retain our own rules. We were clear about the importance of our need to be able to set those high-welfare standards. The EU introduced new rules for pet travel on 22 April. They affect the non-commercial movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets entering the EU from Great Britain. The changes mean that the validity period of animal health certificates has increased to six months; EU pet passports are now restricted to EU residents; pets travelling without their owner must have written authorisation confirming movement within five days of the owner’s movement; and the non-commercial travel limit is now five pets per private vehicle or foot passenger, not per person.
Both Houses have tried to ban trophy hunting several times through private Members’ Bills, only to have them fall in the other place. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure full understanding of the issues, and we continue to engage with the relevant stakeholders to determine the most appropriate scope of a ban on the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern. They are listed in the appendices to CITES according to the threat that international trade poses to their conservation status. We remain committed to bringing forward a ban on the import of hunting trophies as the most effective way of delivering on our manifesto commitment. Legislative timeframes will be provided once the parliamentary timetable is clearer.
The draft regulations will modernise an important regulatory framework, so that it works effectively for Great Britain. The regulations will support legitimate trade and keep protections firmly focused on the species and risks that matter most. There will be practical improvements for businesses and regulators, while we maintain the UK’s strong record of meeting our international wildlife conservation obligations. With that, I hope that I have addressed the issues raised and that we can move to approving the instrument. I thank all hon. colleagues present for their patience and I pay tribute to my officials for their work.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. The draft regulations aim to improving the effectiveness of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime. Money laundering is not a victimless crime. It fuels serious organised crime that damages our high streets and ruins the lives of people who fall victim to fraud, human trafficking and the drugs trade. It undermines the UK’s reputation as a safe and secure place to do business and, in doing so, undermines the interests of legitimate businesses.
As new technologies emerge and criminals find new ways to launder illicit funds, the Government are taking action to turn the tide on dirty money. This includes a new high street organised crime unit, which is being set up by the National Crime Agency, backed by £30 million of additional funding over the next three years. It will target cash-intensive businesses, such as barbershops, vape stores, mini-marts and sweetshops, which are exploited by criminal groups to conceal their activities.
The draft regulations represent a significant update to the money laundering regulations, which require financial institutions and other regulated businesses to take measures to avoid being used by criminals to launder the proceeds of crime, and to ensure that any attempts to do so are detected and flagged to law enforcement. They will make a number of changes to ensure that regulatory requirements are proportionate and risk-based, while closing loopholes and making the regime clearer and easier to use. This reflects the Government’s determination to build a more effective anti-money laundering system, sitting alongside the major reforms announced last year to our anti-money laundering supervision regime.
The draft regulations consist of measures on four core themes: making customer due diligence more proportionate and effective; strengthening system co-ordination; closing loopholes in coverage; and reforming registration requirements for the trust registration service. They will also make minor and technical changes to improve consistency and ensure that the UK complies with the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard-setter on anti-money laundering.
First, the measures on customer due diligence aim to ensure that the checks required on customers are proportionate to the risks. This includes the removal of the requirement for regulated businesses to apply enhanced due diligence checks on countries listed by the FATF as “jurisdictions under increased monitoring”; these are countries found by the FATF to have strategic deficiencies in their regimes. The FATF does not require these checks, and the Government expect that permitting more flexibility here will enable firms to focus their scrutiny on the most serious risks to the UK, as set out in the latest national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Government estimate that this change alone will generate savings of £178 million per year for regulated firms, which can then be reinvested in higher-value compliance activity that identifies genuinely suspicious activity.
Other changes on customer due diligence include important measures to increase the availability of pooled client accounts for businesses with a legitimate need, and to facilitate continued access to banking services for customers in the event of a bank insolvency.
I turn to system co-ordination. The draft regulations will make changes to strengthen co-operation and information-sharing between anti-money laundering supervisors and other public bodies such as Companies House, which plays an increasingly integral role in the UK’s defences against illicit finance.
To close gaps in coverage, the draft regulations will bring the activity of selling off-the-shelf firms within the scope of regulated activities. They will also make changes to ensure that owners of cryptoasset firms do not escape fit and proper checks by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Finally, I turn to the trust registration service. The draft regulations will make a number of changes to close loopholes that would be leveraged to obscure asset ownership; to improve transparency of beneficial ownership of trusts with significant UK connections; and to refine registration requirements for other types of trust.
In summary, the draft regulations contain measures to build a stronger, more risk-based and therefore more effective anti-money laundering regime. I commend them to the Committee.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her new role. As she has set out, the draft regulations will make targeted changes to the UK’s money laundering regime, which is central to efforts to fight economic crime and terrorist financing. Since its introduction, there have been various changes underpinned by the international standards to which the Minister referred. The consultation on improving the regulatory system and the effectiveness of the money laundering regulations began under the last Conservative Government, so I am happy to confirm to the Minister that the Opposition will support the draft regulations. However, I have some questions to which I would be grateful for a response.
The draft regulations will amend the customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence provisions so that they apply to “unusually complex” rather than just “complex” transactions, as well as to “unusually large” transactions. They will replace the broader grey list of “high-risk third countries” with the tighter “Call for Action” black list, so that North Korea, Iran and Myanmar are automatically covered. However, Syria and Yemen, for example, will no longer be covered. We support a risk-based proportionate approach, but what reassurance can the Minister provide that this change will not undermine efforts to tackle illicit finance?
This is a rare example of deregulation from this Government. Having sat in a Committee Room going through 536 pages of the last Finance Bill, I simply say, “More, please!” Given the Government’s warning that firms may respond with overly cautious gold-plated compliance, what steps are being taken to ensure that the savings of £178 million a year to which the Minister referred will be realised?
Where a bank goes insolvent, the draft regulations will allow accounts to be opened for transferred customers before full due diligence is complete, with checks being carried out “as soon as practicable”. That makes sense, as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank. However, the Treasury recognises in its explanatory memorandum that this measure does not deal with all the associated issues. How will the Minister and the Government deal with those issues?
On crypto, the draft regulations align with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 reforms, which is welcome, to apply due diligence checks. I note that the draft regulations will allow for a nine-month implementation period before those obligations apply. In a fast-moving sector, is the Minister confident that that will not open a window of vulnerability? How are the Government engaging with the sector to ensure that it is ready for these changes?
On trusts, the changes will both expand and narrow the trust registration service. Given the complexity in this area, and the Government’s admission that previous rules missed some trusts, how will HM Revenue and Customs prevent sophisticated actors from structuring around the rules, while ensuring that smaller, legitimate trusts can comply?
The draft regulations will explicitly require agents to carry out due diligence when selling off-the-shelf companies. The quantitative data on the prevalence and misuse of those companies is limited, since neither Companies House nor HMRC systematically tracks that activity, so there is a clear gap in the data. I appreciate that for that reason the Minister will not be able to provide an exact figure, but does she have an estimate of how widespread the abuse is around the tens of thousands of companies, if not more, that are registered each year?
As a result of the changes, the Government estimate that £1.5 billion-worth of net benefits will be delivered over the next 10 years, but the impact assessment, which I am sure all hon. Members have studied closely, makes it clear that much of the evidence is qualitative and that the costs have not been robustly quantified. The Treasury has not attempted to monetise some of the proposals to provide a broader analysis of the impact. Colleagues who served on the last Finance Bill Committee will be aware of the interest that the Opposition take in impact assessments. Can the Minister explain why more of the benefits that are supposed to come from these regulations have not been monetised in the way the due diligence checks have? How confident is she that they will deliver the promised savings over the next decade?
Finally, the Minister will know that when changes of this magnitude come in, they affect the sectors involved and the 95,000 companies that will be required to carry out some or all of these checks. They are looking for clear guidance to help interpret the regulations. Perhaps she could give an indication as to when such guidance will be provided to the sector.
As I say, we launched the consultation on changing the regulations, and we support the direction of travel, but I hope the Minister will be able to address some of my points.
Rachel Blake
I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk for his analysis and for his support for the draft regulations. I am grateful to him for saying that he hopes I will be able to address some of his points, because I wrote down all nine themes. Whether I can address them all as fully as I would like, I am not sure.
I am glad that he raised the Financial Action Task Force list, because I have spent some time over the past few days considering its impact. He is absolutely right to probe on the justification and the approach that will be taken. Some countries on the FATF increased monitoring list are recognised as presenting regional more than international risks, perhaps due to the lack of a specialist in the internationally facing financial sector or due to strict currency controls. The FATF recommends mandatory enhanced due diligence only for countries on the separate “Call for Action” list, which the hon. Member highlighted. That will mean that there is still an opportunity for enhanced due diligence, but the focus will be on those countries that are mandated by the Financial Action Task Force. This is an area for continued scrutiny, and that is something that I will do.
The hon. Member asked about the realisation of savings. Those savings were estimated in terms of the sector, and there is an expectation that it is the sector that will focus on delivering them.
A bank insolvency is obviously a very unusual event, and we are putting in place the appropriate measures to respond to that. The timing of the approach to crypto and vulnerabilities will relate to changes in controlled provisions; I believe that they will come into force for crypto firms on 25 October 2027, which will coincide with the introduction of new financial services regulatory regimes for cryptoassets.
I will come back to the hon. Member on the estimated impact and the evidence base for off-the-shelf companies. He asked for further information about the impact assessment and why more benefits cannot be monetised; I hope that he will accept a written response.
I am confident that the draft regulations will take us further forward in tackling money laundering.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Following EU exit, the Government have been reviewing retained EU law to ensure that it functions clearly and effectively within the UK domestic framework. The draft regulations will ensure that the UK’s high standards for the use of animals in scientific research continue to operate clearly and effectively in domestic law. The regulations were laid on 25 March 2026 using powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023.
The regulations make technical amendments to retained EU legislation relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures. They preserve existing animal protection safeguards, responsibilities and enforcement powers within a clear UK legislative framework, and assure transparency of operation. They do not create new permissions for animal testing, nor do they reduce the rigorous standards that establishments and individuals licensed to use animals for scientific purposes must meet.
The UK operates one of the most robust regulatory systems in the world, founded on the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Under that framework, animals may be used only when there is no viable alternative, with the number of animals used kept to the minimum necessary and with methods refined to reduce suffering. Those requirements are enforced through a comprehensive system of licensing, inspection, audit and enforcement by the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.
Alongside the primary legislation, animal welfare standards are supported by the code of practice for the housing and care of animals bred, supplied or used for scientific purposes. The code sets out the minimum standards that licensed establishments must meet for the care and accommodation of animals used in scientific work. Compliance with the code is a condition of holding a licence. The regulations ensure that the code remains legally effective within the UK framework, so that the same high standards continue to apply.
The use of animals in science attracts significant public interest, and it is right that it is subject to robust scrutiny given the important welfare and ethical considerations involved. The Government’s position on animal testing is clear: we are committed to working towards our long-term vision in which animal testing is replaced in all but exceptional circumstances. That is why, in November 2025, we published the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, backed by £75 million of investment to accelerate the development, validation and uptake of non animal methods. It includes commitments to establish a UK centre for the validation of alternative methods, to create a preclinical translational models’ hub, and to expand challenge-led innovation for alternative methods.
At the same time, there remains an immediate need for the use of animals in some areas of scientific research and testing to protect human and animal health and the environment. When we rely on medicines and medical technologies, we rely on rigorous safety testing that, in some cases, still requires the use of animals. Where animals must still be used, it is essential that they are protected by a rigorous and enforceable regulatory system. That is exactly what the regulations do. They preserve existing protections through a framework designed to minimise harm, drive continuous improvement and ensure that animal research is conducted responsibly and only when truly necessary.
The regulations provide legal clarity, following EU exit, to ensure that the UK’s high protection and welfare standards continue to be upheld. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Twigg, for your chairmanship. Fortunately for Members, I will be brief.
The regulations before the Committee, together with the Minister’s comments and the assurances in the accompanying documentation, show that the legislation is limited in scope. Maintaining the current regulatory standard while updating it to be wholly in line with our post-EU relationship is clearly the right thing to do and the right step for the Government to take. Appropriately, the measure does not change the regulatory burden but retains the existing standards.
I have some questions for the Minister about the change and what the Government intend to do regarding ASPA—the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act—after June. As the explanatory memorandum recognises, any further changes will require primary legislation. I recognise that this challenge has been noted across Government, and that certain Departments are taking steps to respond to it. Is the Minister confident that the Home Office will have the capability to make the changes it needs to?
The consideration of animals in scientific procedures can often be fraught, with strongly held views on the subject. Given the sometimes arbitrary division of responsibilities between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, what steps is the Minister taking to work across Government and with DSIT to ensure that the right regulations are in place to meet targets such as the 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates by 2030?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats support this legislation. The regulations do not change existing policy but provide an updated legal framework for the regulation of animal use in scientific procedures. However, clearer animal welfare standards must be accompanied by stronger action from the Government. We should be working to minimise the use of animals in scientific experimentation, end animal testing in the cosmetics industry, and properly fund the development of humane alternatives. If the Government want Britain to be a world leader in animal welfare, they must go further and bring forward a comprehensive animal health and welfare Bill worthy of that goal.
Sarah Jones
I thank Members for their brief but excellent contributions. On how we will work with DSIT and continue to improve experimentation on animals to make sure that we always push the standards we need to push, there is a whole package of work in the £75 million plan we have announced that will take us further and faster. Many colleagues across the House have campaigned for something called Herbie’s law, and measures in our reforms include timebound action plans, progress reporting and public expert advisory committees.
There is a whole programme of work, but the three Rs—replacement, refinement and reduction—bind together everything we do in respect of animal testing. We cannot use animals in research unless we absolutely have to. As the research and technology improve, we will use animals less. We have to use the minimum number of animals through the reduction process, and we have to use the experiments that cause the least harm through the refinement programme.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about ASPA; we have set up a cross-departmental ministerial team to deliver the strategy, led by my colleague Lord Hanson, with Lord Vallance and with Baroness Hayman from the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. I hope that reassures Members and, once again, commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.