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

Baroness Redfern Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Grand Committee

Offshore wind is our clean energy future and it cannot come quickly enough, but it must not be at the expense of our wildlife. These regulations are a chance to get that balance right. I urge the Government to adjust this SI and guarantee that that crucial balance is recognised.

[Baroness Redfern (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations. I will speak very briefly to one or two concerns. The wording in the proposed regulations appears somewhat unclear, with insufficient information to gauge the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation. Importantly, no meaning is given for the term “reasonably proportionate”. Replacing the widely understood and legally tested concept of overall coherence with that vague concept could lead to a failure to maintain or improve the status of the marine protected area network. How will this definition maintain existing levels of environmental protection?

The compensation to be delivered through wider compensatory measures reads as extremely broad in the explanatory material, the only condition being that it must benefit the wider MPA network. This could undermine environmental protections. Again, more clarity is required to ensure that environmental protections under the habitat regulations are not severely reduced, as our habitats are so valuable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the draft conservation of habitats and species regulations today and I share many of the concerns laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. Before I begin, I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests as an owner and developer of onshore wind energy infrastructure.

We on these Benches 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. This month’s updated assessment and good environmental status of the UK marine strategy shows that cetaceans, birds, fish, benthic habitats, food webs, contaminants and marine litter have not met good environmental status. Another six categories have been partially met or are uncertain; only two categories have seen GES met. The update highlights the mixed picture for marine ecosystems, with high pressure on our seas, which are getting warmer, more acidic and oxygen depleted. This is not an encouraging picture and highlights why legislation, such as that we are considering today, needs to be given detailed scrutiny.

These regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of these developments is determined and delivered. The compensation, rather than necessarily focusing on the features directly affected, could target similar features, potentially elsewhere in the UK’s MPA network. My first concern with the SI, which, as others have mentioned, has already been highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, is that it leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. The Government have conceded that they are taking a novel approach, but this is no justification for asking the House to approve a framework without being clear how it will operate in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of these reforms, and it simply is not clear why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with this legislative process. Instead, the guidance will be published only once the SI has come into force on 21 May. This is not good practice.

My second concern is that this approach allows for a similar approach to that taken under the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which the House spent so much time on earlier this year, which allows environmental damage through development with the conscience salved by payment to a general fund, although, at least in this case, I am grateful that the compensation hierarchy is protected from the outset. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, I am also grateful to the Wildlife Trusts for their briefing on this. It is the third tier of compensation where the main issue lies, potentially allowing for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. Can the Minister reassure us that tier 3 would not be permitted in these circumstances and that it would not be allowed to become the default setting as a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy? It would also be helpful to receive reassurance that the compensation funds raised through this legislation would be applied only to damage being caused by the offshore wind industry rather than becoming a general pot that could be used in other industries.

It has been left to the future guidance to set out the hierarchy of compensation measures, determining which are the most beneficial to the MPA network. How will the condition of this network be better monitored in order to understand which measures are the most beneficial? As has been pointed out by Wildlife and Countryside Link, many assessments are over six years old, and many features are not assessed at all. Further, any agreements reached with developers must be deliverable and viable so as not to deter investment.

Building on the recommendation of RenewableUK, how will the forthcoming guidance balance the timing requirements involved in implementing compensation measures with the project’s construction schedules, for example? Can the Minister confirm that the guidance will be kept under review to respond to concerns as they arise, while giving certainty in what is already a complex policy environment? Is it likely that the guidance will address the concerns I have raised? Which agency will be responsible for implementing this legislation and who will cover its costs?

It is hoped that the establishment of marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet MRFs are not mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is also important to note that MRFs are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of MRFs will be and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?

Our concerns about this SI are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, we on these Benches support the development of affordable, home-grown energy sources; that is why we oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North Sea. Indeed, amid a web of 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 in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. As the Minister laid out earlier, I know that she shares these aims.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I am conscious that I have asked quite a few questions so, if she feels the need to write, that is of course welcome.