Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the Grand Committee do consider the Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation, set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, this amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024, following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027. These amendments were debated and approved in the other place on 2 April. I also remind the Grand Committee that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn this SI to the attention of the House.
The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following from road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aimed to reduce the number and costs of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums.
Elements of the reform programme were delivered through the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff for damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years. The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.
The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021—which I will refer to as the 2021 regulations—which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation, and within every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of this statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024, and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024.
On reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for CPI inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary. In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.
I hope noble Lords will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years. The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240, for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less, to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside of the fixed tariff.
When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year “buffer”, which was designed to account for expected inflation according to available forecasts at the time and to ensure that claimants were not undercompensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts. Inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher-than-expected rate and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024 and should again include a buffer to account for expected inflation until the next review in 2027. Therefore, the whiplash tariff will be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.
As I have already mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. It is also worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail price index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation.
In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. Although this three-year buffer could lead to some overcompensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and would risk significant under- compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being undercompensated in the years leading up to 2027.
As noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the call for evidence showed opposition to the buffer in its present form. Of the 32 respondents, 29 opposed the use of the three-year buffer, but, crucially, their reasons for doing so were different and, in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, unconvincing. Some respondents suggested that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to impact significantly on savings. The tariff amounts are being adjusted only to account for inflation; as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.
Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders preferred that the whiplash tariff should be either subject to an annual review or index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated in the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.
It is worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time at which to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.
In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As noble Lords have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, this instrument adjusts only the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.
I believe that the amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review in 2027. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument. Its central point is to update the 2021 level of damages, having regard to inflation. We welcome that update, and I say at the outset that we have no objection to the use of the consumer prices index for the uprating, nor do we suggest that three years is an unacceptable review period. We welcome the buffer for future-proofing, as the Minister described it. That will take us to 2027, which will follow a further review.
I am bound to say in passing that I hope the Minister is right that the higher rate of inflation that we experienced recently is a one-off event and not likely to be repeated. His economic forecasting may be better than mine, but I note that it is shared by the Lord Chancellor, who is venturing into unexpected fields —so be it.
However, I continue to have the doubts that I expressed in 2018, when what is now the Civil Liability Act was being considered. For my part, I am not convinced of the merits of a tariff for damages for whiplash injuries, particularly at the higher end of the scale for such injuries. Whiplash injuries—even minor ones, and, in particular, those with psychological consequences—cover quite a range. The sums, which approach £5,000 at the higher end of the scale, for the 18 to 24-month duration injuries, represent a considerable sum of money for many claimants, who may feel short-changed by the fact that there is no discretion applied to the award of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in their case. I still suspect that we would be better served by enhanced scope for greater judicial discretion by district judges and, in some cases, circuit judges, assisted by Judicial College guidelines, so that claimants would feel that they had had individual attention, rather than by the rigid application of a tariff. Those were the points that I and my colleagues made in 2018.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and his committed statement. I thank the Minister for his helpful and thoughtful introduction.
I rise on the principle that the Executive should be held to account—in this instance briefly and positively—and to acknowledge that it is traditional to get orders and regulations through in the way we do, week in, week out in your Lordships’ House. The usual channels usually get it right, but so often our regulations and orders affect thousands or millions of people. Perhaps more of them should have been debated more closely, sometimes even in the Chamber.
However, having read the declaration in the informative Explanatory Memorandum, who would wish to challenge these regulations? The Minister in another place is a KC, and we have the deputy director for civil justice and law policy at the Ministry of Justice, and the most persuasive and courteous of Ministers in your Lordships’ House—and the instrument is laid by command of His Majesty.
I support and welcome the regulations, which offer increased amounts. This and only this differentiates them from the 2021 regulations. The legal framework has not changed. If lower premiums follow, so much the better, but one notes that premiums are imposed by the insurance industry, which does not always deliver on what it infers should be the case.
Can the Minister indicate how many whiplash cases entered our courts in, say, 2022 and 2023? That response may come later, rather than here and now, but can he reference in it the numbers for Wales, as well as those for England? Does the department have any rough estimate—for that is all it can be—of the percentage of likely fraudulent and contrived cases that enter our courts?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister outlined, these regulations follow the Government’s statutory review of the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021. The proposed amendments would increase compensation for whiplash injuries occurring on or after 31 May 2025 from 14% to 15% across all tariff bands. This increase is intended, as we have heard, to reflect inflation since the original tariffs were introduced. It includes a forecasted buffer to cover inflation over the next three years.
The whiplash tariff system introduced by the previous Conservative Administration was aimed at reducing the number and cost of minor injury claims and lowering motor insurance premiums. It introduced fixed compensation levels for whiplash injuries sustained in road traffic accidents and moved away from case-by-case judicial assessment. The structure of the tariff is not altered by this instrument; what changes is the monetary value assigned to each tariff band. The uplift of 15% is designed to reflect inflation since 2021; it includes a buffer to account for expected inflation until the next statutory review, scheduled for 2027.
In principle, we support this change. It is reasonable that compensation should keep pace with the cost of living. We also welcome the Ministry of Justice’s stated intention to work with MedCo to improve the quality and consistency of medical reporting. Reliable, clear medical evidence is essential to the fair operation of this system, but we have some questions and concerns.
This instrument introduces a significant and untested change in how compensation levels are set. Rather than updating tariff figures in legislation, as had been the practice, this uplift includes a forward-looking inflation buffer based on economic forecasts. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, this is without precedent: no other statutory compensation scheme relies on forecasted inflation in this way. Forecasts, as we know, are often subject to revision and uncertainty. There is a real risk that this buffer may underestimate actual inflation, leaving claimants undercompensated over time. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on this point. What assurances can be given that the inflation buffer will be accurate and what mechanism will be in place to ensure that claimants are not short-changed if those forecasts prove incorrect?
In addition, we are concerned about how the Government have represented feedback from their public consultation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee made it clear that over 90% of respondents opposed the buffer model. That is not a mixed view, even if the reasons given differed; it is, in fact, an overwhelmingly critical view.
We also note continuing concerns raised by third parties. The Motor Accident Solicitors Society, for example, said that the tariff system and the official injury claims portal have damaged access to justice, particularly for those unfamiliar with legal processes or without representation. It also argues that the original tariff amounts were too low—significantly lower than those typically awarded under Judicial College guidelines for comparable injuries outside a motor vehicle context. While this instrument focuses narrowly on adjusting tariff levels, it is part of a much wider macro-reform framework that remains highly contentious.
In conclusion, we support the uplift proposal in this instrument; ensuring that compensation keeps pace with inflation is necessary and fair. However, this policy cannot be left to run on autopilot. It must be subject to scrutiny, accountability and, where necessary, reform. We will support this instrument today, but we will continue to monitor closely whether the whiplash reforms are delivering on their promises of fairness, accessibility and justice.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for the measures in this statutory instrument. On the points which noble Lords have made, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said he supported it, but he repeated his reservations, which he originally articulated in 2018. Just for the record, there is some judicial discretion. All tariff awards can be increased by up to 20% by the court in exceptional circumstances, so I take the noble Lord’s point but there is some judicial discretion in the level of the awards. He asked how much money has been saved. I cannot give him an answer in a figure. However, HM Treasury laid a report on this in Parliament on 27 March 2025. The report details a summary of the information provided by insurers, which have concluded that policyholders benefited from a reduction in insurance costs through paying lower premiums over the period 2020 to 2023. As it is factual reporting of the information from insurers to the Treasury via the Financial Conduct Authority, the report does not represent the Government’s findings or conclusions. Separate to this report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I hope that last point goes some way to reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. We have no intention of running on autopilot, and all government policies are kept under review. It is certainly the intention in this case as well.
My noble friend Lord Jones was characteristically very generous in his assessment of the Government’s approach overall, so I thank him for that. Regarding the volume of claims in England and Wales, in 2022, there were 1,827, and in 2023 there were 9,335. I am afraid I do not have a breakdown of how much of that is in Wales alone. If I am able to get those figures, I will let him know. I also do not have a percentage for the likely fraudulent claims. Those numbers are not monitored as such because there are different types of fraud. Nevertheless, if there is any data that I can include in my letter to my noble friend, I will do so.
On the Explanatory Memorandum, the calls for evidence and the different views that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed to, more than 108,000 unrepresented claims have been created in the OIC portal since it since it was implemented. The proportion has increased from 9% in the first year to 12.7% as of 31 March 2025, so there is an increase in unrepresented claims, which we think is a good thing. In comparison, only 74 applications were made to the previous system by unrepresented claimants in 2021, so we think that the system is as a whole working well. Nevertheless, I do not want to give any hint of complacency. I undertake that we will continue to review the system and see that it continues to develop, as we hope it will.
Motion agreed.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, the draft instrument before us today makes a number of changes to ensure that legal aid continues to be available to those most in need and continues to serve some of the most vulnerable people in our society who need our support. It ensures that our legal aid legislation is aligned with wider government legislation on domestic abuse and immigration.
First, this draft instrument will make changes to enhance the scope of immigration legal aid. It will make legal aid available for those eligible to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom as a victim of domestic abuse under the Immigration Rules. This change will ensure that all eligible domestic abuse victims can access legal aid for applications under this immigration route.
Secondly, this draft instrument will amend the evidence requirements for domestic abuse victims applying for legal aid. It will do this by enabling victims to present evidence of abuse from appropriate medical practitioners overseas.
In addition, this draft instrument will make changes to terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse”, and “financial” abuse with “economic” abuse. This instrument will recognise that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, such as the victim’s child. These changes will ensure consistency with wider legislation.
Finally, this statutory instrument will make changes to complement instruments made in 2023 and 2024 in relation to the scope of legal aid for domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. If enacted, this instrument will ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these orders.
Before turning to the amendments in this instrument in detail, I will briefly set out how the legal aid scheme works. In general, civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which I will henceforth refer to as LASPO. Then, in most cases, an individual must pass a means test, which is a check on their financial eligibility, and a merits test, which is a check to ensure the taxpayer is not funding entirely unmeritorious cases. In certain cases, most notably those involving victims of domestic abuse or child abuse, evidence requirements must also be satisfied.
I turn to each of the four topics covered in this order. First, amendments are made to the availability of immigration legal aid for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK. Currently, legal aid is available for some victims of domestic abuse who are eligible to apply for leave to remain in the UK under the Home Office Immigration Rules, subject to the means and merits test.
The Immigration Rules set out the rules for entering and remaining in the UK. The rules include the Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse, which I will henceforth call Appendix VDA. This concerns victims whose leave to remain in the UK was based on their partner’s or spouse’s immigration status and whose relationship has broken down as a result of domestic abuse. It is the route by which victims can apply for settlement in the UK, independent of their partner’s status, ensuring they can escape the abusive relationship without having to leave or be removed from the UK as a result. The eligibility requirements in Appendix VDA are amended from time to time.
This instrument amends LASPO to ensure that legal aid provision for victims applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK is aligned to the latest requirements set out in Appendix VDA. The changes will ensure that this alignment will continue in the event amendments are made to Appendix VDA in the future. This will mean that all victims of domestic abuse can access legal aid for advice to assist with an application for leave to enter or remain, under Appendix VDA, subject to means and merits tests.
Secondly, this instrument will make changes to the evidence requirements that victims of domestic abuse must satisfy in order to receive legal aid. Acceptable forms of evidence are set out in Schedule 1 to the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012. Currently, certain forms of overseas evidence are accepted as evidence of domestic abuse. For example, legal aid applications may include supporting documentation concerning an arrest or police caution abroad. However, evidence from overseas medical practitioners is not accepted. The Government wish to change the regulations to enable evidence from appropriate health professionals who are licensed and registered overseas to be accepted for legal aid applications. This will enhance the ability of victims to take action against perpetrators.
Thirdly, the statutory instrument will amend terminology in LASPO and associated regulations to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which I will henceforth call the DA Act. Since the introduction of the DA Act, terminology across government has moved away from “domestic violence” and towards “domestic abuse”, to explicitly recognise that perpetrators use more than just physical violence to harm an individual.
In its definition of domestic abuse, the DA Act describes such behaviour as including
“physical or sexual abuse … violent or threatening behaviour … controlling or coercive behaviour … economic abuse … psychological, emotional or other abuse”.
The inclusion of the term “economic” abuse in this definition—rather than “financial” abuse, as is currently used in LASPO—reflects a shift in recent years to explicitly acknowledge that abuse goes beyond interfering with money and finances to include economic resources more broadly, such as things that money can buy, examples of which include housing, possessions and clothing.
Further, the DA Act expressly states that domestic abuse of an individual includes behaviour and conduct directed at another person. For example, an abuser may direct behaviour towards a child in the household in order to facilitate or perpetuate the abuse of their partner. The definition of domestic violence in LASPO recognises that abuse extends beyond physical violence, and therefore implicitly includes abuse directed at third parties. However, by updating the LASPO terminology to align with the wording used in the DA Act, we aim to reduce the risk of victims perceiving that the abuse they are experiencing is out of scope for legal aid funding.
Finally, this instrument complements previous statutory instruments that made provision for bringing legal aid into scope for victims, third parties and those subject to domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. DAPOs and DAPNs, as they are known, are new orders that are now available in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs—namely, Bromley, Croydon and Sutton—and Cleveland. They are also available to the British Transport Police in those areas and will shortly be extended to north Wales. This instrument makes further changes to LASPO and the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013 to bring other aspects of the DA Act in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs in scope of civil or criminal legal aid. These changes help ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these instruments. These changes are technical and address unintended gaps in provision.
To conclude, the draft instrument before us will make legal aid available to society’s most vulnerable people, furthering this Government’s ambition to support victims of domestic abuse. I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, time is of the essence, so I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his compassionate introduction. He has been so good as to indicate, unasked and informatively, where the pilot areas are. He mentioned my homeland, north Wales. I wonder whether he can be specific as to whereabouts in that lovely land.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to this order. It has been extremely helpful to hear the way in which he set it out.
Broadly, we support the changes made by this instrument. It is plainly right that the regulations affecting legal aid for the victims of domestic abuse should reflect the broader definition of “domestic abuse” in the Domestic Abuse Act, rather than the previous, narrow definition of “domestic violence”, which failed to recognise, for example, coercive and controlling behaviour. It is also right that the narrow definition of “financial” abuse is to be replaced with a broader definition of “economic” abuse in all the other areas that the Minister outlined. The regulations should be updated—as he has explained that they will be—to ensure that legal aid is available in relation to disputes concerning domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices.
That medical evidence is now to be admissible from overseas health professionals is plainly sensible; it is an anomaly that this was not already the case. There was, for example, nothing to cover the position of a victim of domestic abuse who was assaulted by a partner while temporarily abroad on holiday and who had obtained contemporaneous evidence of that assault while she or he—usually she—was still abroad. It is also sensible that abuse of third parties—often the child of an intended victim or victim—should be within the definition of domestic abuse for legal aid purposes.
As has been explained, these regulations also make a significant improvement in the position of those whose immigration status comes under threat as a result of domestic abuse at the hands of a former partner or spouse when the relationship that has broken down as a result of that abuse formed the basis of their obtaining leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom and the breakdown threatens their immigration status. The provision of a clear route for such victims of domestic abuse to secure legal aid to pursue an application for leave to remain is right and we welcome it.
So all these reforms are very welcome, but this kind of piecemeal reform, welcome as it is, barely scratches the surface in repairing the damage done by the reductions in the scope of legal aid. The Labour Party has a long tradition of supporting legal aid, but legal aid, particularly civil legal aid, has been a Cinderella service in recent years, seriously restricted in scope by the LASPO Act —I entirely accept that the coalition Government, which my party supported, had a lot to do with that —and in a number of very important areas. The service has been starved of funds for the provision of comprehensive advice and the pursuit of cases in those areas that are still within scope.
I know there is no need to remind the Minister of the excellent review of legal aid carried out under the leadership of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in 2017, but its principles were well stated, thoroughly argued and should guide this Government on the future of legal aid across the field. Indeed, the impact assessment for the 2023 order sets out the principle underlying civil legal aid in wide-ranging terms that I unhesitatingly endorse. I read them by way of reminder and in an effort to hold the Government’s feet to the fire across the wider field of legal aid.
Under the heading
“What are the policy objectives of the action or intervention and the intended effects?”
the impact assessment states:
“The policy objective behind the proposals in this Impact Assessment … is to ensure that legal aid is available to the groups of people identified and that legal aid is fairly provided across all proceedings. The ability of individuals to resolve their legal issues is vital for a just society and it is crucial that people are able to access support when they need it. A core element of this support is access to legal advice and representation where it is necessary. The Government provides legal aid in England and Wales to ensure those who need it can access legal advice and representation”.
So far, that is entirely across the field in general. Coming to the subject of this statutory instrument, it says
“including victims of domestic abuse, and parents having their child taken away”.
This is an important general principle that I remind the Government of in relation to this order, which we support.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this important statutory instrument. We on these Benches support the intent behind these reforms. We welcome efforts to modernise legal aid and to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not excluded from justice due to arbitrary procedural barriers or outdated definitions in law. This order reflects and builds on developments introduced by the previous Conservative Administration, particularly through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and recent updates to the Home Office Immigration Rules, notably Appendix VDA.
The extension of the Appendix VDA route is particularly significant. For too long, victims of domestic abuse who have been abandoned overseas—often as a result of coercive and controlling behaviour—have found themselves in legal limbo, unable to return to the United Kingdom or access the support they need. This change will rightly bring such individuals within the scope of legal aid for applications for leave to enter or remain. Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to ensure that information about this change is made clearly available to those who may be eligible for support but who remain outside the United Kingdom? What steps will be taken to ensure that victims who are stranded abroad are not left unaware of their rights under this amended provision?
The order also introduces a practical and necessary change to evidential requirements for private family law legal aid applications. By allowing reports from appropriately qualified overseas professionals to be accepted as valid medical evidence, it recognises that victims may not always be in the United Kingdom when they seek help. This change will reduce avoidable delays and better support families in transnational situations, but I have two questions for the Minister in respect of evidence from overseas witnesses. What steps will be taken to ensure that the evidence from overseas is from a genuinely qualified and accredited professional who, first, matches the professional standards expected of an equivalent health professional within this jurisdiction and, secondly, understands that he or she is complying with the standards of objectivity required of an expert witness complying with the rules of court in this jurisdiction? It is important that this country’s generosity is not abused.
We welcome the modernisation of language in the legislation. Replacing “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse” and “financial abuse” with the broader concept of “economic abuse” reflects the statutory definition set out in the Domestic Abuse Act and the lived experience of many survivors. Abuse is not always physical. It can be psychological, emotional or economic and exercised through control over finances, housing or access to essentials. The updated terminology will support a more comprehensive understanding of abuse among legal professionals and front-line decision- makers.
While we support the direction of travel, we will watch closely how these changes are implemented in practice. Victims whose immigration status is tied to an abusive partner are often in extremely vulnerable positions. Navigating the legal system should not compound their trauma. It is essential that the Home Office and legal aid providers apply these new rules fairly, sensitively and consistently.
There is also the question of clarity and guidance. Following up my two earlier questions, I asked the Minister whether overseas health professionals will be provided with clear information on what constitutes acceptable medical evidence. Without this, there is a risk that legitimate claims may be delayed or refused due to uncertainty about evidential standards or that inadequate evidence might mislead the court. While updating legal language is important, it must be matched by practical understanding. Front-line professionals, from caseworkers to judges, must be equipped to apply these broader definitions in practice. Training and guidance will be crucial.
These reforms build on existing entitlements. They reinforce the role of legal aid as a vital route to protection, justice and stability for victims of abuse, so we support this statutory instrument and thank the Minister for bringing it forward, but we urge the Government to ensure that the implementation matches the intention and that those at greatest risk receive the support they need when they need it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I turn first to the questions of my noble friend Lord Jones. I misspoke in my initial address to the Committee: the pilot areas are already under way in north Wales; they commenced on 28 April. The areas that are covered by these pilot areas in north Wales are the Isle of Anglesey, Gwynedd, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire and Wrexham.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his geographic exactitude. When I think upon the names he mentioned, not much of north Wales is left out.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very glad my noble friend thinks that. It will be very interesting to see how these pilots develop.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support and agree with the points he made when he explained his support for this statutory instrument. He said that legal aid is a Cinderella service; I agree with that. He acknowledged that it was the coalition Government that introduced the LASPO Act, but neither the noble Lord, Lord Marks, nor the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, were anywhere near the scene of the crime of the LASPO Act. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the points he made when he was addressing that and the review of my noble friend Lord Bach. I know it very well and think it is fair to say that it is aspirational at this point because money is tight but, nevertheless, the aspirations behind it still stand.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked how victims are going to get the information when they are abroad and how overseas doctors will present the information in an appropriate format. I am not aware of any particular advice on that so, if there is something particular I need to say, I will write to the noble Lord on that point. I have experience of the appropriate formatting of medical letters; it is quite a complicated and important part of the whole procedure, so I thank the noble Lord for bringing that to the Committee’s attention. As I say, if appropriate, I will write to him on this. I thank the Committee for its support for this statutory instrument.
Motion agreed.
Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025.
Relevant document: Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 23 April.
As noble Lords know, this Thursday, 8 May, marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day. It is a momentous day in our history as it marks the end of the conflict in Europe—but not, obviously, the end of the Second World War, since conflict continued in Japan through to August. It was an occasion of national pride, relief and jubilation as peace returned, as well as a poignant moment given the losses inflicted by years of war.
I hope noble Lords will bear with me for saying that I have a precious photograph of my mother, aged 12, holding her younger sister on VE Day on a terraced street in Liverpool. They both have fantastic smiles on their faces because the conflict in which my grandfather was killed, in the Liverpool Blitz, had ended. My mother’s uncle was also killed—at sea when he was serving in the Navy. VE Day is a day of momentous pride, even today, for many people who did not serve in the war but have—or had—relatives who lived through it and who saw its results.
The 80th anniversary would always have been significant but, because the VE Day 75th anniversary commemorations were restricted due to the Covid pandemic in 2020, there is an added emphasis this year. Many people will want to come together with friends and family to mark this special anniversary and to raise a glass to the millions who fought and suffered in order to preserve the freedoms and way of life that we enjoy today. We owe them all an enormous debt. Time has passed—I was born 12 years after VE Day but it coloured my early life for the reasons I mentioned—but their service and sacrifice will never be forgotten.
This week will see a number of commemorative events being held, including but not limited to a military procession from Whitehall to Buckingham Palace, street parties across the country and a service at Westminster Abbey, which will serve as both an act of shared remembrance and a celebration of the end of the war in Europe. A concert will also take place at Horse Guards Parade to mark the end of commemorations on 8 May; indeed, the Parliament Choir will, I think, undertake a concert in this building tomorrow, on Wednesday evening. No doubt other events are planned; the order before the Committee today will allow people to celebrate for longer than they would normally be able to.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 allows the Secretary of State to make a licensing hours order to allow licensed premises to open for specified, extended hours on occasions of exceptional international, national or local significance. By way of background, past occasions when the then Home Secretary exercised this power include such events as: the King’s Coronation; Her late Majesty the Queen’s Diamond and Platinum Jubilee celebrations; the royal weddings in 2011 and 2018; and, most recently, the semi-final and final of the men’s UEFA European Championship last year. The Government consider the 80th anniversary of VE Day an occasion of national significance and, as such, worthy of this proposed extension.
There are a number of practical details. The order makes provisions to relax licensing arrangements in England and Wales, and to allow licensed premises to extend their opening hours on Thursday 8 May for a further two hours from 11 pm until 1 am the following morning.
The Government undertook a truncated consultation with key stakeholders, who were broadly supportive of the extension, and we take the view that this order will not bring about any significant crime or disorder due to the nature of the events. We recognise that there may be implications for police resourcing, but we will continue to work with stakeholders to mitigate any concerns around the impact. Nobody objected to the order in the consultation, truncated though it was.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I thank the Minister for explaining the objectives of this statutory instrument. We are entirely supportive of what he said. It is appropriate that this SI is approved. I have very little to add, except to say that this is an event of major national significance. As a consequence of that, it is right to do what the Government are proposing.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful and instructive introduction and wish well the aims of this order. Saturday’s great London parade ending at the palace was a magnificent event, helping towards national unity, pride and patriotism. I recall my father’s return from Burma with his star in November 1945—there were difficulties in getting a great army back home from far away as speedily as possible.
Our service men and women displayed and paraded on Saturday brilliantly alongside the flag-flying Ukrainian guests. Surely, after the parade, many of the huge crowds and millions watching on television sought to sink a pint or two. As an Army veteran and president of our RBL branch, I am certain that many pints will be sunk on 8 and 9 May. We can generate quite a thirst in Wales when the occasion arises. This surely shall be one. I have marched in many remembrance parades— at least some 45. In several, I marched with a then constituent who wore his medals of two world wars. He was a lovely man and he invited me into his home.
Strangely, some 60 years ago, Wales organised a referendum for or against Sunday opening—for Sundays were supposedly to be dry in Wales, presumably to encourage attendance at church, chapel and other places of worship. The referendum delivered a resounding “No” to opening, so tired, red-faced, ageing men with large stomachs took the Sunday bus that ran across the Wales-England border to quench their thirst in the then attractively wet England. Our local bus ran to Chester. We in Wales still have a lingering gift for whitewash and hypocrisy—but only skin deep, of course.
I recollect the Minister’s superb tenure and many years as Member of Parliament for Delyn. He was much admired as a vigorous and successful constituency man and a friendly and approachable Member of Parliament, just as he now is as a Minister in your Lordships’ House. We have shared a pint or two together over the years.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. Like others, I rise with humility and respect as we mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and, to come, victory over Japan. These are two defining moments in both our national story and the wider history of the free world. This anniversary offers a rare and precious opportunity, perhaps one of the last, for living veterans to share their memories first hand. It is a moment for us as a nation to come together across generations and communities to honour the service and sacrifice of all those who fought, served and contributed to the war effort.
In this, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for including my late father, who joined the Royal Air Force on 4 September 1939, his 19th birthday. He was very fortunate to survive: he served on 43 operations in Bomber Command over enemy territory, the last of them in November 1944. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was, he thought, a very lucky survivor. He told me that he could not believe he was still alive at the end of the war. He always marched proudly with his medals in thanksgiving parades, and he never forgot those with whom he served.
Whether in mourning, reflection or celebration, coming together is a time-honoured tradition in Britain. It has long helped us to connect with one another and with our shared history. I therefore welcome the Government’s recognition of the central role that public houses and hospitality venues play in marking national moments such as these. The extension of licensing hours is a small but real gesture that will allow communities across the country to gather, reflect and raise a glass in tribute. Indeed, many of these same establishments were open on the very day that peace was declared. The London Museum hosts a wonderful collection of photographs from the 1945 celebrations. I encourage all noble Lords to visit its dedicated website and take a moment to reflect on those scenes of spontaneous joy and national unity.
We are especially pleased to see the Government place strong emphasis on remembering the contributions of the Commonwealth. Millions from India, Africa, the Caribbean, Australasia, Canada and others further away stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain. They volunteered and they fought. Many made the ultimate sacrifice. Their bravery and commitment are and were integral to the victory we commemorate today and tomorrow, and they must always hold a central place in our national memory.
This statutory instrument enables a broad, inclusive and ambitious programme of commemorative events, from military processions and national services to cultural initiatives, educational programmes and grass-roots street parties. This is a comprehensive and thoughtful approach. We welcome the Government’s vision: a commemoration that is both solemn and celebratory, which reflects our veterans while ensuring that their stories and values are passed on to a new generation.
We are particularly encouraged by the Government’s commitment to inclusivity, ensuring that these commemorations recognise not only the European and Middle Eastern theatre but the Far East and the global scale of that conflict. The previous Conservative Government’s allocation of £1 million to establish a memorial to the Muslim soldiers who died in both world wars is a testament to our ongoing commitment to recognising the diverse faiths and communities who served this nation in its hour of need.
The recognition of the so-called Forgotten Army in Burma and the efforts to honour the many backgrounds, beliefs and nationalities represented in our forces mark a vital and long overdue step toward a fuller and more accurate reflection of Britain’s wartime experience.
As we commemorate these historic anniversaries, let us do so with pride, gratitude and in unity, remembering not only the victory but the values and sacrifices that made it possible.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions of the three noble Lords who have spoken today. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Jones for reminding us both of the joy he would have had when his own father returned home from the war and the contribution this week of the Ukrainian forces, who are still fighting in Europe for the values that noble Lords have mentioned today.
As my noble friend Lord Jones knows, I am Lord Hanson of Flint and for many years he was the Member of Parliament for the constituency covering Flint; he mentioned the British Legion club, where we will, I am sure, see many beers sunk on Thursday as a result of this order. I am grateful for his very kind words about my service over 28 years in that town.
I am also very pleased to have the strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for the order. It is good to see this cross-party support for the recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, ably summed up the mood of this Committee: we have pride and gratitude for the service of people such as his father who served our country with bravery and humility. I am always aware of the fact that when my uncle was killed, he did not know that the war would one day be over and won; he did now know that there would be three more years of the conflict; he did not know that the people such as the fathers of my noble friend Lord Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would come back.
Only now can we reflect on that dark period and on the service of those on the home front, in the Navy, the Air Force and the Army and in the Commonwealth—a point from the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which I very strongly agree with—who all came together to defeat an evil. On 8 May 1945, that evil was defeated, and celebrations began. We can do no better on this 8 May than to allow this order to go through, allowing colleagues throughout the country to enjoy an extra couple of hours and have an extra couple of beers, glasses of wine or, dare I say, even soft drinks if they wish to do so. In doing so, we are giving the opportunity to toast the people who made this country what it is today by defeating fascism and all its evil in 1945.
I am sure that we will return to the end of the Second World War later this year. For the moment, however, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and ask that the order be approved.
Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Cornwall Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to two linked instruments: the East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025 and the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the scrutiny provided for these instruments. These draft statutory instruments were laid in Parliament on 24 February 2025. If they are approved, the Department for Education will transfer adult education functions and associated adult skills funding to these three areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2025. This will give them freedom to use their adult skills funding as they see fit to help their residents fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
The adult education functions being transferred are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. The specific functions are: education and training for persons aged 19 or over; learning aims for such persons and provision of facilities; and payment of tuition fees for statutory entitlements for certain individuals. These relate to Sections 86, 87 and 88 of the 2009 Act respectively. These functions will be exercisable by these local areas instead of by the Secretary of State. They are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention or any power to make regulations or orders.
Other specific functions being transferred are the encouragement of education and training for persons aged 19 or over, the provision of financial resources and the provision of financial resources in connection with technical education. These relate to Section 90 and Section 100(1) and (1B) of the 2009 Act respectively. These functions will be transferred to the local areas so that they are exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State.
The Adult Skills Fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. The Government usually allocate around £1.4 billion annually to deliver this provision. This includes national statutory entitlements to free English, maths and digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for 19 to 23 year- olds who do not yet have them, and free courses for jobs for adults aged 18 or over who do not have a level 3 qualification, are unemployed or earn less than £25,000.
If these statutory instruments are approved, Cornwall, the East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire can apply their devolved powers to identify adults with the greatest skills needs in their region, invest more funding to support those groups, work directly with employers, providers and other local partners to commission provision to meet local needs and set funding rates to incentivise the delivery of provision that will have the greatest positive impact in their region. This will help to deliver the Government’s mission, set out in the English Devolution White Paper, to give local areas the powers and freedoms to decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth and make a real difference to people’s lives.
The Department for Education has worked closely with each area to ensure that they are ready to take on these functions. Each local area has carried out the relevant local consultations, received the consents required for the transfer of these powers and the making of these statutory instruments, met the Department for Education’s readiness criteria and published a strategic skills plan setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding.
The Secretary of State for Education has judged that all three areas have met the relevant statutory tests set out in legislation, such that conferring these functions to the local area is: first, likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of some or all the people who live or work in the area or areas to which the order or regulations relate; and, secondly, appropriate to the needs to secure effective and convenient local government and to reflect the identities and interests of local communities.
I thank the partner organisations, colleagues and constituent authorities of Cornwall, the East Midlands, and York and North Yorkshire for their work to get to this important milestone.
To conclude, these statutory instruments will give three new devolved areas the opportunity and freedom to directly shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their regions. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am extremely supportive of these three statutory instruments and thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. The consultation that took place on the three proposals supported what the council in Cornwall and the combined authorities of East Midlands and York and North Yorkshire proposed, so it is right to transfer responsibilities to those bodies.
As the Minister said, it will mean that decisions on adult education provision, including skills training, reflect the needs of the combined authority or council areas. However, I would like the Minister to clarify two issues. In the consultation in the east Midlands on the transfer of functions, 1,534 people were against the proposals, with 2,504 in favour. Can the Minister explain, if only for the record, why so many people were opposed to something that seems entirely sensible? Was there a problem or had there been some misunderstanding about what was being proposed?
More importantly, there is going to be an issue, given that these three proposed transfers of functions are adding to quite a number that are already in existence. How will the Government assess outcomes and success? Devolution is supposed to improve services and outcomes. There are tests that the Government could apply: I would like to think that one of those is a reduction in the rate of NEETs—young people who are not in employment, education or training. Do the Government identify a reduction in the NEET level as something that devolution should deliver, given that local people are best positioned to assess how skills, training and educational opportunity can be improved?
A second test might be about the number of young people with disabilities who are employed. That is important, because we should use all the talents of young people that we can, and the NEET figures are simply too high.
The third test I suggest to Ministers is to reassure Parliament in future, first, that the structure that will be put in place will link effectively with employers in identifying future skills needs; and, secondly, that the providers of adult and further education—and, indeed, those of mainstream education in the school system—are all talking to each other, as well as with the council and the combined authorities, to ensure that effective decision-making is happening. This is because it is very difficult to identify future skills needs. It is comparatively easy to identify current skills needs, but identifying skills needs five or 10 years from now, say, is a great deal more complicated. I am interested in what feedback systems the Government have in order to enable all the bodies with devolved powers and responsibilities to teach each other and learn from each other, so that we do not have skills shortages and so that future planning for our skills needs is as effective as it possibly could be. Will there be a regular report to Parliament on outcomes?
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a current Central Bedfordshire councillor. I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of these important statutory instruments. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I, as an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association, am always supportive of further devolution to local government. His Majesty’s Official Opposition welcome the principle of devolved adult education functions; indeed, we were the architect of many of these devolution arrangements when in government.
Local authorities, with their proximity to learners and communities, are often better placed than central government to identify and meet local needs—and, in particular, to tailor them to local circumstances. With the necessary support and funding, this policy, when implemented, can play a vital role in promoting economic growth, social mobility and lifelong learning. However, we must scrutinise not just the principle but the practice. It is around the practice—particularly the funding, as well as the accountability arrangements that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned—where there are some serious concerns.
These instruments will enable the named authorities to assume responsibility for adult education provision funded through the adult skills fund. We are told that this is a step forward for localism; that this will mean the tailoring of provision to local priorities; and that, although 62% of the ASF is already devolved to mayoral combined authorities in Greater London, this extension will now bring the same arrangements to new areas. On paper, this looks really positive. However, in reality, it contains some troubling contradictions. The Government are promoting local empowerment while simultaneously cutting the very funding that underpins it—something that, unfortunately, we see all too often, with the passing on of responsibilities but not of full funding.
It is important to be clear: there is a 3% reduction in the devolved adult skills fund. That is not an abstract number; it is a reduction in actual spending power in adult education for the very communities that these authorities serve. As Dr Susan Pember, the policy director for HOLEX, rightly noted, this move is short-sighted and risks dismantling the sector at a time when adult education should be playing a central role in driving economic recovery and personal resilience.
There are three areas where I believe the Government owe the Committee greater clarity. First, on funding transparency, what proportion of the devolved adult skills fund will be available for local decision-making, and how much is already earmarked for nationally set statutory entitlements? If local authorities are being asked to deliver ambitious education plans with only a fraction of the budget under their control, this is devolution in name only.
Secondly, on the strategic skills plans, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee rightly noted that, although these SIs referenced the SSPs, the detail is sparse. What mechanisms has the Department for Education used to assess the quality and readiness of these plans? Can the Minister assure us that each authority has demonstrated clear capacity and strategy to deliver?
Thirdly, on the wider context of post-16 education, we note the uncertainty surrounding the future of T-levels, apprenticeships and other crucial routes into training and employment. Adult education does not exist in a vacuum. Can the Minister explain how these reforms sit with the Government’s broader post-16 education strategy and how continuity and coherence will be maintained?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their responses. I turn first to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about the consultations. They have been widely considered. I was interested in what he said about the West Midlands; it was quite an interesting response. In the east Midlands, the consultation was held between November 2022 and January 2023, and although there was support, the noble Lord was quite right to ask why there was opposition. Among those who responded who were against the proposal, only two stakeholder responses included an element of opposition to the proposal on skills. One stakeholder made a general point of opposition without specifying why. This is part of the problem. There could be a whole raft of reasons behind that, and we need to understand the identity of the people, which of course is not always possible. Another felt that adult education below level 4 would be underfunded, and 29 responses expressed opposition to the proposals relating to skills. Apart from the general statements of disagreement, other comments questioned whether the proposals were realistic and therefore achievable, while some felt that they would lead to larger cities being prioritised at the expense of smaller towns, villages and remote areas. That is part of the discussion. From my experience of places where combined authorities are set up, there are discussions about whether funding is equitably spread and everyone has opportunities.
On measuring outcomes and success, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, raised some interesting and quite specific points. By way of anecdote, when we had responsibility for delivering growth deals the first time the skills funding was brought down, the performance was off the scale in terms of sustainable outcomes for young people. It is by building on those successes in other areas that we can take our way forward, but the noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that we need to keep a close eye on this and make sure that there is consistency running through all areas. I know that local areas will be the first to highlight any problems coming forward.
To be clear, in all three areas that we are talking about, at least 60% of respondents approved of the proposals. Putting those two elements together, we have to be careful that we do not bring in an onerous regime that is too complex for all partners to be assessed. As everyone will quite rightly understand, the areas are looking at the comments that they have had, and they will be very mindful of them as we move forward into delivery.
On pursuing the level of accountability, once funding is devolved each local area will be required to demonstrate impact and value for money, ensuring that funding is effectively targeted to boost local skills and development. The accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the English Devolution Accountability Framework, which includes a requirement for devolved areas to publish annual assurance reports and to attend the skills stocktake for the Department for Education. It is a very important development around the setting up of Skills England, and I know it will be very keen to have oversight of the developments going forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, was quite right to question the funding. I think that we all know the answer. Every area has been asked to look at that because of the severe funding problems across the piece. The reduction is 3% compared to other areas, so we have to agree that a substantial amount of funding is still going in. Some £1.4 billion will still be invested in the adult skills fund. The questions that the noble Lord raised were brought up in the other place, and Neil O’Brien, who raised some of the concerns, got a full answer from the Minister on this point. In particular, it was stated that the vast majority of funding will be for local discretion. That was his point: making sure that it is not a top-down approach—which, as we know, is what works.
That goes to the other question about making sure that all the key partners are involved. All areas will look at best practice from other areas where this has worked successfully. It is the ability to bring together relevant stakeholders at a local level. Obviously, there is the funding regime, but the combined authority working with constituent local authorities and bringing together the providers of further education and adult education with business, as well as with the people who will benefit from the services, will enable them to predict the needs of local areas.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Just to clarify, the Minister very kindly said that the vast majority would be down to local decision-making. From that, can we take it that the existing programmes—which are, if you like, centrally directed—are very much the significant minority, and therefore the bulk of the funding will be locally decided? I am happy for her to answer in writing.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I can absolutely do that. Statutory duties will be expected, but I think that we can all be very pleased to know that the balance is genuinely being devolved down to other areas.
On accountability again, I am really excited about the development of Skills England and particularly how it will further develop the accountability framework going forward. It helps to set up a form of a coherent picture, so that there is an umbrella view and something to badge the progress against. It will of course shape technical education, which is another area of concern, through the growth and skills levy, particularly given, as we have all commented on, local areas being able to listen to the businesses in the area and anticipate the demands that come forward.
I will pick up on some figures. The devolved areas in existence have, for example, spent £127 million or 16% of funding on statutory functions, leaving 84% for them to spend on other priorities. That sort of analysis will move the agenda forward and is a real boost of confidence for local areas. Nothing could be more important than enabling growth of the economy in local areas, but particularly growth for a purpose, if you like, so that the local people within those areas fully benefit.
With those comments, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. We have these three areas going through at the moment and several more coming down the line. That will be another opportunity to look at progress and how we are delivering on the ground. We know the challenges that face us and how important it is to have a skilled, flexible workforce and to support all adults to become an active part of that workforce to deliver our growth agenda.
Transferring these adult skills functions and devolving funding to the local areas of Cornwall, East Midlands, York and North Yorkshire will help to ensure that adult education provision is tailored to local needs and will create the best conditions in which we can collectively deliver on these aims.
East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the East Midlands Combined County Authority (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the York and North Yorkshire Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 10 March 2025, is another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are critical in achieving the Government’s clean energy superpower mission, including clean power by 2030. An effective planning system is key to unlocking the new infrastructure that our country needs to underpin our energy security and resilience. It is important that planning applications are determined through an appropriate planning route that reflects a project’s size, impact and complexity and in which potential issues are identified and mitigated as necessary.
The nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIP—regime is governed by the Planning Act 2008, where decisions on development consent are made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The NSIP regime applies to larger projects, with a megawatt threshold determining which energy-generating projects are deemed nationally significant. The NSIP regime provides the largest, most important projects of strategic importance with a single unified approach to seeking development consent, where applications are determined by Ministers balancing local impacts against the wider national benefits. Following submission, an extensive examination period will commence whereby interested parties, including local authorities, people of office and the general public, can make written or oral representations to the examination. This ensures that the voices of communities are heard during the decision-making process.
Until recently, a de facto ban on onshore wind generation in England severely limited deployment. Changes introduced in 2015 saw stringent tests introduced into planning policy alongside the removal of onshore wind generation from the NSIP regime in 2016. These changes set an almost impossible bar to meet, resulting in the pipeline of projects sinking by more than 90%, with only 40 megawatts of onshore wind generation consented and becoming operational in the intervening period.
In July 2024, this Government disapplied those planning policy tests and committed to reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, reversing the damaging policies of the past decade and placing onshore wind on the same footing as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. As such, through this instrument, onshore wind projects with a generating capacity of more than 100 megawatts in England will be consented under the NSIP regime. The 100-megawatt threshold reflects the advances in turbine technology over the past decade, with modern turbines being larger and more powerful. Reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime will provide an appropriate route for nationally significant projects to seek planning consent where they are of a scale and complexity that can carefully balance local impacts against national benefits and meet the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. This will provide greater confidence for developers and incentivise bringing forward projects.
Solar has been subject to a 50-megawatt NSIP threshold since it was originally set in the Planning Act 2008. However, much like onshore wind, solar panel technology has seen significant advances in efficiency, enabling a greater megawatt yield per site. Evidence suggests that the 50-megawatt threshold is now causing market distortion. With modern technology, mid-sized generating stations now have a generating capacity greater than 50 megawatts and therefore fall within the NSIP regime. We think this is likely to be disproportionate to their size, scale and impact, and it has resulted in a large amount of ground-mounted solar projects entering the planning system and artificially capping their capacity at just below the 50-megawatt threshold, leading to the potentially inefficient use of sites and grid connections. Therefore, this instrument raises the NSIP threshold from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts for solar to ensure that mid-sized projects have access to a more proportionate planning route via planning authorities, which should incentivise those projects that would otherwise have capped their capacity to develop to a more optimal and efficient scale.
The Government are also mindful that mid and large-scale solar and onshore wind projects are preparing to enter the planning system and may have already invested and undertaken preparatory steps with the expectation of entering a specific regime. Changing the NSIP at short notice could result in projects entering a different regime than expected, with the potential to increase costs to developers or cause delays.
Therefore, the instrument also makes transitional provisions for onshore wind and solar projects that are already in the planning process when this order comes into force. These provisions will ensure that projects already progressing under one legislative regime will not be required to move to a different regime as a result of the order.
Through consultation, the Government sought views and supporting evidence on reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime at an appropriate threshold and revising the existing threshold for solar. We received a range of responses; most respondents agreed with the proposed approach of reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime, with a majority in favour of a 100-megawatt threshold. While we initially consulted on a 150-megawatt threshold for solar, based on further assessment and analysis of consultation responses, we concluded a 100-megawatt threshold would be more appropriate and better reflect modern technology.
In conclusion, we see this instrument as being another important step in delivering clean power, supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar and establishing the UK as a clean energy superpower. It supports an effective planning system that will ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate regime and will avoid distortionary effects on deployment. These measures ultimately aim to support future energy security and resilience alongside our 2030 goals and wider decarbonisation targets. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the contents and the wishes of the department in this document. Personally, I am very disappointed that we are where we are. I am a veteran of pylon applications; I was fortunate enough to be elected to the Vale of York in 1997, where there was already a long line of pylons going through the heart of the Vale of York to be joined by another, even bigger, line of pylons within a matter of months of my election. We were promised that the original line of pylons would be removed because it was thought that both would not be needed and they are, of course, unsightly.
I prefer the situation we had under the outgoing Conservative Government.There was virtually a moratorium on onshore windfarms for a number of reasons. The Minister is potentially going to see a great deal of discontent from residents and communities along the route of the overhead pylons will inevitably follow, particularly onshore windfarms. To take the example of offshore windfarms, there are three stages to the application process. When there is an application for an offshore windfarm, everyone thinks, “Oh great, that won’t affect me out there at sea”. Then the second stage of the application is for a massive substation to bring the electricity on land. The third, and completely separate, stage of the application is that suddenly—hey presto—we are going to have overhead pylons to feed the electricity into the national grid. How many applications does the Minister think will fall under this new decision-making regime where onshore windfarms will be decided by the Secretary of State? How many lines of pylons does he envisage will follow on from the applications? Will his department come forward and dictate that these overhead wires should be converted to underground wires?
Alternatively, does he accept—he knows that this is a theme I have pursued quite religiously with him over the past few months—that, if an onshore wind farm is built in, say, the north of England, or in Yorkshire more specifically, the electricity generated will serve the local community? It is colder in North Yorkshire than in many parts of the rest of the country, and we have a distinct lack of electric vehicle charging points. If an onshore wind farm will be built, I see absolutely no reason why the electricity generated cannot serve the population living locally.
I regret the statutory instrument in the department’s name that the Government feel is appropriate or necessary. Solar farms of the size that the Minister is talking about—those of 100 megawatts—will take the decision out of local communities. Again, I would be interested to know how many he envisages there will be. His department, DESNZ, will not lead to many des reses. We will not have many desirable residences along the routes of these overhead pylons. In the case of the solar farms, how will the electricity generated—presumably in the gift of the Government—enter the national grid to feed into the hungry south, leaving the rest of us in heat poverty in the north?
With those few remarks, I regret that the statutory instrument was brought before us. If we learn one thing from the massive outage in Spain, Portugal and parts of France last week, it is that we are becoming completely too reliant on very unreliable sources of energy—sunshine and wind—because the sun does not always shine, and the wind does not always blow.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Peers for the Planet. I, too, am a veteran of this debate, but I take a different view from that of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
In 2020, I first had a Private Member’s Bill on the inequity of how planning applications for onshore wind development were treated compared with all other infrastructure. It was a simple point: the self-imposed moratorium that the previous Government had put on the development of onshore wind was done on a completely blanket basis. They took onshore wind developments out of the normal level playing field of planning applications and treated them as some sort of pariah developments that should not be used. That is completely incorrect. As part of the move towards renewables and safe, clean and cheap power, we should exploit those opportunities.
We all know that the wind does not always blow and that the sun does not always shine. After six years on this topic, I do not need to be told that any more. We all know that we have to have base capacity, that we need variety and that you cannot transition overnight, but that does not take away the argument that there was a basic inequity in how these developments were treated.
I tabled the original Bill that I mentioned. I then had another Bill the next year. We then put in amendments on a number of pieces of legislation that were going through. We even won one of them; the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Deben, and the then Opposition Front Bench supported an amendment that had remarkably similar language to this statutory instrument. We won it on the Floor of your Lordships’ House, but it was reversed in the House of Commons, so it is an enormous pleasure to welcome this SI as an example of common sense breaking out on the issue of onshore wind developmentand of the benefit and reward of not taking “no” for an answer in politics.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on this subject and to how she has carried this end of Parliament on a number of occasions.
I normally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on an awful lot of things but I do not quite agree with her here. I spent most of my bank holiday break in an EV in Yorkshire, and I was delighted at how easy it was to recharge it. It was the first time for quite a while that my wife and I had been on a long journey in an EV. The difference in the charging network was absolutely amazing. I praise the previous Government’s EV charging policies as much as I praise the present Government for achieving that, but I recognise —from the Cornwall aspect—that there is a challenge here for really rural areas, and certainly when tourists come to our areas.
I wanted to contribute today to say that I very much welcome this SI and the move to go back properly to onshore wind. It is an important way in which our landowning and farming communities can diversify their income.
I turn to the limit on solar. On every solar farm I have visited in the past few years, I would ask the owners, “What is the energy capacity of this?” They would say, “It’s 49.5 megawatts”, because they do not want to trip over that barrier into the national planning scheme. So I welcome the fact that this SI will make that a lot easier.
However, the one question I would like to ask the Minister—this was raised by the Opposition Benches in the earlier debate on energy security—concerns warehouse roofs and commercial roofs. I am a great supporter of solar but, like me, many people ask, “Why are we not managing to have many more solar applications on existing commercial, industrial and car park roofs?” I recognise that there are often different owners—there is the landlord, and then there is the company that occupies under a lease—so the relationship between owners for commercial buildings is never easy. However, I say this to the Minister: it cannot be beyond the ability of the Government to find a mechanism to incentivise that to happen. It would get huge plaudits from all sides of political opinion if we managed to achieve that. It would also help with the understandable reservations that there sometimes are around the agricultural use of solar, by showing that the right things are happening in other areas too.
I would be interested to understand from the Minister when the planning regime—as we know, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is in the other place at the moment —will become law, as it surely will. It may be amended in various ways as it passes through both Houses, but might it affect this matter in any way?
I very much welcome this SI and hope that we will see a rejuvenation of onshore wind. As I often say, from my own house, I can see—the last time I counted, at least—between 30 and 40 wind turbines. I live on a hill and, to me, they are part of a living countryside. There are right places to put them and there are wrong places to put them; we should leave it to local authorities to decide what those are.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of this order. I thank the Minister for outlining its purpose.
The Liberal Democrats have always championed renewable energy. For too long, this country has suffered from the failures of the previous Conservative Government to invest in clean power and to insulate our homes, contributing directly to the energy crisis and leaving householders and businesses facing soaring bills. The vast majority of people in this country want more action on climate change. That is why we welcome this instrument as another important step in supporting the deployment of onshore wind and solar, which are both crucial to achieving the Government’s mission for clean power by 2030.
We are particularly supportive of the lifting of the effective moratorium on onshore wind. This was a deeply short-sighted and irresponsible policy, introduced via the planning changes in 2015 and 2016, which created a de facto ban in England. This ban limited deployment and caused the pipeline of projects to shrink by over 90%, with less than 40 megawatts of onshore wind generated during this decade. The reintroduction of onshore wind projects of over 100 megawatts into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime is crucial. The order reverses those damaging policies and places onshore wind on the same footing as other generation technologies such as solar, offshore wind and nuclear power stations. This provides an appropriate route for large-scale projects and offers greater certainty to industry.
Similarly, we support the decision to raise the NSIP threshold for solar projects from 50 to 100 megawatts. This change is needed in part due to technological advances in solar panels and aims to ensure that applications are processed efficiently through the appropriate planning regime. The previous threshold incentivised developers, as we have heard, to cap their capacity below 50 megawatts to avoid triggering the NSIP process. Raising the threshold should incentivise projects to develop on a more optimal and efficient scale and to ensure that mid-sized projects access a more proportionate planning route via local planning authorities. What assessments have been made of local planning authorities’ capacity and funding requirements to take on this extra work? They must be adequately resourced and supported to handle the influx of potentially larger-scale solar projects.
While we support the ambitions to streamline planning for major projects, concerns remain. The NSIP regime involves decisions made by the Secretary of State, and some respondents to the consultation expressed concern that this process might overly centralise decision-making and bypass local authorities and communities. This is particularly pertinent when considering large projects that can have a significant impact on local landscapes and communities. It is vital that the Government strike an appropriate balance between building nationally important infrastructure, protecting our precious landscapes and ensuring that local communities have a meaningful say. This Government must do more to work in partnership with local communities and ensure that they benefit from the infrastructure that they host—more “working with” and a bit less “doing to”.
How will the Government ensure that local voices are genuinely heard and their concerns addressed in the NSIP examination period, particularly for onshore wind? Can the Minister provide more detail on timelines for these frameworks and assure us that they will ensure that the balance between deploying renewable energy, protecting nature, ensuring food security and considering where best to locate projects is effectively struck?
Finally, the decision to set the solar threshold at 100 megawatts aims to avoid artificial capping and incentivise optimal site sizing. The impact assessment mentions monitoring and evaluation plans, looking at whether projects are clustering below the new thresholds and whether planning timelines for projects have increased. Can the Minister confirm how the planned post-implementation review and ongoing monitoring will assess whether the 100-megawatt thresholds are achieving the desired efficiency and optimal site sizing? All these projects will require timely grid connections, and I encourage the Government to support agrivoltaics.
Other noble Lords spoke about the need for more solar on rooftops and in car parks; for example, France generates 5% of its electricity from car parks alone. The Government may want to look at an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on that. I very much welcome signs from them that new homes will have solar panels installed. There are issues around the way that some of the warehouses have been designed; they have not been built to take the weight of solar panels.
These legislative changes are a necessary step, but successful implementation requires careful consideration of local impacts and ensuring that our planning system is robust and balanced and takes communities with it.
Lord Deben (Con)
I apologise to the Minister for missing the first moments of his speech, but as somebody who was taken to a tribunal by those who do not believe in climate change for daring to suggest that we had in effect banned onshore wind, I feel very strongly that this is an ideal moment to say how important onshore wind is.
Near to where I live in Suffolk, in the town of Eye, which I used to represent in the old Eye division, there is some onshore wind. When it started, an awful lot of people opposed it; they thought it was going to be very ugly and did not like it. Now it has become iconic. Recently, I was pleased to see—this Committee’s chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, will be interested in this—that an attractive ballet was put on using it as the background, showing a wholly different way in which people have accepted it.
I get very tired of people who are very much in favour of having electricity themselves but complain about its expense, which is the cost of gas, and then are opposed every time to having any further renewable electricity. We ought to be supporting this and seeking ways to introduce onshore wind, wherever that is suitable. There are places where it is not suitable; that is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly said.
Onshore wind and offshore wind need to be linked to the national grid system, but I hope the Government will recognise that the best way to get support for that is always to find the most appropriate way and try to avoid unnecessary pylons—then you can honestly say to a community: “I’m afraid that here there is no alternative”. I hope that people will recognise that, if we spend a great deal more on the distribution of electricity, the only people who will pay for it are the customers. We have to get that balance right. I hope that the Government will look more closely at alternatives and be able to show why they choose pylons.
On what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said, I have to say that it is not acceptable. It is no good; we will have to take electricity from where we make it to where we use it. If people want electricity, that is what we have to do. Frankly, there is no connection whatever between this and what happened in Spain. The constant desire to write down what is so essential to us seems to me very sad.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I think I am right in saying that the seat that my noble friend represented is now represented by a different party from ours. We need the electricity in the north—I cannot speak for Suffolk—and it would be much better to keep that source of energy close to where it is produced, rather than having pylons criss-crossing and destroying the countryside.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am quite sure that nobody takes electricity more distantly than they need to if it is going to be used locally. In my constituency—which was indeed one of the seats lost at the last election—the issue is not a question of pylons. The issues were very different and not really to do with this at all. I come back to the point that it is not sensible constantly to refer to things that are not connected with this. I repeat that there is no connection between the outages in Portugal and Spain and the issue before us.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for explaining the details of this statutory instrument. In essence, this order would enable onshore wind projects over 100 megawatts and solar projects over 50 megawatts to be considered under the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. This effectively bypasses local planning authorities and grants direct approval to the Secretary of State, thereby overriding local consent for large-scale wind and solar projects. The Government have argued that this is necessary to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in line with their decarbonisation goals and their commitment to becoming a clean energy superpower. However, several important concerns must be addressed, particularly around local involvement, fairness and the broader economic impact of such an approach.
First, let us discuss the issue of subsidy. Much like offshore wind, onshore wind projects are heavily reliant on subsidies, costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers. While the Government have touted these renewable projects as cost effective in the long term, it is crucial to ask what the clear cost-benefit case is. If we are to depend on these subsidies to push through such large-scale projects, we must ensure that they provide tangible benefits to consumers in terms of not just cleaner energy but affordability. As we know, the transition to green energy must be balanced with the economic realities that hard-pressed families and businesses face today.
Secondly, there is the matter of local consent. Communities should have a say in the decisions that affect their landscapes and way of life. Local buy-in is paramount, and people who live in the affected area should not have their voices ignored. There is real concern that this SI removes that critical step in the planning process by placing too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and bypassing local consultation. Onshore wind projects can be a significant imposition on the local environment, and it is only right that communities are properly consulted and their concerns are considered before these major decisions are made.
The Government have argued that they need to expedite these projects to meet their decarbonisation targets—targets that are at the outset entirely arbitrary. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State is to take on final decision-making powers for these projects, what accountability mechanisms will be in place? Removing local authorities from the process must not also remove transparency. What assurances can the Minister provide that decisions will be subject to robust oversight?
Thirdly, there is the Government’s selective approach to energy. We have seen instances where good solar projects, which were designed to be sensitive to the local environment and not disrupt prime farmland, have been rejected by the Government or the National Wealth Fund. Are the Government picking and choosing winners in this energy transition? Are we truly seeking the most affordable, secure and environmentally responsible solutions or are we being driven by ideological preferences for particular types of energy, regardless of their practicality or cost effectiveness? This approach is flawed. By bypassing local consent and placing unchecked power in the hands of the Secretary of State, this order undermines democratic principles.
Lord Teverson (LD)
If I understand this, you are moving from 50 megawatts to 100 megawatts. So the 50 to 100 goes under the Town and Country Planning Act as local decisions. You are actually increasing it; previously the 50 to 100 was under NSIP. Therefore, what you are saying is completely wrong.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
We are saying that we want to make sure that we have consent in the local community and robust oversight, and that the order does not undermine democratic principles. That is what we are trying to do, and we also do not want to disregard the voices of local communities. That is the essence of our third concern.
The Government’s selective and ideologically driven approach to energy is concerning because it raises serious questions about the cost-benefit of these projects, especially when subsidies are passed on to consumers without a clear return on investment. While the Government champion renewable energy, they do so at the expense of affordability, fairness and proper local consultation. That will not bring the public with them on the journey. Rather than rushing through this legislation to meet arbitrary targets, we need an energy strategy that prioritises practicality, respects local concerns and ensures that the transition to green energy is both affordable and inclusive for all.
Lord Deben (Con)
Would my noble friend give way so I can ask him about the phrase “arbitrary targets”? The targets are actually the result of the detailed propositions of the Climate Change Committee; they are not arbitrary in any way. He may disagree with the targets, but “arbitrary” means that they have just been picked out of the air. That is not so.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. However, we are now dealing with a moving landscape and we have an accelerated programme on decarbonisation, which goes beyond what was set previously with the target for 2030. This is critical. This road map is critical to that, and so I am right to question whether these targets are real. They are moving around; they seem to be moving on an arbitrary and accelerated basis. I think it is relevant to ask the question about how these targets are moving, as the order as it stands risks damaging both the democratic process and the long-term success of our energy future.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a really interesting debate. First, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that her views are not surprising, as she has managed to convey this to me over the last few months. Interestingly enough, I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about EV chargers in Yorkshire because, as the noble Baroness knows, we had an Oral Question about electric vehicles two weeks ago. When I said that we were making progress in rural areas, she gave me the sort of look that suggested that she did not really quite take my point. But we are making progress; certainly, by 2030, we expect to see many thousands more chargers available, including in rural areas. I take the point, and I am not seeking to disagree with the general thrust that, to make this really work, we need to have chargers available to people in rural areas. But we think we are making progress.
On the onshore wind applications, we estimate—and I cannot commit to this—that there could be one or two projects per year entering the NSIP regime.
We do understand that pylons are not going to be popular. The issue, as always, is that undergrounding is much more expensive. The figures that we have are very rough estimates, but they indicate that under- grounding is perhaps five to 10 times more expensive. As part of the trade-offs that we see in this area, I am afraid that we will continue to have to use pylons.
On whether onshore wind energy will serve local communities, one of the benefits of lifting the de facto ban and allowing onshore wind projects to build again in England is, of course, to ensure that clean, homegrown energy is being produced closer to centres of demand. In our various debates today, we touched upon REMA, the review of electricity markets arrangements; of course, we are looking at one of the options for zonal pricing, which we are considering alongside other options for reform of the national wholesale market, but it would strengthen locational operational signals in the electricity market.
By implication, the noble Baroness raised the issue of cumulative impact; she mentioned in particular offshore wind leading to substations then grids. We are commissioning NESO to develop a strategic spatial energy plan, which will, in one case, support a more actively planned approach to energy infrastructure across England, Scotland and Wales, both at land and at sea. It will do that by assessing and identifying optimal locations, quantities and types of energy infrastructure required for generation and storage across a range of plausible futures. The first iteration of the SSEP is due for publication in late 2026. That is not a direct response to the noble Baroness, but it shows an understanding of what she is saying.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, has talked to me about Suffolk and Sizewell; I will not tempt him to intervene, though I fear I may have just done so. I met local authority leaders in Suffolk last week to discuss their issues with cumulative impact. One issue is about different operators bringing separate applications that conflict, as well as the challenge that a local authority has in dealing with both that and the accumulation. It is something that we well understand.
The capacity of local planning authorities is of course an important consideration. Local government has concerns and challenges around this; again, Suffolk local authorities raised the issue with me. There will be a review of resourcing in key organisations across the planning system to determine whether they are suitable for handling an increased number of projects in the coming years. I should say that these issues also relate to my own department, because of the national applications that the Secretary of State has to consider, as well as to Natural England and the Environment Agency. If we are to reform the planning system in the way we wish, these matters need careful consideration.
On local concerns, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is clearly right that this will allow more applications locally because the bar will be raised in relation to the areas I have talked about. As the Planning Minister in our department, I see the projects that come through for national consent; they are extensive in setting out the examination process, in which communities have extensive engagement opportunities. I want to make it clear here that, for the applications that come through the NSIP programme, we ensure that local views are taken into account by decision-makers.
On post-implementation monitoring, the impact assessment sets out a number of metrics that will monitor this legislative change, including the volume of applications coming forward; the size and scale of projects; and the average cost and times of receiving consent. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for what she said and for her work in this area. It is nice to see that the Government are coming forward with proposals that are very much in line with her previous amendment.
On the issue of warehouse roofs and commercial roofs, and the earlier discussion about new housing, my understanding is that this is a matter for building regulations. There is discussion across government in this area, and I cannot go any further than what I said earlier this afternoon: we clearly see the potential here and we want to take advantage of it.
Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 20 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Medical Devices (Amendment) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this is a short—I hope—but technical SI, so it may be helpful to the Committee if I give some context. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency regulates medical devices in the UK and helps to ensure that those products are safe and perform as intended. That includes ensuring that the legislation governing them is appropriate and keeps pace with advances in science and technology.
The 2002 regulations transposed relevant EU directives into domestic law and is now therefore considered to be assimilated EU law. The regulations contain references to several specific pieces of assimilated EU law that will form part of the regulatory framework for Great Britain. This is an important step towards delivering the Government’s 10-year health plan, in terms of the development of legislation apart from this SI. We need safe and effective medical technologies to achieve the shifts that will help build an NHS fit for the future, to take us from hospital to community-based care, from analogue to digital solutions and from treatment to prevention.
As we know, since the 2002 regulations were introduced, technology has advanced significantly. The MHRA has therefore set out plans to make a number of updates to the regulations—separate to the SI we are debating today, of course—to further improve patient safety and access to medical devices, as well as to keep the UK as an attractive market for medtech innovators. I assure noble Lords that, as part of this, there continues to be considerable engagement with the sector, not least because life sciences manufacturing is vital to the UK’s economic growth. In 2021-22, there were almost 119,000 people employed at life sciences manufacturing sites across the country. We will support the sector to flourish, in line with our growth agenda.
The MHRA is taking a phased approach to the implementation of the future medical devices regulatory framework in order to support system readiness and to minimise the risk of supply disruption for UK patients. A key piece of secondary legislation was made in 2024 to ensure that there is appropriate oversight of a device once it is in use. The further secondary legislation, to which I have referred, is expected to come into force in 2026. That legislation will update the regulatory requirements for devices before they are put on the market and will introduce key measures such as implant cards, unique device identifiers and an international reliance scheme for medical devices; in other words, it will take us forward to the place where we need to be.
In the meantime, the statutory instrument that we are here to debate will help provide continuity for the regulation of medical devices until the subsequent statutory instruments to which I have referred are put in place. I assure noble Lords that this instrument does not make changes to the current regulatory requirements. Instead, by maintaining the regulatory status quo, it will help ensure a smooth transition to a future regulatory framework that protects patient safety, improves access to transformative technologies and supports innovation.
This statutory instrument amends the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 to remove the revocation date of four pieces of assimilated EU law, so that they can continue to apply in Great Britain until such time as they are replaced with the updated law to which I have referred. The measure was consulted on from November last year to January this year. Of the 287 responses to the consultation, 83% were in favour, while a further 12% had no opinion. If this statutory instrument were not agreed to and the provisions expired in May—in other words, this month—there would be a significant gap in the regulatory framework, as well as risks to patient safety.
I will now give the Committee an overview of the four pieces of assimilated EU law for completeness; I know that noble Lords will be interested in this. First, the decision on common specifications for in vitro diagnostic medical devices sets out specifications that certain IVD devices must meet in order to demonstrate compliance with essential requirements.
Secondly, the regulation on electronic instructions for the use of medical devices establishes the conditions under which instructions for the use of medical devices may be provided in electronic form, instead of in paper form.
Thirdly, the regulation on devices manufactured utilising animal tissue, as well as their derivatives, sets out requirements to be met before those devices can be placed on the market.
Finally, the regulation on the designation and the supervision of approved bodies sets out further requirements relating to those bodies, which assess applicable medical devices for conformity with the regulations.
Although we are revoking the sunset dates instead of replacing them—not least because we do not wish to use up any more parliamentary time with debates on short, technical SIs such as this—the Government do not intend for this assimilated EU law to be kept in place indefinitely. I hope that will be a helpful and welcome reassurance. This SI serves as a temporary measure to maintain the status quo until more permanent measures are in place. In the meantime, this is important assimilated EU law that must continue to be complied with.
That will also ensure that unnecessary EU divergence is minimised, which is particularly important in this instance because, as noble Lords will be aware, Northern Ireland continues to operate under the EU framework for medical devices under the terms of the Windsor agreement. More broadly, I reassure the Committee that the regulations for Great Britain do, where appropriate, align with global best practice. As noble Lords will, I hope, be aware, the Government’s aim is to ensure patient safety while minimising unnecessary regulatory burden.
In conclusion, I am glad to say that the UK is a prime location to research, develop and manufacture pharmaceutical and medtech products. We want to continue to attract medtech manufacturing investments that deploy the latest innovations, are highly productive and are consistently high-quality. Key to achieving this objective is proportionate regulation, and implementing regulatory changes must be done in a sensible and measured manner.
As I have set out, the continuation of this assimilated law is necessary to prevent significant disruption to the current regulatory framework and, consequently, negative impacts on patient safety. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for her introduction to this tide-over regulation, which is as it has been portrayed to us. I should declare that my son is involved in medical technology, in cardiology; you could say that our family has a bit of skin in the game, although I do not understand the technology that he is developing— it is so complicated.
I have just a couple of questions. As the new regulations are eventually developed, can the Minister confirm that there will be no more regulatory burden on those trying to innovate and that we might lessen the bureaucratic burden on them? Will there be compatibility reading across to the FDA regulations? The American market, which is subject to a lot of debate at the moment, is a potential market for devices developed in this country overall. In that process, can there be the assurance that we also do not jeopardise our European market, or the Far East on the global scale? We will need to export the technology that we develop.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I share some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. As the Minister so carefully explained, it is essential that we preserve the existing regulations until they can be replaced. However, does she accept that, although an argument frequently used by supporters of Brexit was that they did not like so much regulation, what is happening now in our very successful life sciences industry—which wishes to do business abroad as well as in the UK—is that its products may become subject to both UK and EU regulations?
EU regulations have generally been recognised across the world as a basis for doing business, making it relatively easy for UK-based producers of medical devices to export them. Would it not be better in future to achieve regulatory alignment with the EU, so that businesses producing new products will not have two different sets of regulatory processes, and two sets of costs to contend with, when they innovate and improve their products? Will having separate UK regulations in future not run the risk that such businesses become more reluctant to innovate, and will this not be detrimental to patient care? If we want to improve patient safety and do all the other things the Minister outlined, would not this be done best in alignment with our major trading partners, using standards that are generally agreed internationally?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. I want to be clear that we on these Benches recognise the need for this measure, since, without it, key regulatory provisions would expire at the end of this month, as the Minister explained. That would create uncertainty and risk disruption to the oversight of medical devices in Great Britain.
We understand that this instrument is, in essence, a stopgap, as the Minister said, and that the MHRA’s consultation, particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises and clinicians, demonstrated strong support for continuity. But while the measure preserves the status quo for now, it has provoked some questions about the Government’s long-term strategy. I am grateful to the Minister for reassuring us that this is definitely a temporary stopgap and that they are looking for a longer-term and more pro-innovation solution than when we were in the EU.
As the Minister said, this revokes the sunset clauses in four areas in particular: performance standards for diagnostic devices, electronic instructions for use, the regulation of devices containing animal tissue and the designation and oversight of approved bodies. These are not mere technical footnotes; they are essential to ensuring safety, clarity and public confidence in the medical device sector, so we understand that revoking their expiry is necessary to avoid disruption.
Can the Minister add any more detail at this stage to what she has already said? This first phase, focusing on pre-market regulation, is expected in 2026. What further reforms are expected to follow? I know that she explained some of that in brief—I suspect that she did not elaborate as much as she could have for reasons of time—but can she say a bit more about the future plans for this regulation? If she cannot now, perhaps she will write to me, because that was a very welcome move. I was going to ask lots of questions about whether the short-term fix will remain in place for the long term, but the Minister has reassured us. Nevertheless, perhaps she could set out some more details either today or in writing.
I do not believe in regulatory divergence for divergence’s sake, but let us be clear that neither should we agree with regulatory alignment for the sake of regulatory alignment. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, but I recall that, when I was a Health Minister, many a supplier—regardless of whether they supported the UK leaving or remaining in the EU —asked me, “Now that we’ve left, can we take advantage of our independence and develop a more pro-innovation approach than the EU?” In technology—I spent 14 years in the European Parliament—the EU was known as an area for regulation; if you wanted innovation, that was in the US. We have to get a better balance between the two. Whereas the EU focuses more on the precautionary principle and less on innovation, perhaps we can get a better balance in this country, so that we do not align for alignment’s sake.
The Minister also mentioned Northern Ireland. As we know, as a result of what noble Lords, said there are some concerns in Northern Ireland but, given that the EU is seen as an area generating regulation, should the EU impose additional regulatory burdens on businesses in Northern Ireland? What steps will the Government take to support them to protect their competitiveness? That is one of the concerns I know from the most pro-innovation businesses in Northern Ireland.
Finally, on international trade, not strictly within the remit of these regulations, so I hope the Minister and her officials will forgive me—this does not have to be answered straight away—has the Minister or the department assessed the impact of recent US tariffs on medical device imports? Does the UK import a substantial number of medical devices from the US? I know that we talked about the importance of the US as an export market. Will these tariffs have an impact on medical devices from the US, particularly those that have been made with components imported from outside the US into the US before being re-exported? Does that have a price implication? Have the Government made any assessment of the implications for availability, cost and affordability, particularly for NHS procurement? Clearly, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others said, there is the impact on medical device suppliers exporting to the USA. Has any assessment been made of that market? Across the House, we all want a thriving life sciences sector in this country, but we should be assessing the impact of the proposed tariffs. I know some of them have been in abeyance.
I recognise that I have asked many questions, and I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers straight away, despite the advances of iPad technology and wireless communication. Maybe one day that will extend to telepathy. Perhaps the Minister can write to me on the questions that she is unable to answer today. In drawing my remarks to a close, I will be clear that noble Lords on these Benches support this measure as a necessary step to prevent regulatory disruption, but the real test follows. I hope the Minister, in answering the questions, is able to share a clear timeline for the programme for reform as we hopefully move towards a more pro-innovation approach.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their valuable contributions and the way in which they have raised issues relating not just to the statutory instrument before us but this whole area of important work. I am also grateful for the support more broadly on the need to get the legislation right in order to protect patients, get the best medical technology within our grasp and support innovation. I am sure we will return to this subject. I will respond to a number of the points, and I will come back to noble Lords on anything significant that I have not responded to.
I reiterate that this SI is essential if we are going to prevent what I would call significant disruption. The words used were “a stopgap”. I think that is a fair legal term in this setting. It will preserve the status quo as we progress to more comprehensive regulation, which I know is what noble Lords are interested in.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked for an assurance that we would not jeopardise not just the European market but other markets because we need to export technology. That is a fair point. I can say in response that over recent years we have learned important lessons from the implementation of new medical devices regulations in the EU as well as the global approach to regulation. How has this informed our approach to regulatory reform? It is why the Government are taking a phased approach to the delivery of these regulations to support the sector and adapt to the changes. It is also the reason why we are in continued discussion and are working closely with the sector.
We recognise the benefit of international harmonisation of medical device regulations in order to reduce, as we would all like, unnecessary regulatory burden or duplication of assessment for manufacturers, which is something that has been raised many times with me and I am sympathetic to. This means that, where sensible, we will align with the regulations of other jurisdictions, including those in the EU. Any reform to assimilated law will be to support domestic priorities and the Government’s national health and economic growth missions.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised a number of points. He raised the issue of products being subject to EU and UK regulations and whether this would make tech companies less likely to innovate. I believe the noble Lord also argued that we should be in line with the EU, and he raised the important issue of Northern Ireland. On these points, we will seek to align with international best practice and EU regulations where they are sensible, support manufacturers and support where we want to get to on patient safety and the contribution of medical technology.
On Northern Ireland, the MHRA is the competent authority for devices placed on the Northern Ireland market. It continues to have oversight of medical devices across the whole of the UK. We will continue to monitor any risks to the supply of devices to the whole of the UK market. I can give the assurance that, at present, the supply is stable and processes are in place to identify alternatives if needed. My final reassurance is that the SI before us today will not have any impact on the supply of devices to Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, also raised a number of key points and requested more detail on what further reforms are expected to follow. He also raised regulatory alignment, making the point that, in his opinion, the EU can be more cautious and asking how we as a country can be more innovative. The noble Lord also asked about Northern Ireland and about the impacts that US tariffs have in respect of medical devices.
On plans for regulatory reform, the MHRA has published plans to introduce several SIs to amend the framework for medical devices. The post-market surveillance SI, which will come into force in June as noble Lords may recall, represented the first significant step in this reform. That legislation will put in place strengthened legal requirements for how manufacturers monitor and report on their devices once they are being used.
In November last year, the MHRA launched a consultation on further aspects of regulatory reform which will inform a subsequent pre-market SI that introduces, among other things, a new international reliance scheme, measures to improve traceability of implantable medical devices, more risk-proportionate changes to the classification of certain devices and the prohibition of misleading claims. We expect that legislation to come into force in 2026. I think that all those will put us in a much better place than we are currently, because they will allow us to keep pace with changes in the market.
The MHRA also continually monitors the UK’s medtech landscape for developments that could affect patient safety and the implementation of regulations. Details of further regulatory proposals will be communicated when available, and I look forward to bringing those before your Lordships’ House.
On US tariffs, there are ongoing discussions, and I will not seek to pre-empt them. The MHRA will monitor any impacts once they become clearer. That is very much under a watching brief.
I hope I have demonstrated the need for these regulations, not just for the public currently but as being key to the forthcoming 10-year plan. I hope that the Committee will agree that we are continuing with this assimilated law to prevent significant disruption to the current framework and to ensure that patients, device users and the economy are all protected.