Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Grand Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Grand Committee do consider the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 20206
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument introduces fees for applications in the residential property division of the Property Chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. It is made under the powers provided by Section 42(1)(a) and 42(2) and Section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform which will introduce a fairer and more sustainable fees framework in the Property Chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector brought by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark changes which represent the biggest expansion of rights for renters in a generation. But rights matter only if people can enforce them, and this depends on a sufficiently resourced tribunal that is accessible for all. At present, only half of the application types brought to the Property Chamber incur a fee. This has created an unfair system that neither reflects the cost of proceedings nor supports a proportionate contribution from users, and it has resulted in inconsistencies whereby some users have to pay to access the service where others do not. The Government are therefore introducing a new tiered fees framework.
In summary, once introduced, it will consist of three levels. The first is a standard fee of £200 for applications to the tribunal, together with a hearing fee of £300. Secondly, where there are concerns about access to justice issues, there will be a lower level—an application fee of £114 and a fee of £227 for hearings. There is a final third tier for those cases with the most acute need to preserve access to justice, such as applications to appeal a rent increase. In these cases, there will be a modest application fee of £47, but there will be no hearing fee. Exemptions will continue to apply for urgent building safety issues and low-value claims.
The average cost to the taxpayer of a case brought to the Property Chamber is more than £900. Therefore, the fees in this framework represent a modest contribution to running costs and illustrate a commitment to maintaining access to justice. I will now describe in a little more detail how the regime will work.
First, the Renters’ Rights Act will extend the right to apply to the Property Chamber to request a determination of rent to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants can make such a request upon notice of an annual rent increase, or within the first six months of a tenancy, if they believe that the proposed rent is above the open market rent. The Act includes the tenants’ rights to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase. As I have just said, under the new regime these applications will attract a £47 application fee but will be exempt from hearing fees.
Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under this new regime, these applications will cost £47 but will be exempt from a hearing fee.
Thirdly, this instrument applies the proposed new standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act.
Finally, this instrument brings new rent repayment order routes created by the Renters’ Rights Act into the existing fees structure and applies a £114 application fee and £227 hearing fee, to match comparable applications.
I shall briefly outline the impact of this instrument and what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in this instrument stem from new or amended rights introduced by the Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. This reflects the move towards a fees framework that more consistently reflects the cost of proceedings and asks for a proportionate contribution from users.
In the case of rent appeals, as I have already said, the need to protect access to justice is more acute. I wish to reassure your Lordships that the introduction of a fee for these cases has been carefully considered. In such cases, the consequences of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, and therefore a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. In addition, there are mitigations that further ensure that fees do not deter tenants seeking to challenge a rent increase. The Help with Fees remissions scheme will remain available to eligible applicants who cannot afford to pay a fee.
Under the Act, any rent increase will take effect from the first rent period following the tribunal’s decision to approve any increase and will not be backdated. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent above the level proposed by the landlord. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the rent increase by up to two months. These measures ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge proposed increases without fear of additional financial pressures.
Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord. Without these measures, the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a greater proportion of the costs of the system. This instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is fair and accessible for all those who need it. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, for the first time we start to consider some of the practical effects of this controversial Act. I will make no comments on its merits; the Act has been passed, as was the will of Parliament, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The schedule of fees here provides for the cost of enforcement of the judicial tribunal framework for the provision. We see a large expansion, consequent to the Act, of the number of things that can spawn a complaint. I am thinking particularly about the appeal for a rent increase. The lowest level, at £47, provides no disincentive to bringing a claim. In fact, a single month’s delay can pay for itself. I understand that it is important that we have open justice, but this is creating a perverse fiscal incentive to have a go, especially, as we heard just a few moments ago, as any rent increase that might happen following the appeal would not be backdated to the point at which the appeal was made.
Landlords are already waiting a year to gain possession, for example, in the case of non-payment of rent. It occurred to me to wonder whether the Government have made an assessment. What assessment has been made of the likely consequential number of cases and any additional timescale and further delay as a result of these fees passing into the regulations? Will we see an avalanche of claims that will gum up the tribunal system and give further incentives for claims to be made which provide an asymmetry between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. It forms part of a wider programme of reform to the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We recognise the Government’s objective: to move towards a more sustainable system of cost recovery while maintaining access to justice. Where fees do not fully reflect the cost of the service provided, there must be a legitimate discussion as to how that gap should be addressed.
This instrument would introduce fees for new categories of cases, including financial penalty appeals and rent appeals. The decision to set the fee for rent increase appeals at £47, with no associated hearing fee, reflects concerns raised by stakeholders about affordability. While it is right that the Government have listened to those concerns and adjusted their approach accordingly, there must remain important questions about the broader context in which these changes are being made, not least the valid concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller.
These reforms sit alongside significant changes to the private rented sector, including the abolition of Section 21. As has been raised previously from these Benches, there is a risk that reforms to tenants’ rights proceed ahead of necessary improvements to the capacity and efficiency of the courts and the tribunal system. There is a balance to be struck. While fees must not become a barrier to justice for tenants seeking to challenge rent increases or enforcement decisions, we on these Benches are concerned that the structure of the system could create unintended incentives; we have heard that from my noble friend Lord Fuller. For example, where an appeal delays the implementation of a rent increase, even where that appeal is ultimately unsuccessful, that may create uncertainty for landlords and have an adverse impact on the functioning of the market.
Further, while the Help with Fees scheme will remain in place, the Government have not produced a full impact assessment of these changes. Given that this is the first stage of a wider reform programme, the Committee would benefit from greater clarity on the cumulative impact of these measures, particularly on access to justice for lower-income applicants and how that is to be balanced.
We do not oppose the principle of these changes. A fair and sustainable tribunal system is in the interests of all parties. However, it is essential that, as the Government proceed with the later stages of reform, they do so in a way that carefully balances cost recovery with genuine access to justice and does not build in unreasonable deterrents for landlords. The Government must ensure that the system is properly resourced to deal with the demands being placed upon it. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these points.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Fuller, for their helpful and constructive contributions. A point that they both made, with which I agree, is that this is always a balancing exercise. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there is no question of trying to recoup the entirety of the cost of running the system. This is merely about seeking a contribution because it is right to do so.
The setting of the lowest level of fee, particularly in relation to rent increases, was not intended to try to dampen demand; rather, it is a small contribution designed to be fixed at a level that does not hamper access to justice. I remind noble Lords that some of those who are subject to rent increases are some of our most vulnerable citizens. While £47 may seem a modest amount to us, to some people it can seem an almost insuperable burden, which is why I have sought to reassure that there is help there for those who cannot afford it at all.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about the amount of demand, I hope to be able to reassure him by saying that we are ready for Friday. Friday is when all of this will begin. We have a centralised operational hub and have recruited extra staff, which is why we are bringing in all these reforms in tranches, to ensure that the system is not overwhelmed.
This draft instrument is a necessary step that strengthens the sustainability and fairness of the Property Chamber. It delivers, as I said, the first phase of the new fees framework. It is one that strengthens fairness and consistency, supports greater levels of cost recovery and protects access to justice. Our reforms ensure that users of the Property Chamber contribute to its cost where they can afford to do so, while ensuring that vulnerable renters are able to benefit from the protections contained in the Renters’ Rights Act.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I would like to press the Minister just a little harder. While I know she is ready for 1 May, which is in five days’ time, is she able to give us an assessment of what she thinks is the best estimate, either by percentage or the number of cases, of what might be spawned as a result of the fees and charges that are laid out before us? I am asking for a number, so at least we can benchmark success in the months and years to come and see whether we are better or worse than intended. That would help us scope what the resources of the tribunal system may need to be in future.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, no full impact assessment was done in relation to this because it does not reach the required threshold for one. However, some assessments have been made, including looking at 250 types of applications to see whereabouts to fix the fees to try to make the greatest contribution while balancing it with access to justice. The best I can do is offer to write to the noble Lord and provide such figures as we have.
Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, port state control is the system used by the United Kingdom and other countries to inspect foreign-registered visiting ships to ensure that they meet the necessary international safety and pollution prevention standards. These regulations apply not to British ships but only to foreign-registered ones, to ensure that they meet the expected standards to operate safely in our waters.
The United Kingdom is a party to the Paris memorandum of understanding, the well-established collaborative regional agreement to co-ordinate this activity, with the aim of ensuring that international standards that reduce the risks to health, safety and the environment are met. It allows us to information-share and work with our neighbours to ensure the effective targeting of vessels to identify those that are substandard. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to replace and update the existing 2011 United Kingdom regulations on this subject and to reaffirm our commitment to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements by giving effect to them in UK law.
A four-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report, including responses to comments received. Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI provided drafting comments on the regulations at that stage and then formally considered them after they were laid and noted them without further comment. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.
The background to this statutory instrument is the Paris memorandum of understanding, which I understand dates from 1978 and is one of a number of collaborative regional agreements setting out a framework for carrying out port state control inspections globally. It is not a European Union agreement, although some parties are EU member states.
At the time when the 2011 regulations were made, the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union and the regulations were required to implement the relevant EU directive on port state control in accordance with the UK’s obligations as a member state. However, the UK remains a party to the Paris MoU and continues to maintain its commitments under the agreement as a non-EU member. The proposed regulations give effect to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements in UK law and update the list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written, and which the UK will now also enforce against foreign ships visiting the UK.
These regulations also remove references to EU legislation, instead referencing the Paris MoU directly. This has had the effect of making the regulations longer than the 2011 regulations, but the relevant legislation is now contained just in a UK instrument. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the proposed regulations also remove reliance on this power. While Merchant Shipping Act powers are also used to the fullest extent possible, it has been necessary to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers to fill some gaps before those powers expire next month.
I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations: to update merchant shipping legislation and ensure it reflects the UK’s commitment to the Paris MoU. These regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards, not only for UK-registered ships but for all ships using UK ports, while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures and I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their helpful briefing last week. As we have heard, this instrument revokes and replaces the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implemented the UK’s commitment under the Paris memorandum of understanding and the associated EU directive. As I learned from last week’s briefing, the Paris MoU obligates the UK to operate a regime of port state control for the monitoring, inspection and control of foreign-flagged ships calling at UK ports, to reduce the risks that such ships may pose to health, safety or the environment by ensuring that they meet relevant international standards. We have been part of the Paris MoU and its predecessor since the 1970s.
The MCA has around 100 inspectors and inspects around 1,300 ships a year. This instrument will mean that new maritime conventions are properly referenced and reports will be written in the international context, which will improve shipping safety. However, this SI shows just how much work there still is to amend legislation a decade after Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the time and effort that have to go into technical tweaks and amendments such as this distract from tackling other important issues and take up resource?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that making laws for our own country, through our own processes, is somehow a distraction from what we should be doing, and that it would be better, presumably, if we were to hand this responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I cannot say how much I would want to distance myself from such a position.
Since I have very little to say about the instrument, I shall add a little local colour. I did on one occasion seize an unseaworthy ship. When I was the third secretary in the British embassy in South Africa, I was the duty officer one weekend. In those days without mobile phones, that meant I had to stay home all weekend, very close to the telephone. Nothing ever happened but to my astonishment, I got a telephone call from the harbourmaster at Durban, saying that there was a British-registered vessel—or, rather, I think it was registered in some territory, dominion or whatever in the Caribbean that none the less fell under the Crown—in his port. It was so unseaworthy that he intended to seize and immobilise it but, apparently, he needed the permission of Her Majesty’s consul-general. I knew nothing about consular services, but there we were: I was the representative, for that weekend, of Her Majesty’s consul-general in South Africa. After a moment’s thought, I reached the conclusion that, on the whole, it was probably safer all round for me to say, “Yes, you have my authority to seize this vessel”, than to say no or prevaricate in any way—so that is what I did.
It has not happened since, but I am therefore not wholly unfamiliar with the idea that there is a degree of port inspection going on and that vessels not meeting appropriate standards are appropriately dealt with. This instrument affects no change whatever in current arrangements. It advertises itself as achieving no change in current arrangements, and that is absolutely fine. I have no objection to this instrument.
However, I will raise the same point that I raised when we discussed a statutory instrument—I think on aviation safety—a week or two ago. This instrument is made—the Minister said “in part”—using powers under the retained EU law Act. By common agreement, that Act expires in June. From that date onwards, we have no capacity to amend regulations of this sort, which are crucial in the world of transport. Statutory instruments are the normal means by which these regulations are made in the field of transport, but this spreads across the whole of Whitehall and many other departments as well. I say that we have no power to change them—we have no power to do so other than by primary legislation and Act of Parliament; we cannot use statutory instruments.
This failure of foresight on the part of the Government seems a massive dereliction of duty. Even if the Minister was able to assure us today that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to correct this oversight—I fully appreciate it is unlikely that he can tell us today what will be in the King’s Speech—it is most unlikely that it will possible to pass it in both Houses and enact it by the end of June, when it will be necessary. As I say, I regard this as a massive dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government, and I expect there to be serious potential consequences unless something is done.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their consideration of these draft regulations. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest that they have shown in ensuring that the UK’s port state control regime remains relevant and compliant.
The noble Baroness invited me to comment on whether this and other changes distracted the Government and officials from more pressing matters. She would not expect me to do other than make an official reply, which is that the development of the new regulations has been a lengthy process, due to the complexity of the existing legislative regime. There have been a number of changes as a consequence of leaving the EU; my understanding is that this is one of the last. It has been left until late because the Paris memorandum of understanding is behind all this. As the noble Baroness said, we were a signatory when that started in the 1970s, and therefore this could be left until quite late.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has one on me: he has seized a ship. I was thinking of withdrawing the whole lot and changing the regulations so that, in the future, he had to seize all the ships. He would be very busy doing that, or might at least be very busy attending ships. However, on reflection, it is better if we leave the arrangements just as they are in the way that this statutory instrument is drafted. The noble Lord certainly has some experience there that I have never had, and I doubt that I ever will.
The noble Lord makes a more serious point about the remaining EU legislation. My information on the maritime sector is that this is one of the last things because the Paris MoU is there and we can revert to it. I will not comment on what might be in the King’s Speech; the noble Lord and I, and everybody else, will have to wait for it.
Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
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.
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.
Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 17 March 2026.
Since 2011, the warm home discount has supported low-income and vulnerable households by reducing energy bills during the coldest months of the year, when support is most needed. The Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 ended on 31 March 2026. These regulations will extend the scheme in Scotland for a further five years, until 2030-31, providing certainty for households, suppliers and delivery partners.
Fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. Under the Energy Act 2010, as amended by the Scotland Act 2016, Scottish Ministers have powers to design their own fuel poverty scheme, subject to consultation with and agreement from the Secretary of State. To date, Scottish Ministers have chosen not to exercise those powers and have instead consented to the UK Government laying regulations on their behalf. That remains the position for the next scheme period. Under devolution arrangements, the Scottish Government have provided their formal consent for these regulations to be made.
In September, the Government consulted, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, on proposals for the next scheme period. Consultation responses relating to Scotland were shared with Scottish Ministers, who have determined the eligibility criteria for the next scheme period within the agreed spending limit, as set out in these regulations.
The regulations will continue to require energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic customer accounts across Great Britain to participate in the scheme. Suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts will, as now, be able to participate in the scheme on a purely voluntary basis.
These regulations will continue to provide for £150 rebates to be provided by scheme suppliers under the data-matched core group and the application-based broader group, a different division of groups than is the case with the English scheme. Participating suppliers will continue to be obliged to provide a £150 rebate to eligible households in the core group, applied directly to their electricity bill. These regulations set out new eligibility criteria for the core group in Scotland, aligning qualifying benefits with those of the Scottish winter heating payment as of December 2025 for the next scheme period. It is estimated that the number of households that receive a core group rebate will increase by roughly 250,000 to 345,000 households per year compared with 2025-26.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the warm home discount SI before us today. How confident are the Government that this scheme will both reach the right people in Scotland and, probably more importantly, will spend the full envelope that Parliament is authorising? The Government and my noble friend’s department should be commended for the doubling. I know we are just touching on Scotland here, but across the whole of the warm homes discount, if we get it out to the right families, we are looking at moving from just about 2.7 million households across the UK to nearly 6 million, which is something to be commended.
Turning back to the SI, Scottish Ministers have taken a different approach to eligibility with changes to the core group. Can the Minister set out which additional types of low-income and fuel-poor households in Scotland will now be brought into the scheme? He touched on how many households that represents, which is appreciated, but what estimates have been made of those who will still fall outside the new core group, particularly those in rural, off-gas and high cost of heating homes?
On spending, as the Minister outlined, there is a fixed annual Scottish spending limit running until 2031. What specific mechanisms are in place to avoid underspend in any year? If suppliers are falling short of their Scottish obligations, will there be in-year monitoring and automatic reallocation or flexing of criteria, so that every pound intended for those Scottish households is delivered to Scottish families and not allocated to drift back to suppliers’ margins?
This is a GB-wide framework but, as the Minister said, in practice the Scottish scheme is shaped by the decisions of Scottish Ministers. That makes transparency and joint accountability all the more important. Can the Minister tell the Grand Committee what level of detail we will see in the published data for Scotland, from both the department and Ofgem? For example, will we be able to see take-up broken down by local authority, tenure type, disability status and the main heating fuel, so that this Parliament and the Scottish Government can judge whether the support is reaching those at most risk of fuel poverty?
Finally, given that these regulations run through to 2031, will the Minister commit to a formal mid-period review so that if the evidence shows that the scheme is not fully spending its allocation or is missing key groups, the regulations can be adjusted rather than simply left on autopilot for the rest of the decade? The doubling of the warm home discount is a great Labour Government initiative, but I am sure that all noble Lords will want to ensure that it is spent—and is seen to be spent—wisely
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI and explaining it in such detail, especially given the fact that we have already debated this at some length, when my colleague from the Liberal Democrat Benches also participated in certain aspects of it.
The focus on Scotland allows us to look at some specific aspects relevant there and to consider why the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 are so important for Scottish households—needed as they are, I might add, because of the high cost of energy and electricity in not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the doubling down on the policy of building intermittent wind farms far from the grid and energy costs that are sky high relative to international comparisons. With those wind farms operating at some 31% to 40% of their maximum potential capacity, we are required to continue to import gas and to pay for gas-fired CCGTs all year long for the sole purpose of being available when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. For that reason, it is all the more important that this draft warm home discount provision is available—because of the high prices of electricity and the need to protect those most in need in Scotland.
We understand how important this is, since the warm home discount is being immediately offset for so many by rising energy prices, driven by the Government’s own policy choices. It is important to note that suppliers are not funding this support; it is paid for by households through an additional levy. The Government are increasing taxes on working people to fund handouts to others, rather than fixing the problem at source by addressing the issue of making electricity cheap.
In addition, the administration costs will continue to rise. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the administration costs alone are estimated to be about £20 million per annum. It is time the Government addressed the need to cut electricity bills. We hope that during the brief coming recess, DESNZ will have the opportunity to see whether it can axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable subsidies and overturn the North Sea licensing ban. That will provide the greatest benefit to people on low incomes, not least vulnerable Scottish customers.
As the Minister has said, the WHD scheme supports those on low incomes, vulnerable to cold-related illness, or living wholly or mainly in fuel poverty. That is of course right—it is a policy that has been supported by both sides of the Committee. We need to target fuel-poor households, with the highest estimated energy costs identified through data matching, which we covered when we last discussed this important measure in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the recognition of the Secretary of State being able
“to direct energy suppliers to communicate with ‘matched’ customers identified through automated data matching, and … requiring suppliers to provide information on eligibility, the use of automated decision-making, and where to find the Scheme’s privacy notice”.
We already agreed to that in a previous debate on the application of the WHD extension elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we should also consider Professor Dieter Helm’s concern that, in not considering the WHD orders in the context of the wider energy policy being pursued by the Government, we are, to use his words, simply “moving the deck chairs”. The most important issue is that the warm homes discount scheme must be judged in the context of the fundamental issue of energy costs, and, most importantly, the high energy costs that make us so lacking in competition, particularly in the UK industrial sector but also in terms of very high domestic costs.
For many of the people concerned, fuel is perhaps the most important and noticeable change in energy prices for low-income households. Only recently, industry chiefs have warned that British electricity costs mean that domestic refineries are struggling to compete, and therefore that Britain will be increasingly reliant, as will Scotland, on imported fuel. Average petrol prices, at 157.62p a litre, are currently 25p higher than at the start of the war, and diesel has risen twice that to 188.9p a litre. Does the Minister recognise that, as the war has proven, it is important for a major economy to be focused on increasing its reliance on domestically generated fuel and not on imported fuel? This issue of security of supply is one I hope that we will return to and that the Minister can also address today.
We still import 60% of our gas, which is around 20% of our national energy demand. I hope that, during the brief Recess, the Secretary of State will reconsider his refusal to allow production at remaining North Sea gas fields, particularly Rosebank and Jackdaw, and that, at least recognising that there may be political motivation behind his decision, he will return to this subject shortly after the 7 May elections. As we know, when we look at Rosebank and Jackdaw, the emissions intensity is substantially lower than imported LNG from the United States. Therefore, on any environmental grounds, it makes great sense to develop our own gas reserves, not to mention the benefit to the Treasury of the revenues that are generated.
In the context of Scotland, we are losing nearly 1,000 jobs a month in Aberdeen—1,000 valuable jobs that are highly regarded around the world. It is so important to recognise that, from Aberdeen to Ardersier, we need to make sure that we protect jobs in Scotland and that this policy of being completely opposed to new licences, and not adjusting the commercial and fiscal terms that would encourage the extension of current production in reservoirs and tie-backs, is very damaging to the economy, puts up prices and, in turn, means that, in future, more people may have to avail themselves of the regulations we are discussing today.
We are approaching a brief break, which is an opportunity to test how popular the Government’s energy policies are in Scotland. I hope that this will allow DESNZ to undertake a comprehensive review of its doubling down on an energy policy that is high-cost—one of the highest in the world—and regrettably more polluting than it needs to be. I gave the example of LNG imports from the US against our own production from, for example, Rosebank and Jackdaw.
We are increasingly highly reliant—I know that the Minister will always expect me to say this—on Chinese solar imports from Uyghur slave labour and coal-fired factories. We are also highly dependent on ever-enlarging warm home discount schemes, which, we both agree, are a fundamental responsibility of parties in government. However, those schemes, which should be welcome because they ease some of the consequences of these policies, do not deter us from the most important issues: addressing the policies and reducing the cost of energy. Ultimately, if we can do those things, such policies will be less necessary because we will have addressed the facts that we need to be more competitive, that energy needs to be more affordable and that we need to protect jobs—not least in Scotland—which are absolutely vital to our economy and our energy mix.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate; I will attempt to address them in the best way I can.
I have got to know the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, well during my time as a Minister in this House. I say to him, with respect, that, although he is unfailingly constructive and courteous and makes important points, I fear that he has today given us a tour d’horizon of all the things we have been discussing over the past few months, wrapped within the carapace of the SI before us, which relates only to the specific Scottish circumstances of the warm home discount scheme. I hope he will forgive me if I do not give a detailed reply to some of his points because they have been discussed on other occasions; perhaps we could, over a drink at the end of the Session, tease out some of these issues between ourselves as we prepare for the proroguing of Parliament.
On the contributions concerning this specific SI, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for his contribution. His concerns relate to the enormous increase in coverage that has been achieved by these new arrangements. Because the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to set up an SI for a scheme similar, but not identical, to that in the rest of the UK, the benefits of the substantial increase in coverage now relate to Scotland and England just the same. However, there are of course questions relating to the fact that there are, and have been since 2011, considerable differences between some of the detail of the Scottish scheme and the English one. That is partly because of the identification of virtually everybody who is taking part in the expanded scheme in England, but it is not quite so as far as the Scottish scheme is concerned.
In the Scottish scheme, there is a core group and there is a broader group. The broader group is subject to identification by application and is then put into the assistance system by the energy suppliers, but there is a question about whether those energy suppliers are going to do that properly. How will it be ensured that they do, and, if they fall short, how can that be rectified by things such as making sure that industry initiatives are brought up so that the broader group does not suffer in the way that it might otherwise do? It is down to the Scottish Government and Ofgem to make sure it happens, but it is clearly something that we need to keep a close eye on as the scheme develops.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are taking action on energy prices and bearing down on them. As he will know, we have the energy price cap, which has made sure that prices go down by about 7% over the next few months. We have had the transfer of renewables obligation levies and the ending of eco-levy costs to reduce bills. We have an ambition to take considerably more off energy bills in the future using those sorts of devices.
The noble Lord talked about domestically produced fuel. We completely agree on the need to have domestically sourced power in the UK. That is exactly what the Government are doing with increased offshore wind and solar. I have already talked to the noble Lord about how we can increase the amount of domestically produced onshore gas by increasing the biomethane that is injected into the grid—a completely domestic source of gas. The Government are acting on these things.
The noble Lord quoted Dieter Helm, saying that we are only moving the deckchairs. Sometimes moving deckchairs is a good thing, particularly if the deckchairs were previously in the shade and you can bring them out into the sun by the things you are doing. For example, one of the things that we are doing here is to move the effect of the funding from standing charges to individual markers related to the amount of power that is being consumed by particular customers. Instead of that money being taken for these warm home discount schemes from standing charges, they will be a combination of matters now, which will save people something like £39 on standing charges. So yes, we can move the deckchairs. I am conscious that we need to move further and faster—to move more deckchairs more rapidly—and transcending that. If this measure is about moving deckchairs, the deckchairs have been moved very efficiently and we have a good scheme as a result.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I listened careful to all the deckchairs moving around, but the Minister’s analogy is incomplete, because the deckchairs that are referred to in the famous aphorism relate to the deckchairs on a sinking ship. That is the pointlessness of some of the things we are looking at. It is important that, rather than rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship, where everybody goes down with the vessel, we look at keeping energy prices as low as we can. The high energy prices that this nation is labouring under are de-industrialising our nation, killing our chemical industry and giving everybody the highest energy costs in the industrialised world. That is something we need to bear down upon.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As I was just saying to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, moving the deckchairs depends on the fact that the ship is not sinking. Of course, this ship is not sinking. That is why we have been able to double the eligibility for people to take part in the scheme and are further doubling down on energy price reductions through the devices that I set out and the further development of clean, domestically produced power to make sure those prices stay low for the future. We are doing other measures, such as de-linking the arrangements between gas-based electricity and renewables-based electricity. The purpose of a number of things might seem to be moving the deckchairs, but certainly not on a sinking ship. The ship has all its deckchairs in the sun now and is steaming forward to a bright energy future.
Motion agreed.