Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 19 March 2026. They reflect the Government’s commitment to securing strong outcomes for nature recovery while supporting sustainable economic growth, as outlined in the Corry review. The regulations are a practical example of that approach in action.

The UK’s wildlife trade regulations give effect to our international obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES exists to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants is legal and sustainable and does not threaten the survival of species. The United Kingdom has long played a leading international role in strengthening the convention and combating illegal wildlife trade, and we continue to do so.

Domestically, CITES controls are implemented through a strict licensing framework administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Every year, approximately 60,000 permits are issued 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 overall scale, this activity supports diverse livelihoods and interests across the UK.

However, parts of the current system are complex, duplicative and rooted in processes designed for trade within the EU. These regulations therefore modernise this framework. They retain strong protections for endangered species while removing unnecessary administrative burdens where risk is low, improving efficiency for businesses and regulators and strengthening enforcement where needed. The instrument amends four pieces of assimilated EU law and revokes one that is no longer required. Taken together, the amendments strengthen conservation protections while allowing the digitisation and modernisation of administrative processes.

The reforms reflect a precautionary, risk-based approach and have been informed by consultation with environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives, enforcement bodies and the UK’s scientific authorities. This ensures that protections for species at risk of overexploitation not only remain firmly in place but are enhanced where the evidence supports doing so.

Let me now outline some of the key changes. First, for some low-risk species, the current system goes further than it needs to. Export permits issued by the exporting country confirm sustainability. Import permits issued by the UK authorities add a further layer of due diligence. For the most threatened species, that extra layer of scrutiny is absolutely right and will remain. However, for lower-risk species, these regulations will allow a lighter-touch import notification instead, meaning that we will keep oversight and traceability while cutting out unnecessary duplication and delay for legitimate businesses. Low-risk species will be identified based on the best available scientific evidence; examples of this could include some species of artificially propagated plants from highly compliant destinations. These will also be kept under close review if risks or trade patterns change.

Secondly, the regulations streamline our Article 10 certificate system, which supports how we control 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 mean the need for an Article 10 certificate and a separate export permit. In clearly defined cases, to be outlined in guidance, these regulations will allow an export or re-export permit to serve as an Article 10 certificate for a limited six-month period; this will reduce duplication while, at the same time, keeping any necessary safeguards in place.

In addition, the regulations will introduce a targeted exemption from Article 10 controls for three low-risk Mediterranean tortoise species when traded domestically. These species are widely and legally captive bred and are not found in the wild in the UK. The existing controls were designed to protect wild populations elsewhere in Europe but, in a Great Britain-only context, they now deliver limited additional conservation benefits. Importantly, all import and export controls will remain fully in place, ensuring continued protection against illegal or unsustainable trade.

Thirdly, the regulations will deliver practical improvements for touring orchestras and travelling exhibitions. By recognising certificates issued by other countries and allowing agents to apply on behalf of performers, they will remove unnecessary duplication and support cultural exchange without weakening important conservation controls.

Fourthly, the regulations set out clear criteria for the temporary designation of ports of entry for CITES specimens—for example, to support urgent conservation or animal welfare cases. These provisions cannot be used for commercial trade and apply only where the necessary expertise and safeguards for effective checks are in place.

We estimate that these changes, as well as the other proposed amendments in the regulations, will reduce the number of permits issued by up to 30% each year; that is in the region of 20,000 fewer permits being issued every year. This will generate significant savings for businesses and the regulator, contributing to the Prime Minister’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulation by 25%.

The regulations will also strengthen enforcement for cases of non-compliance by extending the use of civil sanctions. We will apply civil sanctions to six additional existing offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations and the Customs and Excise Management Act. These offences include using, obtaining, trading or transporting CITES specimens without valid permits or using false, altered or misused documentation. This fills a gap between issuing a warning letter and a criminal prosecution, allowing regulators to respond proportionately while maintaining a strong deterrent. Criminal sanctions will continue to be used where they are deemed proportionate to the infraction. Statutory guidance will be published prior to the civil sanctions being brought into force, ensuring that their application is both consistent and fair.

In conclusion, these regulations will strengthen our implementation of international obligations, uphold high standards of species protection and animal welfare, and ensure that regulation is targeted where it is most needed. The Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders to support effective implementation and ongoing compliance. Taken together, they strike the right balance between rigorous protection and practical delivery, safeguarding nature while allowing legitimate and responsible activity to proceed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose as we race towards the end of this Session. Everyone should be able to enjoy our natural environment. We have a duty to ensure that future generations inherit a world defined by biodiversity, not decline. It is important, therefore, that we look beyond administrative modernisation to its practical impact on the protection of endangered species. The United Kingdom has the potential to demonstrate great leadership in conservation, but that leadership depends on maintaining our strong, credible and enforceable standards. We on these Benches have consistently argued for a fair deal for the environment, including a commitment that trade and imports should not undercut our very high standards of animal welfare and environmental protections.

Against that backdrop, I have some concerns about the direction taken in these regulations. First, there is a shift towards ministerial discretion. The regulations provide for additional measures and restrictions to be set out through guidance, rather than being clearly defined in legislation. Although flexibility may have its place, the use of guidance in areas of environmental protection raises issues around transparency, consistency and accountability. Clear, statutory rules provide certainty for enforcement bodies, businesses and the public. If greater reliance is to be placed on this guidance, we must have reassurance that it will not weaken oversight or reduce clarity in practice.

Secondly, on the simplification of permit and certificate requirements, efficient systems are important—no one would wish to impose unnecessary administrative burdens, and we welcome the progress on that—but simplification cannot create unintended opportunities for exploitation. Changes affecting so-called low-risk movements, including for certain Annex B specimens, for example, require careful scrutiny. Even limited relaxations in documentation can, if not properly designed and monitored, create openings for the illegal wildlife trade, whether in exotic pets, hunting trophies or wildlife-derived products such as fur.

Thirdly, the regulations do not address a long-standing concern raised by conservation organisations: the absence of a clear domestic offence covering the trade in wildlife that has been illegally sourced in its country of origin. Without such a provision, there remains a risk that the UK could be used, however unintentionally, as a market for products that have contributed to environmental harm elsewhere. If the Government are serious about tackling biodiversity loss globally, this is an issue that needs attention.

More broadly, it is important that any changes to this framework do not result in the UK falling behind comparable international standards. Our approach should be to maintain and, where possible, strengthen protections. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, how will the Government ensure that the increased use of guidance provides the same level of transparency and legal certainty as provisions set out in legislation? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the risk that simplified permit requirements for Annex B specimens, as I explained earlier, could be exploited; and what safeguards will be in place to prevent abuse? Thirdly, will the Government either reconsider the case for introducing a domestic offence, covering the trade in wildlife illegally sourced aboard, or commit to reviewing this issue within a defined timeframe? These are not small, technical matters—they go to the heart of whether this framework will operate as an effective tool for conservation.

Finally, although I recognise the intention to streamline the system, I look forward to us being reassured that these changes will maintain robust protection, support enforcement and uphold the UK’s reputation as a responsible actor in global wildlife conservation.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, listening to this debate, it becomes apparent just how diverse our nation’s agriculture is. For every remark by one speaker, there is probably someone who knows about agriculture in a different part of the country, in a different sector, where it is not directly relevant. But the message that comes across—and I declare my interests in agriculture in Cumbria, which the Minister knows about—has the same effect: what ought to be a profitable activity, providing public goods, which is not merely food but a whole range of other things, becomes unsustainable quite simply because it does not pay. It does not matter how you look at this; at the end of the year, if income and expenditure do not balance, then that enterprise cannot survive for all that long.

I think that government has an important role to play in every advanced western society. The Government provide a framework around which farming, agriculture and land use functions, not least because the consequences of what is done are so important in widely varying ways to other parts of the economy. What worries me about the debates on agriculture in this country is that, if agriculture is not sustainable and if the businesses, be they big or small, become unsustainable and cannot survive on their own commercial terms, either because they cannot generate enough revenue from husbandry or other land use activities that they carry out, or, equally important, because of the incidence of tax that they will have to pay—it is no good thinking that an inheritance tax is a kind of one-off thing; the reality is that you have to put aside money year on year in order to build up a reserve or, alternatively, borrow money which then has to be paid off over a long period to pay off the debt that is owed to the state—we will continue in a world where many of those who are operating in a smaller way in the agricultural sector are on standards of living below those promised to the employed sector by the minimum wage.

That is not the basis for a long-term, sustainable, rural, agricultural food sector. I believe that we will end up, if we are not careful, in those kinds of circumstances, because the analysis that is necessary behind working out what the policy needs to be is not the kind of thing that is simply learned in an economics course or an agricultural economics course at a university. It depends on an understanding of the realities of what carrying out this business entails. My concern about the context of the debate this evening is that policy is not being made with sufficient understanding and recognition of the realities of what is underlying this whole part of the economy. If you do that, it will not work. Already in agriculture, the rate of return that people expect is probably 2% or 3%. Who in the commercial world—I have chaired some commercial companies—will invest getting the rates of return that you get from agriculture?

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It was fine; they are good words. But good words are not enough here. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who normally sits across the Chamber, said on a number of occasions, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. The litmus test for agricultural policy, like every other policy, is: is it engendering a sector of the economy that is working in the public interest? I am deeply concerned that the way in which it is being approached by the present Administration is not going to bring that about.

Finally, as somebody who is also about to leave, I would like to add my sentiments to what a number of others have said about the way in which the whole infrastructure of the House has supported my work here. I make a particular reference to the nurse, whose name I never knew, who identified that I got sepsis and sent me straightaway to hospital.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Sorry, I was so fascinated—I was pondering the thought.

I thank the Minister for setting out with such clarity this statutory instrument and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing forward his regret amendment, which has created an opportunity for a much broader-ranging and, I think we can agree, interesting debate. It has been an absolute privilege to be here for the last speeches by, for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Inglewood. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on various issues—sometimes we did not agree on one or two of them, it must be said—and with my colleague on the Conduct Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is a fairly typical in-the-background public service to protect the reputation of this place, for which he should be thanked and we should be enormously grateful. It is fitting that we have heard from so many experts, particularly on this area.

On the regulations before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long-term foundation in our view for supporting agriculture. We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform cannot mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. In a way, the question before us tonight is not whether the change is needed but whether this stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those most affected; we have heard evidence that it is not.

The first concern is the pace and scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change, yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available. For businesses operating on tight margins, that creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long-term planning. A transition, as we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining the very resilience it is expected and hoped to build.

Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going. I appreciate that the Minister set out some of this in her opening remarks, but the NFU—I thank it for its briefing—has made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes. It says that there remains a lack of clarity, and in some cases confidence, about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.

Thirdly, there is the impact on different types of farm. Smaller and family-run farms are often less able to absorb sudden changes in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support will become unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. We have heard already about the economic consequences of that.

There is the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. We believe the shift away from direct payment is justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focused system, but that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers participating fully in new schemes, we risk weakening farm viability and environmental progress at the same time. The position of these Benches is therefore balanced; we support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support, but we share the concerns of this Chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.

I have three brief questions but, as we are nearly at the end of the Session, if the Minister wishes to answer in writing, I would be more than happy to receive that. First, what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms being pushed into financial difficulty? Secondly, can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? Thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? I particularly refer the Minister to paragraph 78 of the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that we ask her

“about the financial impact of the transition to the new support schemes, especially on small farmers”.

These are very practical questions.

In closing, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. It has been an absolute honour working with him on opposite Benches. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal Motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue—I reminisced more fondly than he did. Having these kinds of amendments and ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is critical for the issues we have heard about this evening, so I thank him for raising this.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of broad concerns have been raised that I will do my best to address now. For any outstanding specific questions, we will look at Hansard and ensure that we write to noble Lords with more detailed responses.

The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way to support our farmers, protect food security or restore nature. We should continue to invest in the environmental land management schemes and the range of grants and other support for farmers which deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity.

Concerns were raised about farm profitability and the impacts on farmers of the phasing out of direct payments. I will go over some of this. We recently published our 2025 farming and countryside programme evaluation report, which sets out an assessment of the impacts of the first three years of phasing out direct payments. It includes a detailed look at the key transition channels for the sector, which include rents, diversification income, income from agri-environment schemes and productivity improvements.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Flood Prevention and Drought Resilience

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: it is important that we recognise the role that farmers, land managers and landowners have in supporting the Government’s ambitions on flood and drought resilience, and that this should be delivered through any way that is practical and possible, while at the same time looking at continuing to support farm profitability.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government consider adopting the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management’s recommendation requiring large corporates to disclose climate-related and nature-related risks in their supply chains, and to align that with the UK’s sustainability disclosure requirements, using the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures? Will they also use that transparency to direct more private investment into flood prevention and drought resilience on farms?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes some really good points. The Government are keen to look at how we can encourage more private funding and support for much of the work that needs to be done, whether that is in the climate sector or in nature restoration. I completely take on board the points she has made.

Plastic Pollution Reduction

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that eight out of 10 of the top councils for recycling in England are led by the Liberal Democrats? Would it surprise her to learn that Green-led councils are not even in the top 20? Mid Suffolk, the Greens’ only majority council, comes in at 162, and when they controlled Brighton, it was one of the worst in the country.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am quite shocked to hear that the Greens are not as good as we would have expected them to be. I am sure the noble Baroness opposite may have something further to say on that.

Farming Road Map

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My noble friend has covered all the different areas that the farming road map is intended to address. Its whole purpose is as a long-term strategy: it is not quick fixes and it is not reactive. It will address many of the issues that she talked about. I cannot pre-empt what it will say ahead of publication, but we are certainly looking to address those matters. The fertiliser market is clearly global. While we do not have an immediate risk to UK supply, we know that the market price in the UK is strongly influenced and impacted by international prices. The situation in the Middle East is concerning and we are monitoring it closely.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government ensure, as urged by the National Trust, that the Farming and Food Partnership Board includes at least one environmental landowner or NGO, so that the road map, when published, will have been shaped by a wide range of stakeholders in farming policy and will deliver for people, food and the environment together?

Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious issue that we need to move on as soon as we can. We have proposed that we will do this by the end of the year. The big issue is the sheer number of responses that were received; it is taking a long time to go through them. Also, the proposed by-laws are very substantial. We are absolutely determined to get it right. It is better to take the right amount of time to come out with the right decisions that will genuinely make the differences that we need to see in our marine environments.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Is the Minister confident that the Government can justify calling these marine protected areas when bottom trawling is still permitted in 90% of them, resulting in 20,000 hours of suspected bottom trawl fishing last year? An outright ban would mean that there is no need to monitor that. We are still waiting for the much-promised ban that was promised in the general election. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are all asking, “When, when, when?”

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are working with the Marine Management Organisation on this, because we need to get it right. We had a huge number of responses. There is also ongoing research at the moment that needs to be taken into account. The way we are looking at this is that each marine protected area is set up to protect specific species or habitats. Regulators look carefully at what those are and how different types of fishing affect those different habitats and species. It is quite complex, so it is important that any decisions we make will make the biggest difference they can.

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 26 February.

This Government are committed to delivering the clean power mission, which is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, lowering household energy bills and driving long term economic growth. Crucially, clean power is one of the most important tools we have to tackle climate change. This statutory instrument represents an important milestone in the Government’s delivery of the clean power mission. It is not only about accelerating offshore wind; it is also a real opportunity to deliver meaningful, lasting gains for nature. This SI reflects this Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand and that, with the right approach, they absolutely can.

I will begin by setting out the issue that this SI will address. When compensating for impacts to protected sites, developers must follow the mitigation hierarchy; that means they must first avoid, and then minimise and mitigate, impacts on protected sites. Once those steps have been taken, developers are required to compensate for unavoidable impacts, normally with measures that benefit the impacted feature affected. As our offshore wind capacity grows, securing compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features is becoming increasingly difficult. This challenge has become one of the main reasons for delays in consenting decisions.

This statutory instrument tackles that issue by widening the range of suitable compensatory measures for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available to compensate for the impacts of offshore wind, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. These will benefit ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. In doing so, this statutory instrument will not only remove one of the main obstacles to timely consenting but open up new opportunities to enhance and invest in nature.

So, rather than limiting compensatory measures to a single feature, developers could support broader initiatives, such as programmes to strengthen sea-bird populations. Through innovative approaches such as these, the statutory instrument demonstrates this Government’s commitment to ensuring that nature and economic growth can be achieved in unison.

Defra’s offshore wind environmental improvement package has been designed to strike exactly that balance. It brings forward measures that simplify the consenting process, supporting faster, more efficient decision-making, while continuing to protect our marine environment and meet the UK’s domestic and international commitments. This package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach to environmental compensation for offshore wind. This has been demonstrated through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the launch of the marine recovery fund.

This statutory instrument is another essential part of that package. Building on its existing successes, it will increase flexibility to further accelerate the deployment of offshore wind, while continuing to protect and enhance our marine environment. Today, by approving this statutory instrument, I believe we have the opportunity to deliver an approach for environmental compensatory measures for offshore wind that facilitates our transition to clean power and delivers for nature.

Before I turn to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its thorough examination of this statutory instrument. The committee’s report raised concerns regarding the laying of the statutory instrument without publishing the accompanying draft guidance. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the policy intent has been set out transparently through the material already provided. I was pleased that the committee welcomed the publication of a policy note alongside this instrument, providing helpful context and information.

This statutory instrument has been laid ahead of the accompanying guidance, to ensure that parliamentary scrutiny can proceed without delay, while we take the necessary time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard. The guidance will support implementation once it is published on 21 May. This date will coincide with the statutory instrument coming into force, ensuring that all stakeholders have clear, comprehensive guidance in place from the first day.

The guidance will provide technical and practical support to developers and relevant public bodies, including consenting authorities. We have shared the draft widely with stakeholders and the devolved Governments to ensure that it is robust, aligned across the UK and, importantly, fully fit for purpose when published. I believe that the published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.

I now turn to the details of the legislation. This statutory instrument will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of practical environmental compensatory measures, as I said in my introduction. Without action to expand the compensatory measures that are currently available, the UK’s ability to unlock its offshore wind potential will be constrained.

The territorial application of this statutory instrument is the UK. It has effect in relation to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and for certain offshore wind functions in Welsh and Northern Ireland inshore waters.

We are amending the existing regulations to introduce a new bespoke compensation duty for offshore wind. This will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network.

Environmental safeguards sit at the heart of our new approach. The environmental safeguards will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature. As part of this, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. This requires developers to select compensatory measures in line with the hierarchy and to prioritise those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. This hierarchy is a central pillar of the environmental safeguards underpinning these reforms.

Another key safeguard is the role of statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider this expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.

As part of these reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is that this will bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact: for example, by targeting actions that contribute directly to improving the ecological resilience and long-term health of multiple marine protected areas.

All this work will feed into a wider review that assesses the impact of our statutory instrument on offshore wind developments and the environment. This review will be published by April 2031, with further reports following at intervals of no more than five years.

I recognise that there may be concerns about the reforms amending the current regulatory approach, so I want to be absolutely clear that this Government are firmly committed to delivering on our climate and nature ambitions. This statutory instrument implements necessary and timely change to the environmental compensation requirements for the offshore wind sector. We are confident that its provisions will uphold strong environmental protections, enable substantial and sustainable growth in offshore wind and ensure that nature and clean energy continue to progress side by side. I beg to move.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the statutory instrument. There is no doubt that climate change is an existential threat that demands urgent and transformative action. The soaring temperatures, floods and rising sea levels that we see are not distant warnings but present realities affecting millions.

We, the Liberal Democrats, have long championed recognition of the climate emergency and the need for a fair deal for our environment, central to which is a clean energy revolution. We are committed to an industrial strategy with tackling climate change at its core, and to a goal of generating 90% of the UK’s electricity from renewables by 2030. Offshore wind is vital to achieving that, and removing unnecessary barriers is overdue. We also recognise the Government’s ambition of reaching 43 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, which is essential for our net-zero goals and energy security.

But this transition must go hand in hand with the protection of our precious wildlife. We cannot solve the climate crisis by exacerbating the nature crisis. Our view is clear: we must double the size of the protected area network and the abundance of species by 2050. Britain’s seas currently face serious strains. Recent sea-bird statistics show continuing declines and, tragically, 10 of the UK’s breeding sea-bird species are now red-listed. Without effective compensation, the expansion of offshore wind risks pushing vulnerable species even closer to the edge.

We support the aim of the pragmatic tier system for environmental compensation in this statutory instrument. However, we share the concerns of organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts about the inclusion of tier 3 and strongly suggest that this is revisited and perhaps revised. I thank the Wildlife Trusts for their briefing on this matter.

Under these regulations, tier 1 and tier 2 measures provide direct or closely related ecological benefits to the affected species or habitat. We are concerned that tier 3 is different. It would allow measures that give broader benefits across a wider marine protected area network without a direct link to the species or site damaged. I look forward to being corrected on this by the Minister if I have got it wrong. That risks weakening the principle of ecological coherence. For example—I would be very happy to hear a response to this specific example—harm to a kittiwake colony should not be compensated through unrelated education projects that do nothing to restore the lost birds.

Trail-hunting

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I commend the noble Lord on his earlier fitness—I do not know if he still carries it out. It is important to stress that there are no plans to include other activities, such as drag hunting and clean boot hunting, in the ban on trail-hunting. The noble Lord makes a really important point about enforcement. I have asked for a meeting with Home Office Ministers to discuss exactly that, in not just this area but others within Defra, as we feel that we need to work much more closely with the Home Office to ensure the enforcement of the laws that we bring in.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister undertake to ensure that any future decision in this area, particularly on trail-hunting, is evidence-led as much as possible and based on assessing whether it causes harm to animal welfare, biodiversity and public confidence in law? The economies of so many rural communities are extremely diverse, with many more people in the countryside participating in, for instance, rambling and orienteering than trail-hunting.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that, when I look at future policy and legislation as part of my role as a Minister, it is incredibly important that everything is evidence-led and, where scientific evidence is needed, that we take the most up-to-date scientific evidence into account.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We believe that it is important to encourage smaller farms and those without existing agreements to come forward to access the grants that are available to make their farms more sustainable. It is a little sweeping to say that they are not economic. All farms are different, and it often depends on how they are managed. As the noble Lord said, there is a second window opening in September to which all farms will be able to apply. We are looking to support all farms in increasing food production. Food productivity is an important part of the Batters review. Much of what we are doing in the new offer and in the farming road map is in response to the Batters review’s recommendations.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, how will the Government ensure that the definition of a small farm within the SFI recognises the contribution of smaller, diversified family farms to nature recovery and local food production? How will the Government avoid favouring larger land holdings that may find it easier to access the 71 requirements—admittedly down from over 100—of the still complex scheme?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We have tried to reduce the complexity of the scheme. We want to make it more straightforward for more farms and different types of farms to access. There are opportunities for horticultural growers, which are often smaller farms as well. We are looking to better support tenant farmers and, importantly, are doing more to support people who farm on moorland and in upland areas. If we are to support sustainable farming, we need to encourage all farms to feel that they are part of what the Government are trying to achieve.

PFAS

Baroness Grender Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The water White Paper and the Bill that will follow it are a central part of the Government’s programme and a priority for Defra. We are looking at the Cunliffe report extremely carefully; it is an important piece of work.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why, when PFAS contamination of marine life and wildlife is already so widespread and understood, the Government are choosing what looks like a pathway of delay and of more research, more information and consumer choice, and considering only limited change to products such as waterproof clothing and period products rather than pursuing a more aggressive approach attempting to ban PFAS now?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, we want to move forward as quickly as we can. The noble Baroness and others will be aware that we are working with the EU at the moment. There are negotiations. We know that the EU is looking at its own approach and, clearly, we need to take that into consideration and to work alongside it. It is important to remind noble Lords that PFAS is a large and complex group of over 15,000 chemicals. There are significant differences in chemical structure and toxicity, so it is important that we work alongside the EU to tackle this effectively and efficiently for the long term.