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

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this SI forward. This is a complex and wide-ranging area. It is about protecting our country’s health as much as it is about animal welfare. It involves scientific authorities, Border Force and police inspections, and compliance checks.

Let me begin by saying that we support efforts to reduce administrative burdens and costs, as well as attempts to simplify the system without undermining it. CITES was designed with membership of the EU in mind. We now have the freedom to amend it to our own needs and tailor the framework to meet specific challenges, using our own expertise at Kew Gardens and the JNCC. I note that the Government consulted on these changes with both conservation groups and businesses, all of which deserve a fair hearing.

I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to a few specific changes on which I would appreciate some assurance from the Minister. This SI enables the Secretary of State to determine which specimens require an import notification, rather than an import permit, for those deemed “low-risk”. We welcome the shift to risk-based controls, but can the Minister outline what criteria will be used and how often the risk categories will be reviewed? Does the import notification still give authorities the same oversight and ability to trace specimens? That could be particularly useful if a specimen is deemed to be a higher health risk at a later stage.

Travelling exhibition certificates from other countries will now be recognised as a result of this legislation. It is absolutely right that we prevent unnecessary duplication, but can the Minister provide further detail on which countries will benefit and how their certification processes differ from ours?

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the enforcement approach and fully addressing my questions in that area, but it is currently not a criminal offence in the UK—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out—to possess or trade wildlife that was illegally sourced in its country of origin. So what steps are the Government taking to track down the original perpetrators of these crimes, as well as to support buyers in identifying and reporting illegal wildlife trading? Can the Minister indicate whether the SPS agreement and other related negotiations with Europe are likely to have any impact on the implementation of these regulations—or, indeed, to overrule any of them?

Finally, we have previously debated the impact of invasive non-native species on our own ecosystem, including the pernicious effect of grey squirrels on successful tree-planting and red squirrel populations. It is critical that no additional burden is created. It would be helpful to have an assurance that, in the extremely unlikely event that an endangered species were to escape into the wild in the UK and breed successfully, aggressive control of that species would be possible in order to prevent it becoming invasive.

I appreciate that this is a complex framework. We agree with the aim to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is clear that an appropriate balance must be found, so I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on the points that have been made.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords both for making some important points about the legislation before us and for contributing to the debate.

As I set out earlier, these regulations are designed to modernise an important regulatory framework so that it works effectively for the UK, supports legitimate trade, and keeps protections firmly focused on the species and risks that matter most. The idea is for them to deliver practical improvements but noble Lords clearly have some concerns, so let me cover some of the issues that have been asked about.

Questions were asked about the new powers, including those for the Secretary of State. The idea is that the regulations will allow the UK to improve its implementation of CITES and the environmental protections it holds.

The new powers are to require the Secretary of State to publish formal lists where import suspensions or additional measures are in place. In some cases, these are already being applied in practice for endangered species: examples are strict controls on rhinos, tigers and bear bile. The powers are tightly defined and will be used only for purposes that are consistent with the CITES convention and the wildlife trade regulations. Any changes to this have to be informed by scientific advice from the UK CITES scientific authorities and are limited to the application of import suspensions or additional measures where there is a clear conservation or welfare justification. I hope that helps with some of the transparency around the Secretary of State’s role.

This is not going to reduce parliamentary scrutiny because the circumstances and conditions under which changes can occur are clearly set out in the legislation, and that legislation is subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. Publishing lists will provide transparency and legal clarity without requiring new regulations each time it is updated. That will enable Parliament and stakeholders to see very clearly what applies at any given time while also allowing the system to respond more quickly to any urgent conservation risks. We recognise the interest in updating wider wildlife legislation, but I make clear that this statutory instrument is specifically focused on the implementation of the UK’s obligations on trade in endangered species.

The issue of environmental and animal welfare protections was raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The crucial and necessary core protections for endangered species and trade will remain unchanged. That includes requirements for higher-risk trade, scientific non-detriment findings and enforcement checks at the border. The proposed reforms are deliberately targeted and evidence led. They have been informed by the consultation that the noble Lord referred to, and by advice from UK scientific authorities. They will focus regulatory effort where conservation risk is highest while removing the duplication of administrative requirements where there is little evidence of conservation benefit. The idea behind a risk-based approach is that it allows us to respond more effectively to changing trade patterns and scientific evidence without lowering those standards or protections. Again, no changes are being made to the welfare assessments that are required as part of the CITES applications.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about risks opening up. I will say why the Government have taken this approach, particularly around annex B import permits. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or just duplicate paperwork. These changes do not weaken protections because import permits will remain firmly in place for high-risk species and activities. Core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply. A low-risk list will be developed but it will also be kept under review, based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence, and all annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, while the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight in order that we can respond quickly to any changes in risk.

On enforcement capacity, Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the UK border and the police enforce CITES controls inland. The amendments in this statutory instrument will support their efforts by bringing in civil sanctions and other changes. The idea is to provide a much larger range of tools that can be used so that efforts can be far more targeted to tackle any illegal wildlife trade.

Domestic wildlife crime was mentioned. Birds of prey prosecution is a national wildlife crime priority, and there are strong penalties in place for offences committed against not just birds of prey but other wildlife. Through Defra, we fund the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which helps to prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats and directly assisting law enforcement in its investigations. Defra funding for the NWCU for the financial year 2026-27 is £530,000. In addition to that, we are providing funding to Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture to develop DNA forensic analysis for the police and other organisations.

On illegal wildlife trade, we are fully committed to global efforts to address the drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, including environmental crimes such as illegal wildlife crime. We have an annual allocation in Defra of £150 million a year, which will run from 2026-27 to 2028-29. A significant portion of that will be used to continue to support the biodiversity challenge funds.

I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the SPS agreement, but I hope that it is moving forward and we will be able to give more clarity on that later in the spring or in early summer.

On invasive species controls, I work very hard with the invasive species team—we had a meeting last week. We are determined to increase Defra’s ability to tackle invasive species. In particular, we have a target to stop new invasive species coming in and taking hold in this country. We are working very hard on that.

I hope I have addressed all the issues that were raised and that noble Lords will approve the instrument. I thank noble Lords for their support.

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

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

At end insert “, but this House regrets that the draft Regulations will likely result in further financial difficulties for farmers, who have not had enough time to plan for them in advance; and that it remains unclear how the savings from the reductions to delinked payments will be reallocated to support farmers.”

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I first draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer and landowner who is also in receipt of delinked and other government payments. I am very grateful to the Government Chief Whip for moving this debate to a civilised time this evening; I think that is much appreciated by all noble Lords. I thank the Minister for outlining this SI, although we regret its introduction. Indeed, it is now at the end of this Session that we are about to lose significant agricultural expertise from this House, which keenly understands the impact of legislation such as this on the ground and in our close-knit communities.

When in government, we replaced the basic payment scheme with delinked payments based on historic BPS claims. We intended this to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods, as outlined by the Minister. The reductions we put in place put these delinked payments on a gradual glide path to zero in 2028. This Government dramatically accelerated that decline last year and have continued at a similar rate this year. This, in effect, ends the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect, undermining their budgeting.

We support the long-term transition, but not at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the Middle East has caused uncertainty over fuel prices and fertiliser and a shortage of industrial CO₂. Grain prices remain at low levels, undermining profitability for our arable farmers. However, it is not just external factors that are adding pressure to farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Government have left farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI application window last year, the family farm and business tax, increased employer national insurance, and the Government’s refusal to consider our cheap power plan to lower energy costs all have a cumulative impact.

I note that the Government are set to spend £100 million to reopen the Ensus bioethanol plant in Teesside to mitigate CO₂ disruptions. But this might not have been necessary had the Prime Minister not, in effect, sold out the UK’s bioethanol industry at the last minute in the UK-US trade deal. These plants provided a valuable source of demand for our farmers producing wheat. Closing them down to benefit American ethanol producers means that we are now supporting American maize or corn farmers at the expense of our own farmers. The deal reduced British tariffs on a quota of 1.4 billion litres of US ethanol, when the total market size for bioethanol in the UK was coincidentally 1.4 billion litres. These are not events outside the UK’s control; these are government choices. This SI reduces the direct financial support farmers receive at a time they need it most.

Ultimately, this SI does not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability—let alone profitability. I beg to move.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend and challenge the Government on how they are going to spend the money they are going to allocate. While I can understand the wish to have a transition, it is right that it has to be done at a sensible pace. The really big disappointment of the farming community is that the alternative schemes the Government are bringing in are not the kind of schemes that are particularly attractive to many farmers or that promote the production of more domestic food.

I would hope that the Government will have a rethink now. Do the Government not understand there is currently a crisis in world trade and the supply of food in the months ahead because of the difficulties of getting fertiliser out of the Gulf area, the damage being done to chemical and fertiliser plants by more than one war and by the very acute trade disruption with no immediate signs of being resolved? Those I have heard from in the farming industry tell me that not only are fertiliser prices extremely high but there is no visibility as to when they will be able to buy serious quantities of fertiliser again at sensible prices. As we know, without proper fertiliser applications, yields will plunge and there will be a further shortage in food provision.

It is a tragedy that this century there has been a big decline in the amount of home-produced food that farms have been able to make because of the grant choices of the EU and successive United Kingdom Governments. I would have thought that now is a wonderful opportunity for a rethink to place at the very centre of agricultural subsidy policy, in line with many other countries around the world, the need for more domestic, reliable supply and production.

The Minister reminded us that some small pots are available for those important topics of innovation and new technology. I agree that there can be a new agrarian revolution; it was this country that launched the original one. There is now huge scope for mechanisation with robotics and drones and all the other things that can come in. However, the amount of money being offered in these small grant schemes is very small and unambitious. We have some great farms and some great farmers. Many of them would like to have access to serious money for that big investment and that pioneering technology that could start to make the difference.

I urge the Government to think again: put food production as the central issue that we need to deal with; understand the urgency of the collapse both in British farming and in the wider world market because of the interruptions to fertiliser and other chemicals; and do something to make available the money they are saving by the rundown of the existing ground system in a more intelligent and purposeful way, so that farmers can get decent money to rebuild their ability to feed us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to hear the final contributions of departing noble Lords who have been such stalwart supporters of the rural economy. It is a huge loss both to the House and to the rural economy, which will have a much-diminished voice in debates in this place, when there is limited representation in the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has had a most distinguished record in this House since 2011 and outside it. The Curry commission report in 2002 was remarkable in that the Government accepted 101 of the 105 recommendations, and it marked the beginning of the shift towards environmental stewardship and sustainable farming. I am also personally grateful to the noble Lord for following my maiden speech and making kind comments without any preparation or indeed ever having met me before, after my listed follower failed to make it to the Chamber in time.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will also be much missed for his contributions to rural economy debates in this House. Within my own brief tenure, among many other things, he won an important amendment to the Renters’ Rights Act, ensuring that farm businesses are able to continue offering accommodation. It is also a great shame that we are losing the Lord Great Chamberlain from full membership of this House.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, took his place only shortly before I took mine. I have enjoyed his erudite contributions to debate, displaying not just his keen interest in the rural economy but his formidable legal brain, which was on display again today. The noble Earl’s family is one of the longest serving in Parliament and has been a consistent and powerful voice for my native Devon.

It has been evident to me in my brief tenure that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has been a similar voice for Cumbria. Of course, the Minister remains a stalwart Cumbrian resident and spokesperson.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It has been a wide-ranging debate about the rural economy. Her reply demonstrated her sympathy and empathy with the issues in the rural economy, and I think that we are all much heartened by the fact that she is in her place, within a Government who perhaps do not have all those sympathies themselves.

I make just one point in closing. The long-term road maps are all very well, but the farming industry, and particularly the arable sector, is in crisis at the moment. The figures that were quoted for the two fiscal years ending 2023 and 2024 were generally quite good years for the industry, and 2025 and 2026, particularly for the arable sector, will look very different.

I am grateful to all who have contributed to this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Flood Prevention and Drought Resilience

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I know the challenges around Flood Re and insurance that the noble Earl is referring to. The issue we have with the kind of outbuildings the noble Earl describes is that they are registered as businesses in the insurance field. As I am sure he is aware, businesses are not eligible for Flood Re. There are complications around including businesses in Flood Re, and I do not think that the Government are likely to change their position on that. Having said that, we need to consider how we look long-term at flood insurance for businesses so that it will be possible to insure them in these cases in the future.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register as a farmer and landowner. The Government have stated that each farm can have only one SFI agreement, even if that agreement does not reach the £100,000 cap. Given the ever-increasing importance of flood prevention and drought resilience, will the Minister commit to allow related SFIs to be exempted from these rules and stacked on other SFIs without a cap?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is not something I can confirm today, but I am more than happy to take that back to the department and to discuss the different options.

Plastic Pollution Reduction

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have to admit that I have absolutely no idea what proportion is used, but I think it is really exciting. There is a huge opportunity here. I know it is something that the Department for Transport has been looking at; I know it is something that certain local authorities have been looking at, and I think it is something we need to investigate further.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, our country is reliant on exporting plastic waste, yet it has been reported that 21 plastic recycling and processing factories across the UK have closed down in the past two years. What steps are the Government taking to reduce exports of plastic waste and support investment and jobs here in the UK?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware that plastic waste exports are subject to pretty strict rules that are set out in existing legislation, but it is important that we continue to review this because we need to make sure that we improve the way we manage our waste and our recycling. Our focus is on ensuring that the plastic waste that we export is treated appropriately and that there is a level playing field for domestic recycling. We are consulting on potential further reforms to the PRN system and looking at measures to create that level playing field between UK domestic reprocessors and exporters and, importantly, to reduce the risk of fraud and error.

Farming Road Map

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend will be delighted to be aware that the next round of the SFI is very much targeted at the smaller farmer.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, the overwhelming majority of our farm output is sold at prices determined by international markets, which are out of government control. This Government have layered on cost for our farmers, and all businesses, through reduced inheritance tax relief, increased employer NICs and minimum wages, and now through the carbon border adjustment mechanism later this year. What are this Government doing to improve the long-term resilience and competitiveness of farmers, and indeed all British businesses, by reducing government-imposed costs? I refer the House to my interests as a farmer and an investor in British businesses.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the things we are actively working on at the moment is how to implement many of the recommendations that the farming profitability review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, suggested. We have brought some things in, and it is really important that we look at her clear, independent advice. I do not think anyone in this House would deny that she has substantial expert experience. She has made 57 recommendations; we are looking at how we can work through them, because the whole point behind her report and its recommendations is to improve farm profitability.

Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to congratulate David Attenborough, whether we bring in a ban or not. He has been an extraordinary champion for our environment over many years, and I am sure we all wish him a very happy 100th birthday. I watched his film on bottom trawling. It was an extremely important piece of footage.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this Government’s agreement with the EU last year surrendered around 40% of UK fishing rights to our European neighbours for the next 12 years. Just 10 EU vessels account for 25% of all bottom trawling in UK waters, with little by British vessels. Under this agreement, is the Minister able to end this damaging EU exploitation of our waters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I am not able to divulge any of the detail of the current negotiations on the EU reset. Those of us who are involved in that reset process are extremely aware of the sensitivities around fishing, the type of fishing and the fishing gear being used, as the noble Lord mentioned earlier.

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

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will try to be brief because we have some votes coming up fairly soon. I will write to noble Lords on anything I have not covered; I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and comments.

We are trying to strike the right balance in establishing a new approach to environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind. We need to accelerate our shift towards renewable energy, but we also need to ensure that we still have positive outcomes for the environment—in particular, the marine environment. What has come across today is that both Ministers and noble Lords understand the importance of getting that balance right.

We have covered a lot of ground so I will do my best to cover some bits quite quickly. On the publishing of the guidance, as I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on our approach of laying the guidance in draft for the moment then laying it in full after we have debated it. It is critical that we deliver this statutory instrument. We have been fully transparent about the policy intent that underpins both the SI and the guidance. As I said, the response to the consultation and the published policy clearly set out what the guidance is going to cover. We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders to discuss the guidance content; we have also collaborated closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have proper alignment.

As I said, the guidance will apply in English waters to Wales and Northern Ireland waters, which is why the work that we have done with the devolved Administrations has been so important. The guidance will outline the wider compensatory measures and will explain how a developer could demonstrate that any proposed compensatory measures would provide ecological benefits to the UK’s marine protected area network. It will also explain that this will be achieved in different ways for each tier of the compensation hierarchy, which will give more information on that. The guidance will also cover the requirement for all wider compensatory measures to be taken from the library of strategic measures, and it will lay out an expectation for wider compensatory measures to be delivered through the marine recovery fund, because that is the best way to have a proper, co-ordinated approach.

I come to the point about ensuring that the compensatory measures do not lead to a deterioration. The Division is on so I will have to come back—I am very sorry.

Trail-hunting

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, this is a manifesto commitment and it is my responsibility to deliver it. On the other concerns that my noble friend raised, we will start the consultation soon. I encourage people to look at it and take part, because it will be comprehensive.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, our rural police forces are already overstretched, and banning a harmless country pursuit will simply stretch them further and alienate them from the community they protect. As has been discussed, hunting with dogs has already been banned by Parliament. This has resulted in only 52 convictions for organised hunts, with only one of those based on evidence collected by the police. Rather than now targeting trail-hunting, have the Government considered that laws that cannot be effectively enforced by the police are bad laws?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is also important to stress that, if there is a law, people should obey it.

Sustainable Farming Incentive: Small Farms

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

The new SFIs offer some reduced payment rates per acre and remove management payments—winter bird food falls by 24% and herbal leys by 41%. SFIs require substantial expenditure by the recipients in order to claim these payments, and reducing payment rates dramatically reduces the potential for profit and the incentive element of the SFIs. To the point from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, costs are going up for farmers. Could the Minister tell us what work has been done by the Government to ensure that these are adequate payment rates? Will they commit that, if take-up of these schemes falls below budget, the full farming budget will be used elsewhere to support the farming sector directly? I refer the House to my interest as a farmer in receipt of SFI payments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The Farming Minister has spent a long time looking at the different options to try to target the types of farm and types of productivity that she wants to increase. The noble Lord is absolutely correct that the management payment has been removed. That was done to increase the amount of budget that would be available for new agreements. We want as many farmers as possible to be able to benefit from SFI funding this year, which is why that payment was taken out. A number of actions have come out but, in some areas, agreements have seen the payments increase for certain activities—for example, on moorlands. Some areas have gained and some have not, but it is about getting the balance towards where the Government want to see things changing.

PFAS

Lord Roborough Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we will be taking a precautionary principle approach. The noble Baroness talked about school uniforms; it is important that we make sure that children are protected as much as possible. We recognise the concerns in this area. Her point about mattresses is also important. The textiles industry is already moving away from PFAS voluntarily, but we clearly need to do more. I assure noble Lords that the PFAS plan is the starting point and the platform for moving forward in this area. This is not the limit of our ambition.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, we are concerned that the plan promises high-level actions without clear timelines for phase-outs or mechanisms for delivery. In addition, companies need sufficient time to explore safe alternatives and for the supply chain to adapt accordingly. What are the Government doing to support the private sector in innovating viable alternatives to PFAS?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The simple answer is that we are carrying out a lot of stakeholder engagement. We are working very closely with industry and business. As I said, the textiles industry is moving that way voluntarily. We need to work with other sections of industry in the private sector to encourage them to do so, because the more we can do now voluntarily, the better, while we bring in our more detailed plans.