Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Mrs Harris. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 26 February, are a critical part of delivering the Government’s clean power mission. The mission is central to strengthening the UK’s energy security, reducing household energy bills, supporting long-term economic growth and tackling climate change. Offshore wind plays an increasingly important role in delivering that energy security at a time when it matters more than ever. The statutory instrument provides a vital opportunity to accelerate offshore wind deployment while delivering meaningful strategic benefits for our marine environment, reflecting the Government’s belief that climate action and nature recovery must go hand in hand.
Let me begin by outlining the challenges that the draft regulations are intended to address. Under the existing approach, developers are required to follow the mitigation hierarchy by first avoiding impacts on protected sites, then minimising and mitigating impacts. Only where impacts remain unavoidable are developers required to deliver compensation, normally through measures that benefit the impacted feature. As offshore wind deployment has been expanded, it has become increasingly difficult for developers to secure compensatory measures that benefit the impacted features. That difficulty has become one of the main causes of delays in offshore wind consenting decisions.
The draft regulations address the issue by increasing the number of environmental compensatory measures available for offshore wind developments. Where measures that benefit the impacted feature are not available, or where a different measure can provide a greater ecological benefit, developers will be able to use wider compensatory measures. Those measures will deliver meaningful benefits to ecologically similar features or the UK marine protected area network more widely. For example, developers could support broader initiatives such as programmes to strengthen seabird populations.
Such innovative approaches illustrate how the Government are ensuring that environmental protection and economic growth can be pursued in parallel. The reforms are an essential part of the offshore wind environmental improvement package developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Through the establishment of a library of strategic compensatory measures and the marine recovery fund, the package is already delivering a more strategic, co-ordinated and scalable approach for offshore wind while enhancing the marine environment.
Before I return to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the statutory instrument. The Committee’s report raised concerns about the SI being laid before the House without the accompanying draft guidance. That approach was taken because the SI is a critical component of delivering the clean power mission. Proceeding in this way has enabled parliamentary scrutiny to proceed without delay while allowing sufficient time to finalise the guidance to the highest standard and, importantly, ensuring alignment with the devolved Governments. The guidance will be published on 21 May, aligning with the SI’s coming into force. That will ensure that stakeholders have clear and comprehensive guidance from day one. The published policy note and the Government’s response to the consultation provide Parliament with a strong basis for effective scrutiny.
The SI will enable offshore wind projects to deliver a wider range of environmental compensatory measures. Without action to expand the compensatory measures available, we will limit both the growth of offshore wind and our ability to deliver meaningful strategic benefits for nature. The SI applies to offshore wind developments in UK offshore waters and English inshore waters, and to certain offshore wind functions in the inshore waters of Wales and Northern Ireland. I hope that all makes sense.
The draft regulations introduce a new compensation duty specifically for offshore wind. It will enable wider compensatory measures and require that all compensatory measures must benefit the UK marine protected area network. Environmental safeguards are central to the new approach. They will ensure that the most effective compensatory measures are identified, selected and implemented to deliver the strongest possible outcomes for nature.
As part of that, the SI introduces a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a compensation hierarchy. Developers must select compensation measures in line with that hierarchy, prioritising those that benefit the impacted feature, subject to certain circumstances. That hierarchy is a central pillar to the new approach and a key safeguard. Another is the role of the statutory nature conservation bodies, which will continue to play an important role in advising on environmental compensatory measures. Ministers will consider that expert advice alongside the environmental principles when approving wider compensatory measures.
As part of the reforms, we are exploring the development of a new public compensatory register. Our ambition is to bring together information on all compensatory measures delivered across the UK marine protected area network, improving transparency and helping us to identify where future compensatory measures could have the greatest impact.
I can also reassure hon. Members that the impacts of the SI on both offshore wind developments and the environment will be reviewed. The first report will be published by April 2031, with subsequent reviews at intervals of no more than five years, as required by the regulations. I recognise there may be some concerns about the reforms, particularly where they amend existing and established environmental protections, but let me be clear: this Government remain fully committed to delivering on both our climate and nature ambitions.
In conclusion, the SI implements necessary changes to environmental compensatory requirements to support the expansion of offshore wind deployment. We are confident that it will uphold strong environmental protections while enabling sustainable growth in offshore wind.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
We on this side of the House recognise the challenging situation that offshore wind developers face and the need to simplify the process to make schemes deliverable. Equally, we recognise the environmental issues. As we have heard, the regulations seek to shift how compensation for the environmental impact of developments is determined and delivered. Let me be clear: it is right that the Government prioritise energy security in cost-effective ways in order to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer, while also being responsible and honest custodians of our ecosystems in order to benefit future generations. However, I do have several concerns with the SI, which I hope the Minister can address.
First, the SI leaves much of the crucial detail to future guidance. While I can see that the Government are attempting to adopt a new approach, that is no justification for asking for approval before the full details have become apparent, such as how the new compensation scheme would work in practice. The Government conducted a six-week public consultation ahead of the reforms, so I am unclear as to why the draft guidance could not have been published to coincide with the legislative process, as opposed to being published on 21 May, once the SI has come into force, as the Minister has indicated. I am keen to understand from her why the decision was made not to publish the guidance before we legislated on the reforms. I know that their lordships also made their concerns known on that point. How can we be reassured that the guidance will be of the highest quality, as the Minister has outlined, when it is published?
My second concern relates to the compensation hierarchy. The regulations mandate the publication and use of a compensation hierarchy, which sets out categories of compensation measured on the basis of how the measures would benefit the UK marine protected area network. The secondary legislation states that tier 3 will cover compensation measures that provide ecological benefits to the UK marine protected area network more widely. My concern, however, is that that could allow for irreparable damage to key threatened species and habitats without any requirement for that species or habitat to obtain compensating benefit. That concern is shared by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which believes that the tier 3 approach will not deliver ecologically effective compensation for environmental impacts from offshore wind and would not maintain current levels of environmental protection.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
As I understand it, the purpose of the regulations is to take a pragmatic approach so that developers can develop inshore and offshore wind more quickly by providing a wider range of compensation. If the Government have a change of heart about the development of Rosebank and Jackdaw, does my hon. Friend expect them to take a similar approach to offshore oil and gas?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. We would absolutely expect the Government not only to open those oil fields, but to make sure that they apply exactly the same criteria when any energy project gets the go-ahead, and it feels that a one-size-fits-all approach is not being adopted in this case.
I want to expand on my concerns about the compensation hierarchy. It seems that the environmental protections are already not adequate to deliver favourable conditions for most sites or network coherence, so my second point to the Minister is to ask for reassurance that tier 3 will not become the norm or a simple way of bypassing the compensation hierarchy. What level of assessment has been given to that issue, and will she explain why no further detail has been published to date on the tier 3 compensation hierarchy? That concern has also been raised by their lordships in the other place.
My third concern, which has not yet been touched on, relates to fisheries and the impact of offshore wind on our fishing communities. The shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), recently visited Peterhead fish market to discuss the issues facing fishermen in Scotland, which include a lack of workers and fuel costs.
The Scottish Government plan to install up to 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2040, a target that it has been warned is “far too high” and would cause irreversible damage to our marine environment while displacing the fishing fleet from grounds it has worked for generations. A report carried out for the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has shown that the surge in offshore wind farm developments will exclude the trawling fleet from approximately 50% of fishing grounds by 2050. I am sure the Minister will agree that the plans put forward by the Scottish Government show complete disregard for Scottish fishermen.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister share my astonishment that the Scottish Government refuse to talk about so-called spatial squeeze? It is a major issue for the fishing fleet, because it simply cannot trawl in between the wind turbines. The Government appear to deny the existence of the problem, but it is a massive difficulty for the fishing fleet, is it not?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It appears that the Scottish Government are not only ignoring the challenges associated with spatial squeeze—
The Chair
Order. The Scottish Government have nothing to do with this Parliament. We have to remain in scope.
Robbie Moore
I will absolutely listen to your comments, Mrs Harris. I merely wish to make the point that spatial squeeze is an issue, whether it be north of the border in Scottish waters or south of the border in English waters, where there is a similar challenge to do with offshore wind farm development. Whether it be the UK Government or the Scottish Government addressing the issue, I would like to understand from the Minister what they are doing to address the concerns about spatial squeeze that our fishermen have raised, and how they will address their concerns in the future.
Briefly, I would like to make a point about the establishment of marine recovery funds. I know it is hoped that marine recovery funds will enable developers to compensate for environmental impacts for multiple projects, yet they are not mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. It is also important to note that marine recovery funds are voluntary schemes. Can the Minister explain what the Government anticipate the take-up of marine recovery schemes to be, and how significant a role they will play in environmental compensation?
To conclude, the central concerns that I present on behalf of the Opposition about the statutory instrument are focused on how the changes will operate in practice. The devil is always in the detail. To be clear, the Opposition support the development of affordable home-grown energy sources, which is why we are fighting so hard to oppose the Government’s ongoing ban on new oil and gas licences in the North sea.
With all subsidies, environmental schemes and regulations such as these, it is crucial that we do not lose sight of the big picture. We need to prioritise our energy security in cost-effective ways to lower the overall cost to the taxpayer while being responsible and honest caretakers of our ecosystems. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the various concerns I have laid out.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. The Liberal Democrats support the expansion of offshore wind and renewables as part of our commitment to achieving 95% decarbonisation of power by 2030. We are equally committed to the principle that climate and nature must be tackled together, not as competing priorities. With carefully planned development, we can achieve those goals while avoiding significant harm to nature and actively furthering its recovery. But we are concerned that these changes represent a shift away from existing safeguards that prioritise the protection of specific sites towards a more flexible framework that may not always ensure direct or equivalent restoration of affected habitats.
Without sufficient compensation measures, a surge in offshore wind could push declining sea bird populations and other species and habitats over the edge. If rushed and implemented poorly, it could result in the collapse of entire marine ecosystems and undermine the environmental and economic security of those areas. We are further concerned that key details about how this new framework will operate in practice have been left to guidance that has not yet been finalised. That limits Parliament’s ability to fully scrutinise the real-world impact of these changes, and raises questions about how consistent and robust the new framework will be once it is applied. We will therefore abstain on this statutory instrument.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am always pleased to take part in a Delegated Legislation Committee, but I am particularly pleased to speak in this one, given that it reminds us that it is imperative that we build the infrastructure we need for net zero, and ensure that it is backed up with appropriate support and mitigations for the environmental impact it may have. On a similar note, when it comes to onshore wind, I have concerns about how we best understand, avoid and mitigate the impact of building wind turbines. We should ensure that regulation that rightly protects peatlands from housing is extended to energy projects like those.
These regulations are a good example of that awareness. We must understand the impact of renewable energy on nature and act accordingly. I am really glad to see that DEFRA has committed to taking a role, and I am proud to support these regulations in the hope that it continues to do so.
Emma Hardy
I am grateful to hon. Members across the Committee for the considered points they have raised. Without these reforms, vital offshore wind projects will continue to encounter obstacles in securing appropriate environmental compensation measures, delaying progress towards clean renewable energy. This SI puts forward a balanced and pragmatic new approach to the environmental compensatory requirements for offshore wind, one that supports faster deployment of renewable energy and, crucially, unlocks new opportunities to improve the health of our marine environment.
I reassure the Committee that environmental protection sits at the heart of this policy, and our commitment to maintaining strong environmental protection remains firm. This SI makes targeted amendments to specific parts of habitats regulation in relation to compensatory measures for offshore wind. Robust environmental safeguards have been put in place to ensure that those changes will not weaken our existing protection, and to ensure continued compliance with all domestic and international environmental commitments.
In response to the points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton, this approach is fully consistent with the Government’s wider environmental ambitions, including our commitment to 30 by 30. The UK has already designated about 38% of our seas as marine protected areas, demonstrating our determination to protect the marine environment at scale. Under the Environment Act 2021, there is a statutory target for at least 70% of marine protected area features in English waters to be in favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in recovering condition. We know that some of these sites continue to face significant pressure.
Let me turn to the points on the guidance made by the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley. In response to the concern that important policy details have not been included in this statutory instrument, I reassure the Committee that we have been fully transparent in the published policy note on what the statutory instrument policy intention is and on what the accompanying guidance will cover. The guidance will explain the key elements of the statutory instrument and how it should be implemented and understood. It will also provide clarity on broader elements of existing habitat regulation requirements.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, I recognise the concerns regarding the Department’s decision to lay the statutory instrument before Parliament ahead of publishing the draft guidance. However, the statutory instrument is essential in delivering the clean power mission and ensuring that progress is not delayed. Although the guidance is an important supporting document, it is a technical and operational, designed to explain to practitioners how to put the policies into action.
We have tested the draft guidance with users and held constructive discussions with key stakeholders on its content. Alongside that, we have worked closely with the Scottish Government to ensure alignment as far as possible with their respective guidance. I reassure hon. Members that that engagement has strengthened the guidance, ensuring that it will be robust and fit for purpose when published on 21 May.
Robbie Moore
Can the Minister expand on whether fishermen were included as one of the key stakeholder organisations as part of the guidance.
Emma Hardy
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point on fishermen now—let me rearrange my papers. Regarding the impact of the statutory instrument on fishers, we are actively considering how best to engage marine users, including fishers, in the development of wider compensatory measures, particularly where those measures may affect their activity. Any future compensatory measures enabled by these reforms that could impact the commercial fishing industry will be fully assessed and DEFRA will work closely with the fishing industry to discuss practicalities, ensuring that any proposals are developed and implemented in a fair and workable way.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about spatial squeeze, which is a real issue for the fishing community and one that we certainly recognise in DEFRA. We have looked at the cumulative restrictions on the fisheries from offshore wind, as well as nature protection and how that impacts the spatial squeeze, and the Crown Estate is working with the sector to get its input into the processes to refine sites for future offshore wind leasing.
In many areas, different activities can co-exist and are able to work together. Marine Management Organisation data shows that there is some level of fishing in around 80% of the English sea. Depending on the fishing gear used, fishing can overlap with other activities. For example, fishing can still take place over telecom cables or in some other areas.
Robbie Moore
The Minister is being incredibly kind in giving way, but to push her on that point: has the guidance been stress-tested on the fishermen to date? The Minister said she will work with them. Have the fishermen been involved yet?
Emma Hardy
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of all the people that we have engaged with. I have been reassured by the Department that the engagement has been substantive and extensive across all the different organisations. Of course, if what I have just said is found to be not correct, I will make sure that I correct it for him, but that is certainly my understanding.
How it will work with the marine recovery fund was also mentioned. That fund is exciting, and the statutory instrument works with it to support the acceleration of offshore wind development. By looking at the different types of compensatory measures available for offshore wind impacts, the statutory instrument will increase the number and range of compensatory measures that can be added to the library.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley raised an important point about moving through the hierarchy. To be fair, a number of non-governmental organisations have said that they do not want developers to go straight down, and asked how we ensure that the hierarchy is in place and a developer does not go straight down to tier 3. I welcome the opportunity to expand on that now.
What we are going to be doing—[Interruption.] I have had inspiration—it just arrived; it happens like that sometimes. The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument. I thank my officials for that inspiration.
There are two circumstances where it is permissible to move through the hierarchy, as outlined in the proposed compensatory hierarchy, published in the policy note. The first applies to the availability of measures for a developer to move to tier 2, or in some cases tier 3, if they can demonstrate that no, or insufficient, suitable tier 1 measures are available, or they can progress to tier 3 if no suitable tier 2 measures are available.
The second circumstance allows a developer to progress through the hierarchy if they can demonstrate that doing so will enable a greater ecological benefit. Progression to tier 3 will be allowed only if a developer can demonstrate that no tier 1 or tier 2 measures are available, or where tier 3 measures would deliver a greater ecological benefit. Developers must submit clear evidence to the consenting authority who will assess proposals on a case-by-case basis, informed by advice from statutory nature conservation bodies before allowing progression to tier 3.
Where tier 3 is permitted, developers must draw from the library of strategic compensatory measures. Measures can be added to the library only once they have been approved by the relevant Minister. We have tried to put in various safeguards throughout to ensure that tier 3 measures cannot become the default or easy options.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley for the important issues he often raises—I am sure he will continue to do so. He is a passionate supporter of his constituents. I thank him for his support for the statutory instrument. I hope I answered all the questions from all hon. Members. I thank the Committee, and commend to it the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.