Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, welcome to a debate on a melange of statutory instruments. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn when the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Usually this is a standard thing to say, but I can advise the Committee that on this occasion we are expecting a vote at the end of Amendment 209, which is being debated now.
Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey (Structural Changes) Order 2026.
Relevant document: 49th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 14 January 2026. If approved in the House and in the other place, it will implement a proposal submitted by Elmbridge Borough Council, Mole Valley District Council and Surrey County Council for two unitary councils, east Surrey council and west Surrey council, covering the entirety of the county of Surrey.
This proposal, alongside a three unitary option, was taken to consultation after councils in Surrey responded to the invitation to submit proposals issued on 5 February. On 28 October 2025, Minister McGovern announced the Secretary of State’s decision to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, the two unitaries proposal. In reaching this decision, we considered the proposals carefully against the criteria in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and other relevant information. In our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better met the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performed better against the second criterion, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable.
Putting Surrey’s local authorities on a more sustainable footing is vital to safeguarding the services that its residents rely on, as well as investing in their futures. To deliver new unitary councils, the order requires May 2026 elections for the new councils, which will assume their full powers on 1 April 2027. These elections will replace the scheduled county council and some district council elections. Subsequent elections to the unitary councils will be in 2031 and every four years thereafter. Establishing these new unitary authorities will help with our vision: stronger councils in charge of all local services and controlling local economic powers to improve public services and help grow local economies.
Before I outline the content of the draft order, I would like to bring to the attention of noble Lords two related issues: the level of unsupported debt in Woking and devolution for Surrey. On Woking’s debt, the Government recognise that Woking Borough Council holds significant and exceptional unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to unprecedented debt repayment support of £500 million for Woking council, reflecting historic capital practices at the council and the value-for-money case for acting to protect local and national taxpayers. This is a first tranche of support and we will continue to explore what further debt support is required at a later point, including following greater certainty on the rationalisation of assets in Woking. Any support will need to consider what further action can be taken locally to reduce debt, and value for money for the national and local taxpayer. We are also committed to providing the new unitary authority with interim financial support, for example, capitalisation support, until this process is complete.
On devolution for Surrey, on 12 February we set out our intention to deliver a new wave of foundation strategic authorities across England. In Surrey, the Government are working with partners, which will include the new unitary authorities, to establish a foundation strategic authority. This will ensure that relevant functions held at county level, such as transport and adult skills, can continue to be delivered on that geographic footprint, where possible. The establishment of a strategic authority will be subject to the relevant statutory tests and local consent. The Government will also ensure that fire and rescue functions continue to be governed on the same geography.
I turn to the content of the order. It provides that, on 1 April 2027, the county of Surrey and the districts of Elmbridge, Epsom and Ewell, Guildford, Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Tandridge, Waverley and Woking are abolished. The councils of those districts and the county will be wound up and dissolved.
In their place, their functions will be transferred to the two new unitary authorities—east Surrey council and west Surrey council. This order places a duty on the existing councils to co-operate with each other and the shadow authorities. It also places a duty on existing councils to create joint committees for east Surrey and west Surrey, which will be dissolved after the first meeting of their respective shadow authorities. I take this opportunity to thank all the Surrey councils and everyone involved for their continued hard work and collaboration on local government reorganisation in Surrey.
In conclusion, through this order we are seeking to replace the existing local government structures in Surrey with two new unitary councils that will be financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft order for the reorganisation of the 11 districts and one county in Surrey into two unitaries. I do not totally agree with either her solution or the reasoning behind it. The Government are continuing to push through reorganisation that does not have the support of local people or, in this case, even the existing councils.
The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to this draft SI explains that, of the very small number of responses—around 5,500 from a population of 1.2 million—the vast majority rejected the two-council solution and much preferred a three-council solution, as did several of the local district councils. Businesses also favoured the proposal for three unitary councils: on average, only 25% gave a positive response to the proposal for two unitaries, and 65% for three unitaries. This is being pushed through regardless of local knowledge and wishes, which is never a good backdrop to the creation of new councils. I know; I am in one.
The drive to create large unitary councils is a desire for centralisation, in which all councils are made to fit a predetermined model regardless of geography, demographics and local will. Surrey county—not the county council—has a population of 1.2 million. The creation of just two unitary councils means that each of those will cover a population of about 600,000, which would be bigger than that of the City of Bradford’s council, for example, although not as quite as big as Leeds City Council’s, which is one of the largest in the country. It would be much smaller than all the nearby London boroughs and the north-east metropolitan councils or even Greater Manchester.
What is driving this push for very large unitary councils, when previously created ones do not fit that model? It seems to be driven by a desire by central government to view local government as simply the service delivery arm of central government—local government can deliver adult social care, children’s services, highway functions, licensing functions and so on—but it omits what is really important in local government, which makes it what it is at its very best: to provide ambitions and aspirations for local people, to challenge the status quo and to drive for something better. That is more difficult when you have councils of this population size.
One consequence of creating a unitary council with a population of around 600,000 is that, inevitably, the ward sizes, after a local government boundary review of wards, will be fairly large. I understand that there will be 72 councillors—I think I have got that right—in the new unitary councils. They will represent very large wards. I have experience of being a councillor representing a very large ward; it has 14,000 electors, and it is difficult to keep in touch and make the link that is at the heart of democracy between the elected and the elector. These proposals with large ward sizes will stretch that link to its very limit, which is something to be regretted.
My next point is about the debt, which the Minister referenced. One of the drivers for the abolition of county councils was that they were becoming financially unsustainable, simply because of the services that they were being asked to deliver—the ones with the huge pressures, such as adult social care services, children’s services, SEND, and so on. There were huge and growing financial pressures—I understand that. Meanwhile, in Surrey, Woking council has saddled its district council and residents with, to quote the Minister, huge, unsupported debts. The Minister may like to put a figure on that.
The Government are prepared to provide a sweetener of £500 million pounds to pay off some of that debt. But if I was a councillor in that council, going into the new unitary, I would be wary of entering it while it was saddled with a substantial debt. The Government are prepared to capitalise it, which is great, but that means that more revenue from the revenue budget will be used to fund the mortgage requirements of the debt. It is not a good start for new councils to begin their life, with all the problems that inevitably follow a reorganisation, saddled with a substantial debt. It will make it difficult for those councils to get off to a good start.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of this statutory instrument. I wish to make noble Lords aware of my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire Council. I do not think it is an interest, but I am an ex-chairman of the Local Government Association.
There are a number of concerns here, which I hope the Minister will be able to address, some of which overlap with those that have been aired. First, as has just been said, the Government’s consultation demonstrated that there was a clear preference among residents—albeit a fairly small number of them: 5,000 out of 1.2 million—for a three-unitary model, not the two-authority model imposed by this order. However, on 28 October 2025, the Secretary of State confirmed that there would be a two-unitary structure. The Minister argued that two authorities will be cheaper and deliver greater efficiencies, but, if efficiency alone were the overriding criterion, would that not point logically towards a single unitary? Where local preference and ministerial preference diverge so clearly, this Committee is entitled to ask why local voices were overridden and what weight was truly given to the consultation process.
Secondly, on finance, Surrey’s councils face acute financial pressures, not least because of the high debt levels at Woking Borough Council of around £2 billion and more than £1 billion at Spelthorne. Although the Minister mentioned the £500 million of support for Woking, there has been no central debt write-off. The financial risks of reorganisation, including the risk that projected savings fail to materialise, will ultimately fall on local taxpayers. The Minister said that this would be under review, but can she provide more certainty for local residents than a tenuous statement that this will be looked at in the future?
I would like to raise the issue of SEND deficits, which are around £350 million for Surrey. The recent announcement was that SEND deficits will be covered up to 90%, yet in the negotiations as part of this reorganisation a figure of £100 million has been mentioned. Clearly, that is different. Can the Minister clarify whether there will genuinely be 90% funding for SEND deficits, or whether this is also a tenuous statement?
The Government have announced £63 million nationally to support local government reorganisation. While any support is very welcome, that figure has to be shared across all areas undertaking structural change. Can the Minister confirm how much Surrey will receive, when those funds will be released and whether the Government accept that the real implementation costs, which locally have been estimated to be substantially higher, will exceed this funding envelope, particularly given the delays and changes in direction of the process?
Thirdly, on devolution, residents were led to believe that the structural change would be accompanied by meaningful devolution and a mayoral model. The Government have referred to a foundation strategic authority for Surrey, but assurances about its powers, funding and timing remain ambiguous. What is the Government’s firm commitment to establishing that body, when will it be created, what additional funding will accompany it and when will that funding be received? Structural upheaval without genuine devolution would be a poor bargain for the residents of Surrey. Reorganisation on this scale must command confidence. It must be locally supported, financially credible and embedded with a clear devolution settlement. At present, serious questions remain on all three counts.
We seek clarity about transitional governance. Commissioners were appointed to oversee financial sustainability and governance improvements at Woking and Spelthorne Borough Councils. We are now beyond the indicated review period for these appointments. Have they been extended and, if so, until when? Will they continue into the shadow authority period following the upcoming May elections? Where will they be placed in the subsequent authorities? The Committee deserves clarity about who will hold responsibility and accountability during the transition.
More broadly, I reflect on the process. In Surrey, the pathway to reorganisation has been clear for more than a year, with the timetable for elections to the new unitaries and implementation on 1 April 2027 set out. Why has the same clarity not applied to the mayoral timetable? Why have the Government not adhered to a clear and published schedule for the establishment of a mayor of Surrey?
This raises a wider question. Other devolution deals and local government reorganisations have appeared to be far less orderly, with altered timetables and delayed and then not delayed elections but without the equivalent certainty about the final structure. Those of us who have been through previous rounds of local government reorganisation know that while elections were sometimes postponed for a year, that was done on the basis of clarity about the end state. Why could the Government not achieve the same coherence elsewhere?
Finally, I return to the question that the Minister studiously avoided answering in the Chamber last week. While the Government initially decided to postpone the council elections scheduled for May 2026, relying on statutory powers and legal advice, that decision was subsequently reversed on 16 February 2026, following further legal advice. I am not seeking disclosure of that advice; I simply ask what changed. What change of circumstances or what change of information provided meant that the legal advice changed? Legal advice is revised when there is a change of circumstance or in the information provided, so what changed? The Committee is entitled to understand the reasoning behind such significant changes in democratic decisions. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for their considered contributions today. I recognise that they have a great deal of experience in this area, so they were very thoughtful contributions indeed. I will try to pick up all the points that have been made. If I miss any, I am sure noble Lords will let me know, but I will try to pick them up from Hansard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked more broadly about the benefits of reorganisation and pointed to the savings that might accrue. Although financial savings are important, this restructuring is also about delivering the kinds of profiles for councils that are able to drive forward the growth and improvement in public services that we all want to see, and having a system that is not as confusing for residents as the two-tier system has been in the past. In their proposal, Surrey County Council, Elmbridge Borough Council and Mole Valley District Council estimated ongoing net annual benefits after five years of up to £46 million, with a midpoint of around £23 million and total implementation costs of £85 million. So there are financial savings to accrue from this, after the initial cost of doing the reorganisation.
We hope that there will be savings, but it is important that we focus on sustainability. With the way it was going, we were not looking at a sustainable future for local government. We have partly addressed that through the fair funding formula—I will talk more about that in a moment—and in this reorganisation and devolution process. Reorganisation creates the conditions for stronger local democracy, fewer politicians, and a clear picture with no conflicting mandates and agendas.
I appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the local voice, and I will come on to the wards and things in a moment, but clear local leadership allows councils to take the decisions needed to drive growth, deliver better public services and allow communities to be represented, while clear accountability makes sure that communities can properly hold leaders to account. Strong leadership and clear accountability are harder to achieve, where, for the same place, there are two council leaders, each with a legitimate democratic mandate and sometimes having different and conflicting agendas. Bringing services such as housing, public health and social care under one roof means that one council can see the full picture and spot problems early. That is important. Making sure we have preventive, holistic services, which are far more effective in picking up problems early, instead of them being split between two local authorities, is important.
Residents can access the services that they need with one council in charge. To give noble Lords an example, in 2018, Leicestershire County Council reported that more than 140,000 people called the wrong local council when they were trying to get help. I understand that it is not always the same as that everywhere, but it is an important principle to keep to.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
To continue from where we were before the vote, both noble Lords have understandably asked about the Surrey consultation outcome, and I understand why they would ask that question. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we received 5,617 responses: 26 from named consultees and the rest from residents and local organisations, including businesses and town and parish councils. That consultation ran from 17 July to 5 August.
As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the responses demonstrated a preference for the three unitary proposal. However, as the proposals were assessed against the criteria set out in the statutory guidance, and having regard to all representations received throughout the consultation and to all the other relevant information we have been looking at as a way of determining these proposals, in our judgment, although both proposals met the criteria, the proposal for two unitaries better meets the criteria in the case of Surrey. In particular, we believe that it performs better against the second criteria, as it is more likely to be financially sustainable. The criteria are particularly relevant in the unique context of Surrey, where reorganisation is a critical intervention to improve the financial viability of the area’s councils. That is because of the unprecedented levels of unsupported debt in two of the area’s councils.
The important thing about all this is that the new councils are able to drive the growth needed, providing high-quality public services on a geography that works locally. But to meet the second criteria, around the financial viability, it was really important that we consider the consultation responses alongside that. That has been an important part of our consideration.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important issue. I accept what the Minister is saying about the importance of councils being financially stable but, if I were a resident of Surrey, I would think that I was being punished by the fact that I was having to absorb Woking Borough Council and being saddled with its £2 billion-worth—is that right?—of unsupported debt, and forced to pay that price when the council of which I was a member, in another part of Surrey, was financially stable. That does not seem fair. Residents are picking up the tab for speculative investment that never had any future in providing the council with anything other than a huge debt, which is what has happened. Is that fair?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I certainly do not want to be seen to be condoning or commenting on that speculative debt, but we are where we find ourselves, and the important thing is that residents of Surrey must have sustainable councils going forward. It will not help them if the new structure that we create is equally as unsustainable as that with which they have dealt in the past. The important thing is to make sure that we can deliver effective public services and deal with the levels of debt that we are having to deal with now. I will go into a bit more detail in a moment, if I may, about the support we are providing around Woking, but I think that all those who responded to the consultation would want to make sure that they have a sustainable structure that can take them well into the future. After a lot of reflection and a great deal of work on the proposals, we felt that this two-authorities model would work better from that point of view.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I have a question for clarity, as it potentially impacts some of the comments that she might make subsequently. If I heard her correctly, this whole reorganisation is being driven by the need to have sustainable councils to cover the debts of Woking and Spelthorne—
Lord Jamieson (Con)
That is fine—that is why I am seeking clarification. If we put that to one side, the Minister’s implication was that the Government might not have gone with this structure. I want to be clear that the residents of the other nine borough councils are not being impacted or hamstrung by the need to address the issues with the other two. That would be a very unfortunate scenario. I am just asking for clarity.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand why the noble Lord asked that question. I apologise— I hope that I did not mislead in what I said. The criteria that we set out for this process are very clear. We looked at the criteria right across the board, and they are there to make sure that this new structure is less confusing for people, that all the services are in one council and that the structure can drive the economic growth needed and provide high-quality public services. However, as we look at those important wider criteria, it is very important that we take account of the unique circumstances of Surrey—you cannot ignore them. It is in that sense that we took the decision to have two councils.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the issue of the size of these new councils. East Surrey will have a population of 556,000, and West Surrey 672,000. Councils of this size are not without precedent. Many of the councils formed in the past 20 years had populations of more than 500,000 when they were established, including North Yorkshire, Somerset, Buckinghamshire and Cornwall. However, it is very important that I stress the point that 500,000 is a guideline. I do not think any inference should be drawn across the wider programme of local government reorganisation from these decisions taken for Surrey. Each application will be considered on its own merits. We have said all the way through this that 500,000 is a guideline, not a template. I hope that is helpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked me about the number of councillors and wards. For east Surrey there will be 72 councillors, which is two per ward on 36 strategic council divisions, and for west Surrey it will be 90 councillors, which is two per ward on 45 divisions. I hope that is helpful in terms of the straightforward sizes.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
If the Minister has almost finished, I shall just intervene on a couple of points for clarity. On the unsupported debt that we have talked about, the Minister talked about a 7.5% increase in core funding over three years. I assume that that is based on 5% increases in council tax over three years. Residents of Surrey will see council tax rising twice as fast as core funding and, if inflation stays at its current level, see core funding in real terms being less than inflation. I would call that a cut rather than an increase in funding.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments on SEND funding. In the discussions that are going on as part of the reorganisation, the offer was substantially less than 90%. I think that Surrey would be delighted if the Minister could confirm that it would be 90% of the figure. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer that here and now.
On the point of legal advice, you go and seek legal advice a second time when something has changed, when you have received new information or circumstances have changed. I am not looking for the legal advice itself; I am asking what prompted going to get legal advice a second time. What was the change in circumstance or information that prompted the need to get legal advice a second time? Good legal advice should not change if circumstances and information are the same. I would appreciate some clarity on that but, again, I recognise that the Minister may not be able to answer that here and now.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will take the last point first. My understanding is that the usual practice is for legal advice to be reviewed over the course of a legal case going on. That is standard practice and is what happened in this case. I cannot add anything further to that at the moment, but I shall take the noble Lord’s comments back and, if we have anything further to say on it, I shall write to him.
On core funding, I simply add that this was the best settlement that local government has had for a long time. The council tax capping to which the noble Lord referred is something that his own Government introduced and kept in place. We have not changed that, so local authorities will be able to continue with the 5% increase. The funding settlement is far more generous than many that I had when I was the local government leader trying to do battle with a system that was gradually reducing my funding every single year. Many councils have had an increase this year and many have had a substantial increase this year. When I look online at the budget speeches of colleagues around the country—which I do, because I am a bit of a sad geek in that respect—it is absolutely amazing to see councils talking about what they are able to do now because of the increases in funding that they have received. I am very proud of that, and I am certainly not going to apologise for it.
This Government’s ambition is to end the two-tier system and establish single-tier unitary councils. It is a once-in-a-generation reform. Our vision is clear: for stronger local councils equipped to drive economic growth, improve public services and empower communities. This order provides for two new unitary councils in Surrey to help to ensure that local government is financially sustainable and able to deliver high-quality services to residents. We will continue to work with the leaders in Surrey to develop their proposal for a foundation authority but, for now, I hope that the Committee will welcome this order.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I apologise: I should have asked this earlier. It is just a point of clarity; I am not making a political barb here. We asked about the role of the commissioners. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us an answer now, but it would be very helpful, certainly for the people in Surrey and the councils involved, if we could have clarity on the role of the commissioners, when they will be extended and how their roles will fit into the shadow authorities. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer now, but that would be helpful to have.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry, I thought I had covered that when I spoke about the detail of the support being provided to Woking. The commissioners are still working there, and we will continue to work with Woking and the other authorities involved in west Surrey, as is necessary.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also be asking the Grand Committee to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The schemes we are debating provide vital support for sufferers of certain dust-related diseases, which are often caused by occupational exposure to asbestos and other harmful dusts. This includes diseases such as pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. We all recognise the deep suffering that can be caused by diseases such as these. Having attended these debates in the past, I am always grateful for the opportunity to debate these schemes and discuss the wider support for people diagnosed with these terrible diseases.
I will begin by providing a brief overview of these two no-fault compensation schemes and what these regulations seek to amend. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979—henceforth the 1979 Act scheme—provides a single lump-sum compensation payment to eligible individuals who suffer from one of the diseases covered by the scheme. They includes diffuse mesothelioma, pneumoconiosis and three other dust-related respiratory diseases. It was designed to compensate people who were unable to claim damages from former employers that had gone out of business and who had not brought any civil action against another party for damages. To be entitled to a lump-sum award, claimants must have an industrial injuries disablement benefit award for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme or would have an award but for their percentage disablement.
The mesothelioma lump-sum payments scheme—or the 2008 Act scheme—was introduced to provide compensation to people who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but were unable to claim compensation through the 1979 Act scheme because, for example, they were self-employed or their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides support to people with diffuse mesothelioma quickly at their time of greatest need.
Although both schemes aim to provide compensation to sufferers within their lifetime, they also allow claims by dependants if the person suffering from the disease sadly dies before they are able to make a claim. This is in recognition of the suffering that these diseases can bring to whole families.
These regulations will increase the value of one-off lump-sum payments made under these schemes for those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026. While there is no statutory requirement to increase the rates of these payments in line with prices each year, we are maintaining the position taken by previous Governments and increasing the value of lump-sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. This also means that the increase will, once again, be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to make a couple of remarks in relation to these statutory instruments. It is a long time since the pneumoconiosis compensation schemes were brought in—so long that a photo that I was shown on Friday of a very youthful now Minister was remarkably recognisable, but not because of the length of time that has transpired. In my very first case as a Member of Parliament, at 10 in the evening on my very first day, I went to meet someone who was dying that night of mesothelioma. It was, I suppose, rewarding to be able to help push through the changes and improvements that were made a few years later.
I have two points to make. The first is that we call these social security payments, but they are social society—industrial disease—payments. Governments—and, therefore, this Government—are missing a trick. When we talk about the benefits bill, we should extract compensation for industrial disease as a separate element. That is not a benefit; it is something that pays people for the difficulties—with mesothelioma leading to death— caused by exposure that should never have happened. The fact is that there are still cases. Agriculture is a good example of where not all asbestos has been cleared out. Some industries were quicker and better organised than others. There are still schools with asbestos tucked away in all corners.
The people who were working in the collieries, shipbuilding, foundries, the baking industry and others were having to breathe in this stuff. There were sometimes asbestos gloves that they were using routinely as part of their work—then they struggled to breathe in later life. Compensation is not a benefit; it is a right. That should be extracted out and separately categorised in the statistics, so the taxpayer can see the cost of negligence by multiple employers, including—and often particularly—government over many decades.
The second point is more practical. I have been in Parliament since 2001, in one House or other, and we have had Government after Government all repeatedly talking about saving red tape and bureaucracy. I have a proposal on red tape on bureaucracy. Why are we wasting taxpayers’ money every year—on the time, involvement and work—to update something that could be updated by a little change to legislation automatically? There is no controversy in the idea that there is more accountability for diseases that are now recognised across the House as a problem, a danger and a legacy that needs to be addressed. Why are we wasting any money and time, rather than having an automatic annual increase? I put to the Minister that this would be a small but appropriate removal of red tape and bureaucracy. While it is a minor saving to the taxpayer, the principle of it seems nevertheless to be an appropriate one. I see no sufferer from these scourges objecting to an automatic increase every year.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mann, for that personal information. I obviously agree with these statutory instruments; it would be strange if we did not—but it is industrial compensation rather than a benefit, and it ought to be recognised as such. Could the Minister quantify the 3.8%? I am not very happy with us just being quoted figures in terms of percentages. What is the general amount being paid, and how much does 3.8% thereof amount to? Percentages mean 3.8% of zero is zero, to take it to the very level.
Could the Minister also talk about the current occupations that give rise to these two dreadful—let us call them—diseases? They are dust related. Many industries have in many ways stopped the dust coming from their products. To deal with the point rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, in terms of it being annual rather than just having a continuation, I speak against that, because I would rather that we increased the amount each year or considered and put forward an increase, rather than just have an automatic, modest increase, which might take no account of real values.
I agree with the 3.8%, but ask what it means in practice and whether the Minister could tell us what industries and occupations are giving rise to these dreadful diseases.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her masterly summation of these most welcome regulations, yet again—some of us here are the usual suspects in debate—for having some little insight as to what they mean for our communities and from whence they came as legislative devices.
In a long Westminster stay in both Houses, I have not encountered such mastery, sincerity, persuasiveness and enthusiasm from a ministerial, oppositional or advisory role in any of many committees on which I have served greater than that of the Minister. It has always been expert, committed and long-standing, from a parliamentary servant who has been at the elbow of a Prime Minister and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a wonderful record of duty and expertise. The standing of this Mother of Parliaments has fallen low, but my noble friend Lady Sherlock still reaches the heights.
Primarily, these regulations centre on two great industries—and there are others. I have in mind slate and coal, quarrying and mining, both of which are in steep decline with minimal activity nowadays, but they are important to many individuals and for families. They represent great humanity, suffering and anxiety about what we know of as the dust. We debate it here, of necessity, each year in Grand Committee. Could we not just once debate on the Floor of your Lordships’ House? That would indicate an understanding of the impact of these diseases on our major communities and far-flung settlements. I recollect watching an aged former Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, the Earl of Stockton, in your Lordships’ House making a spirited and critical speech to his own Government’s Benches. He paid moving tribute to the miners and steelmen who he said had made the difference in two World Wars, defeating first the Kaiser and secondly Adolf Hitler.
All industries come with health challenges. In these regulations, the department gives much detail, which is always welcome. Do we know how many individuals are receiving payments for both mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis? I think for certain that the increases in all payments will be welcomed when the cost of living is increasingly an issue.
Finally, I observed in the other place the distant origin of these health and safety matters. There were two great Acts in Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s third Administration. It was in 1975, I think. One was employment law, and the other was health and safety. The Secretary of State for Employment was one Michael Foot, then Member for Ebbw Vale. These legislative activities were all-night sittings, time and again. As he piloted his measures through, I recollect sitting alongside him alone at 3 am on the Front Bench in a near-empty Chamber. It was hard going. He prevailed, and the measures are social history, historic in themselves. Later, in Mr Callaghan’s Administration, the Government were without a majority and with their life ebbing away amid a winter of discontent, but plans were made to cover these terrible diseases of industrial life. I recollect the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the late Lord Ells-Thomas being very active on the subject of quarrying in their homeland as Members of Parliament, along with Cledwyn Hughes, then the Parliamentary Labour Party chair and later Lord Cledwyn of Penhros and Leader of the House of Lords. Another MP, a Minister like me, was Harold Walker, who was soon to be Lord Walker of Doncaster.
My own role included visiting two key players for the quarrymen and their needs. One was Mr Tom Jones, an officer of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, and the other a retired solicitor and former Member of Parliament, whose name was Jones, too. These two were detail men, and they formed the details that led to the legislation that has led to regulations such as these. I recommended solicitor Jones to Lord Cledwyn for an honour, and it happened—a knighthood, indeed.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. This is somewhat of an anniversary for the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and me, albeit a very sad one. I think the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Stedman-Scott, would be quite surprised if we did not turn up for it. I speak as a chair, for many years, of the mesothelioma oversight committee. I could recite the industries affected, but I will leave that to the Minister.
The only thing I want to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the Minister. I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, introduced the legislation, for which thanks are due. It is important to remember these things.
The average age of those diagnosed is 75 and over, for whom the payment sums, which look very healthy at the start of the table, are less than £20,000. If there is any reason for keeping these figures under review, rather than being automatic, it is the fact that they do not look very good any more. It would be much appreciated if something could be done about that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I think this is about the fifth anniversary of me taking part in these uprating instruments. This year, for me, they are completely different.
When I started my charity, Tomorrow’s People, more than 35 years ago, the first lady I employed was absolutely outstanding. Last year, I received a letter from a lawyer, saying that somebody who had been employed by my charity had contracted mesothelioma and they wanted to talk to me about the buildings that we occupied. I got in touch with them immediately and said, “Yes, of course I will help. Could you tell me who it is?” They went back to the person and then came back to me to say that it was this lady, the very first one I had ever employed, who had got mesothelioma. It suddenly hit home that this was a disease that affected somebody whom I rated highly and had great respect for. She came here to see me for lunch and told me her story, and I have kept in touch with her. I expect—and hope—that she is watching what we are doing today. I want to say that it made the whole thing pretty personal.
I am pleased to say that we on these Benches support these two sets of draft regulations, which provide for a 3.8% uprating of the lump sum payments available under the mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis compensation schemes from April this year. These schemes remain a vital, no-fault safety net for those suffering from some of the most devastating industrial diseases. Mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis are cruel conditions, often emerging decades after exposure and, in many cases, at a point when it is no longer possible to pursue former employers through the courts. The provision allowing dependants to claim when a sufferer dies before making an application reflects the harsh reality and rapid progression of these illnesses.
Maintaining an inflation link is essential if these payments are to retain their real-terms value, particularly given the debilitating nature of these diseases and the financial strain that they place on families. The long latency period associated with asbestos-related illnesses makes statutory compensation schemes not merely desirable but necessary. Although there is no statutory duty to uprate these payments each year, successive Governments have taken the view that that is the proper course. I agree. Uprating in line with inflation is the least that justice requires, ensuring that compensation continues to provide meaningful recognition and practical support.
These instruments may be technical in form, but they are significant in human terms. For those confronting terminal illness as a consequence of historic workplace exposure, this support represents fairness, dignity and the acknowledgement of a debt long owed. We on these Benches therefore fully support the regulations before the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions to this debate. I confess that I would miss it if we did not gather once a year to talk about the impact of this, but I will come on to that in a moment. It is always a moment, and I appreciate that, from around the House, we have all come here to demonstrate the strength of cross-party support for these two lump sum schemes.
It was good of my noble friend Lady Donaghy to acknowledge the work of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and others, as well as that of my late and much-lamented noble friend Lord McKenzie, who did so much work in this space for many years. My noble friend Lord Jones showed very well that, when it comes to anything in this space, we are standing on the shoulders of giants. He talked about the history of all the great Labour figures who knew that they came to Parliament to speak up for those who did not have a voice and those who had suffered at the hands of people who, in many cases, should have known better but, in some cases, did not know better. We learn as time goes on.
I remember my noble friend Lord Mann from a very long time ago as well. It is incredibly moving to think that his very first piece of casework was somebody who went on to die that day from one of these terrible diseases. As noble Lords will know, I am a priest in the Church of England, so I know what it is to be with people when they are close to death. It is a privilege as well as a challenge. To be able to take that experience and use it to advocate for others is what so many people go into politics for, so I commend my noble friend for being here to tell that story and to speak up for those who are not here and are unable to do the same.
Let me pick up on my noble friend’s point about process. This is a debate that we have regularly. Most years, somebody will suggest that we should put this into the annual uprating and then somebody else will say that we should not and give reasons why. On the reasons given today, the thoughts on the opportunity to debate these regulations and the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy about wanting to keep the amounts under review are interesting.
One thing I should say to my noble friend Lord Mann is that, if these payments were uprated automatically in the way that, for example, social security benefits are—these are almost always affirmative—they would still require affirmative regulations that have to be debated in Parliament. They could theoretically be rolled into a general social security operating order, but that would do the exact opposite of what my noble friend wants by putting them in with benefits rather than separating them out from benefits. Today is an opportunity for us to be here and to discuss this; either way, it would not make a difference to the claimants.
My noble friend made a wider point about understanding that these are not benefits. Of course, these schemes are quite different. Technically, they come out of what is known as departmental expenditure, rather than, like most benefits, annual expenditure. They are not benefits; they are compensation for something that people suffered but should not have done. My department offers a range of other financial support to people, including the main industrial injuries disablement benefit. Many people who get these diseases may have other costs as a result of their disability and may get things such as personal independence payments, the attendance allowance or other state benefits to cover their income replacement needs. The department wants to provide all the appropriate support for people who really cannot work as a result of injuries, while wanting to make sure that those who are economically inactive or unemployed are supported to get back to work, where they should be. We can help them to do that, and we should be expecting them to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about the amount. One of the reasons it is labelled as a percentage is that the amount any individual gets depends on the scheme and the age of sufferer at the point of death, so the amounts that people are paid are different. I can tell him the average amounts: under the 1979 Act scheme, the average award to sufferers was £14,700 and to dependants it was £11,500. Under the 2008 scheme, the average award to sufferers was £26,600 and £8,500 to dependants. That would have included a range of figures for individuals.
My noble friend Lord Jones asked me for the number of awards. For the record, under the 1979 scheme, there were 2,540, and under the 2008 scheme, there were 610. Those statistics are from the latest financial year for which figures are available.
On the point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy, I recognise that there are many who want those amounts to be larger. All I can say is that the Government keep this under review and will continue to do so.
In terms of the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, there is nothing that brings this home like knowing somebody affected by this, and being asked about the building in which, presumably, she also worked as well as the person she hired.
My noble friend Lord Mann talked about asbestos gloves. Some noble Lords will remember, and I remember, some of the horrific stories that have been told. I remember one of my noble friends talking about what happened onboard ships, where ratings were basically playing with balls of asbestos. There were stories of people trundling trollies down corridors of hospitals, porters and all kinds of things. There were stories about schools and all kinds of public buildings. There are people who are suffering simply for doing their jobs. Most of these jobs were in public service, serving the community and caring. The very least we can do is to make sure that they get appropriate levels of support.
I think that I have addressed most of the specific questions I was asked. I just want to finish on a positive note. I mentioned the work of the HSE in relation to awareness of exposure, but I would like to put some of the work that has been done elsewhere in government on the record. Quite often we discuss research, and we know how important research is in supporting individuals with these diseases. It is still the case that the life expectancy is incredibly low, especially by the time that people are diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. DHSC invests over £1.6 billion each year on research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and cancer is a major area of NIHR spending at £141.6 million in 2024-25.
Respiratory disease is a clinical priority within the NHS long-term plan. The aim is to improve outcomes for people who have these respiratory diseases through early diagnosis and increased access to treatment. NHS England has established 13 respiratory clinical networks across the country. These have been vital in providing clinical leadership for respiratory services and supporting services in primary care. Indeed, that continued investment in cancer research and support for people with respiratory diseases is key to reducing the numbers of families affected in the future and providing better support following a diagnosis.
I think that I have addressed all the questions that were asked. Once again, it is always a privilege to participate in this debate. I acknowledge the position of those who suffer from these terrible diseases and their families. The least we can do is carry on providing support. In light of that, I beg to move.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I beg to move that the Grand Committee considers these regulations, which were laid before both Houses on 15 January. They form a key part of implementing the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, which strengthens independent oversight and support for our service personnel and their families.
Before turning to the detail of these regulations, I acknowledge the considered scrutiny that this House gave to the “family” definition during the passage of the Act. In particular, I thank those noble Lords who engaged so thoughtfully on the definition of “family”. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who is not in her place, for her scrutiny, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for their contributions on clarity, bereaved families and the breadth of modern family structures. Their careful examination directly shaped the regulations before us today.
Noble Lords offered valuable insights, particularly on recognising kinship carers and other parental figures. The House rightly highlighted the importance of those who step in, whether grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or family friends, to provide stable, long-term care, who should be fully recognised within the scope of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Noble Lords also raised the issue around non-traditional family structures, as well as on legal clarity, financial dependency, household membership and the position of bereaved families. These contributions have been instrumental in shaping the regulations now before the Committee.
The Government listened closely to those debates. The draft regulations reflect the issues raised, providing a clear and inclusive definition of “relevant family member” that fits modern service life. It is the same definition brought to Committee in this House, with only one small legal adjustment. The purpose of these regulations is to give full effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act by setting out a clear and inclusive definition of “family member” for the commissioner’s welfare remit. The Act creates an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with strong statutory powers to investigate welfare issues and report directly to Parliament, strengthening transparency and support across defence. By replacing the ombudsman with a more proactive model, it delivers a long-standing commitment to improve the lived experience of service personnel and their families. These regulations enable that.
A clear and inclusive family definition is essential because the commissioner’s ability to act depends on who falls within their remit. We know that service life impacts not only serving personnel but those closest to them. Partners, children, parents, siblings, carers and others often shoulder the pressures that come with military service. It is therefore right that the commissioner’s remit reflects this wider network of support.
During the passage of the Act in this House, the Government accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the definition of “relevant family members” should be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure, ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to debate the Government’s proposed definition. The Government consider that the family definition meets this higher level of parliamentary approval, which is reflected in the draft regulations before the Committee. Given that the definition is fundamental to the commissioner’s welfare role, it is right that both Houses have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve it directly.
At the same time, secondary legislation provides some flexibility to amend the definition in future without reopening primary legislation, ensuring that it can adapt as family structures evolve. This balanced approach strengthens parliamentary scrutiny while maintaining the ability to respond to social and demographic change.
The policy intention behind the definition is clear: to ensure that those most affected by service life are able to access the commissioner’s support. The definition therefore takes a broad and inclusive approach. It includes partners, including former partners and those in relationships akin to marriage, biological and stepchildren, adult children, siblings and stepsiblings, parents, stepparents, long-term foster carers, guardians and kinship carers. It also includes other relatives who are financially dependent on, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are included where they fall within one of these categories immediately prior to the serviceperson’s death. This reflects the wide range of relationships that form modern service families and responds directly to the issues raised during the Lords’ scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, including the role which was especially raised of kinship carers and the importance of ensuring that bereaved families remain supported.
It is important to be clear that this definition applies solely to the commissioner’s welfare remit. It does not expand the scope of the service complaints system, nor does it alter other Ministry of Defence definitions of family members. It is tailored specifically to the commissioner’s purpose.
These regulations are made under powers provided by the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999 as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. This legislative framework gives the Secretary of State the authority to define relevant family members for the purpose of the commissioner’s functions, to make consequential amendments to related legislation and to establish transitional and savings provisions.
The Government have acted within that framework to produce a definition that is legally robust, operationally workable and reflects faithfully Parliament’s intent. These regulations are necessary to ensure that the commissioner can operate effectively from the moment the Act comes into force. Without a clear and comprehensive family definition, there would be significant uncertainty about who can raise concerns with the commissioner and who falls within their remit. Peers expressed strong interest in ensuring that the definition is inclusive and legally clear. During the passage of the Bill, issues such as financial dependency, household membership, the treatment of bereaved families and the position of kinship carers featured prominently. The draft regulations address each of these points directly.
These regulations also introduce essential consequential amendments to ensure a smooth transition from the Service Complaints Ombudsman to the Armed Forces Commissioner. This includes transferring functions and updating legislative references so that the system remains coherent and accessible. Transitional and savings provisions ensure that ongoing cases or applications are not disrupted. Families and serving personnel will receive clear guidance as the new system is introduced, helping them to understand their rights and how best to engage with the commissioner’s office.
In summary, these regulations provide the clarity, inclusivity and coherence required for the Armed Forces Commissioner to discharge their welfare functions effectively. They reflect the concerns, expertise and priorities expressed by this House, and they ensure that the commissioner’s remit aligns with the realities of modern service life. The Government believe that these regulations strengthen the support available to our service personnel and their families. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these draft regulations, and I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations, which I support, and for the way in which he did so.
In the interests of transparency, I should declare the interest that some Members of this Committee have already heard during the passage of the Bill through the House, which is that six months ago my daughter married a senior RAF officer. Therefore, I have a personal stake in the subject matter of the Act and the way in which it will be carried out by the Armed Forces Commissioner. I welcome the fact that it has the widest possible definition of family and family members to enable the commissioner to undertake her or his work.
There is just one question I want to ask, which I hope is not wrong, but it might be. Paragraph 4.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“The territorial application of this instrument (that is, where the instrument produces a practical effect) is the United Kingdom”.
However, I take it that the provisions of these regulations will apply to service personnel wherever they are around the globe, not solely those based in the United Kingdom. Of course, at this very moment Armed Forces personnel are engaged in conflict in the Middle East, so I hope that is a question that is not out of order and can be answered in the affirmative.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I also take this opportunity to welcome this provision. I just have one question, and I apologise in advance to the Minister that it is detailed, but I am attempting—dare I say—to help the Government. Since this Act became an Act, the Armed Forces Bill has been published, and an element of the Armed Forces Bill is to seek to reinvigorate the reserve.
Schedule 1, paragraph 4 talks about disqualification in the original Act:
“A person is disqualified from being the commissioner if the person is a member of the regular or Reserve Forces”.
Most people reading that would assume that the Reserve Forces refers to the part-time volunteer reserve. I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. But, of course, on leaving regular service, former regular personnel also have a reserve liability, initially as part of the irregular reserve, where they can be called to training at any point for up to 15 days. This depends between service, but potentially for six years. If this also applied to the irregular reserve, as we refer to it in the Army, it would effectively disbar former members of the Armed Forces from applying for this job for six years.
There is then a more interesting question, given what the Armed Forces Bill is seeking to do with the recall reserve. It seeks to align the three services where a recall liability would then be for a further 18 years, part of what we call the strategic reserve—which is confusing. That would effectively disbar a former member of the regular forces who is not in a part-time volunteer reserve for up to 24 years. I have got no problem with the period of how long they would be disbarred but, given that we are seeking to reinvigorate these other two aspects of the Reserve Forces, it is causing some confusion. When we are talking about the reserve, do we mean just the active reserve, or that if you are a member of a strategic reserve—that is, recall reserve— it will not apply?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations, defining “relevant family members” under the Armed Forces Commissioner Act. That clarity is welcome, and these Benches will not oppose the regulations.
Having said that, there are still one or two unaddressed concerns which emerged during the debate on the passing of the Bill in this House. Recent cases have raised serious concerns about the way in which complaints are handled. There continue to be too many service personnel who lack confidence in the system and fear adverse career consequences if they come forward. That culture of hesitation is precisely what the creation of the commissioner was intended to address. As the Minister knows, these Benches supported the establishment of the commissioner; we recognised the need for a stronger, accessible and trusted route through which serious welfare concerns could be raised. That is why we also welcome the extension of the commissioner’s remit to relevant family members. Service life affects not only the individual in uniform, but the families who support them. On the face of it, the definition in these regulations is broad and sensible, and it is reassuring that it has been developed in consultation with the Armed Forces Families Federations.
However, the Minister will recall that during the passage of the legislation, I sought to strengthen the provisions specifically in relation to whistleblowing. My concern was and remains that, given the reputational damage suffered by the Ministry of Defence in recent years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, we should provide a simple, clearly understood and protective route for raising serious concerns. I was not persuaded that existing mechanisms were sufficient. There is already statutory precedent for whistleblowing protections within Armed Forces legislation and, although my amendments were not accepted, the Government committed to a review of whistleblowing in defence, an undertaking which I welcomed and accepted in good faith. I ask the Minister to give us an update on where that review has got to, because I would be personally interested to know if there is an interim or final report scheduled to be published.
Against that general backdrop, I will ask the Minister two questions specific to the regulations. First, what practical safeguards will prevent career or informal detriment, direct or indirect, to the victim, where a family member approaches the commissioner? If families are to be empowered to raise concerns, they have to be confident that doing so will not harm the serviceperson whom they seek to support.
Secondly, although these provisions will be monitored, there is no statutory review clause. Given the novelty and sensitivity of this expanded remit, will the Government commit to publishing a formal review within a defined period?
As I indicated, we on these Benches do not oppose these regulations. They form part of a broader, necessary reform if confidence in the complaints system is to be restored, and that restoration of confidence is vital. Our service personnel and their families deserve a system that is independent in spirit, deserving of their trust and does what it says on the tin. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say in answer to the specific question from my noble friend Lord Stansgate that, yes, the regulations apply to wherever anyone serves. I thank him for raising that issue and allowing me to clarify that point.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, I wish to read a particular thing. I thank him for his question and for his work with the reserves. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the work he does with respect to them. The specific nature of the noble Lord’s question concerned what the term “Reserve Forces” includes. Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 inserted new Schedule 14ZA into the Armed Forces Act 2006. The meaning of “Reserve Forces” in this legislation is the same as in the Reserve Forces Act 1996. It includes the volunteer reserve and the ex-regular reserve, but not individuals in the so-called recall reserve. That is the legislative position. I hope that is helpful to noble Lords.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her general welcome of the regulations before us and the constructive way in which she engaged with them. I made a commitment on the whistleblower review. An interim review has been done; we are looking at that. We will invite the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, to the Ministry of Defence to have a look through where we have got to with the whistleblower review before we publish something, so that they can see where we are.
The intention of that, with respect to this issue and the noble Baroness’s question regarding the families, is for us to ensure that families who complain or bring forward concerns around service life under this provision or, indeed, in a more general sense are protected from feeling as though they will suffer detriment as a result of bringing something forward either under this instrument or more generally. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s question, which she asked specifically in reference to this point, and her more general point about whistleblowing.
All the noble Lords and noble Baronesses who I mentioned will, in due course, receive a letter asking them to come to the Ministry of Defence to discuss where we are on this point. I made that parliamentary commitment, and it is important to honour such parliamentary commitments. In general, you may not be able to amend legislation, but—this is an important point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will know—if a Minister makes a commitment to do something in order for something to be withdrawn, it is important that they follow through on that. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness’s questions with respect to safeguards and the review.
On monitoring, let me reflect on that point about the review. The point about secondary legislation is that, if something is not working, you can look at it again, but the broad definition of what we have and the work of the commissioner are important. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that the commissioner has to publish a report and give it to Parliament. One would expect that if a particular problem had arisen as a result of their work, that would be reported in that annual report so that we could all see whether the regulations were working in the way we had hoped or whether the commissioner was drawing attention to something that Parliament needed to consider again. I would expect that to be the place where any review that was necessary would be pointed out.
With those remarks, I hope that I have answered the various questions asked by noble Lords. I thank everyone for their contributions and their involvement in these regulations.
Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving these regulations, which were laid on 13 January, I will speak also to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
First, let me express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent for successfully steering the Private Member’s Bill through this House to Royal Assent in 2024. I also thank the honourable Member for Bridgend, who was instrumental in guiding the Bill through the other place. I pay particular tribute to Aaron Horsey, who has campaigned with remarkable dedication on behalf of bereaved fathers following the tragic loss of his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son, Tim; Aaron joins us here today.
The Parental Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 established a new statutory entitlement to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks for employed fathers and partners if the mother or primary adopter dies in the first year of a child’s life or adoption. The Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 outline the details of this entitlement. The further two sets of regulations ensure that those having a baby through international adoption or surrogacy arrangements are in scope for leave.
Currently, fathers and partners in these tragic circumstances who do not qualify for paternity leave or shared parental leave must rely on the compassion of their employers to take adequate time off work to care for their child. Although the Employment Rights Act removes the continuity of service requirements for paternity leave, fathers and partners remain limited to a maximum of two weeks’ statutory leave. Bereaved partner’s paternity leave will plug this gap to ensure that bereaved partners are guaranteed a longer period off work to care for their child.
Thankfully, the number of people who face this situation is low. Each year, there are around 180 maternal deaths within 12 months of childbirth. We estimate that around half of those eligible will take up this leave, meaning that these regulations are likely to support about 90 bereaved partners each year. Some partners may be eligible for shared parental leave, which accounts for the reduced figure.
Bereaved partner’s paternity leave is a day one right, meaning that there is no continuity of service requirement. Bereaved fathers and partners will be able to start taking leave from the day after the death of the mother or primary adopter. The leave must end on the child’s first birthday or the first anniversary of their adoption, unless it is necessary to go beyond this date to ensure that an employee is always entitled to at least two weeks of leave.
To be eligible, the bereaved partner must be an employee rather than a worker or self-employed. They must be the child’s father or the mother’s or adopter’s spouse, civil partner or partner at the time of the mother’s or adopter’s death. They must also have main responsibility for the child’s upbringing and be taking the leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Together, these regulations will ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption will have access to a guaranteed period of leave to care for a new child.
The notice requirements reflect that an individual will be in a devastating and unforeseeable situation immediately after their partner’s death. Therefore, to start the leave in the first eight weeks after their partner’s death, they can give notice informally, any time before they are due to start work on their first day of absence. This could, for example, be a text message or a phone call to their employer. To take more than eight weeks after their partner has died, an employee must give one week’s notice in writing. This longer and more formal notice period balances the needs of employers with the flexibility needed by employees in these tragic circumstances.
Taking bereaved partner’s paternity leave will not affect a parent’s ability to take any other family leave entitlements they qualify for, such as shared parental leave. However, the entitlement must be taken in one continuous block. If an employee takes bereaved partner’s paternity leave to care for a child, and the child sadly passes away or an adoption placement ends, the bereaved partner will still be entitled to eight weeks of leave. This reflects that the leave is designed to support care responsibilities during an exceptionally difficult time. This approach is consistent with other forms of parental leave, such as adoption leave, helping to maintain a clear and coherent framework across family related entitlements.
Employees on bereaved partner’s paternity leave will be entitled to redundancy protections while on leave, regardless of how much leave they take. They will also be protected for 18 months from the birth or placement for adoption if they take six weeks or more continuous leave. This is equivalent to the protections given to those who take shared parental leave and neonatal care leave.
The Government have assessed the impact of bereaved partner’s paternity leave on businesses and found it to be minimal. We estimate an annual cost of approximately £0.9 million to businesses, mainly from reorganising work during employee absence. As the entitlement is unpaid, the cost is limited, and we considered the measures necessary and proportionate, given the tragic circumstances in which they will apply.
The Government appreciate the challenges businesses face in fulfilling their duties towards their employees. My officials are working with ACAS to ensure that guidance is available. The Government will also publish this guidance on 6 April on GOV.UK.
I take this moment to thank all those who have been involved in the development of the bereaved partner’s paternity leave. I hope they are as proud as I am of the difference this will make to families in one of the darkest periods of their lives.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, these Benches offer our wholehearted support for these regulations, and I know our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if he were not involved in the Chamber on the Crime and Policing Bill, would join me in supporting them.
The sort of circumstances we are speaking of can be some of the most devastating circumstances and experiences. This is the sort of grief that does not pause, that does not observe working hours and that demands time, space and the presence of everyone in support. At least, then, the grief can be borne. I pay tribute, as has the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, to those who have secured—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal)
My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned and will resume at 5.53 pm.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I pay tribute, as did the Minister, to those who have secured this important step forward. Of course, we on these Benches know this terrain. It was His Majesty’s Official Opposition when in government who laid the foundation upon which these regulations rest. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 was a measure of which I and my party are proud. It was one of the most humane pieces of legislation of recent decades; a recognition by the state that the law must sometimes speak not in the language of productivity or commerce but in the language of compassion. Fathers must not be left behind, and these regulations are a welcome step forwards to ensure they are not.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his compassion and understanding of the issue and his support for the regulations. They represent an important step forward and will ensure that fathers and partners who experience this unimaginable loss are afforded the protection, stability and support they need in an exceptionally difficult and unforeseeable period in their lives. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.