Draft Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces Commissioner (Family Definition, and Consequential and Transitional Provision etc.) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. These draft regulations were laid before the House on 15 January 2026. Their purpose is to give effect to the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, a landmark reform for our armed forces and the families of those serving. The Act establishes an independent Armed Forces Commissioner, who will have the authority to visit Defence sites, request information and investigate welfare concerns, reporting directly to Parliament. By replacing the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a stronger, more proactive model, the Act strengthens transparency, accountability and trust. It also delivers a critical manifesto commitment of improving the day-to-day experience of those who serve and ensuring that their voices are heard at the highest level.
These Regulations formally establish the definition of “family member” for the Commissioner’s functions. This is central to ensuring that the Commissioner’s remit is clear and inclusive, and that it reflects the real-life experiences of armed forces families in today’s military. For the first time, families will have a direct route to raise welfare issues about how service life affects them, recognising that the welfare of serving personnel is inseparable from the wellbeing of their families.
The draft regulations introduce three main changes. First, they set out a broad and inclusive definition of family member: partners, including ex-partners and those in relationships akin to marriage; children; including adult children and those for whom the serviceperson or their partner has or had responsibility; siblings, including step-siblings; parents and guardians; and other relatives who are financially dependent, live with or are cared for by the serviceperson. Bereaved family members are also included, provided they fit into one of those categories at the time of the serviceperson’s death. We have deliberately adopted an inclusive approach, because modern service life does not just encompass the traditional nuclear family.
Secondly, the regulations make consequential amendments to existing legislation, transferring functions from the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces to the newly created Armed Forces Commissioner to ensure continuity and clarity in the service complaints system. Thirdly, transitional and savings provisions are included to ensure a smooth handover of responsibilities, so that ongoing cases and applications are managed seamlessly and without disruption.
These regulations are made under powers in the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Employment Relations Act 1999. The policy intent is to promote the welfare of service personnel and their families most likely to be impacted by service life, reflecting the wide variety of modern family structures. Following feedback from Parliament and stakeholders, we have deliberately made the definition broader than those typically used by the MOD. It is designed to ensure that those most impacted by service life are supported, while remaining specific to the commissioner’s functions and not affecting other MOD definitions. It is important to stress, however, that this definition does not bring family members into the scope of the service complaints system; it is solely for the commissioner’s welfare remit.
The Government consulted extensively with stakeholders, including the Families Federations, MPs and peers. Feedback indicated strong support for the Bill’s objectives and for the proposed definition, with key asks, such as the inclusion of bereaved family members and adult children, addressed in the draft. As the Bill’s measures are rolled out, families will be given guidance and help so that they understand their rights and how to engage with the commissioner. The approach is proportionate, consistent and clear, without affecting other MOD definitions of family member.
In summary, these draft regulations provide clarity, inclusivity and coherence for the Armed Forces Commissioner’s remit, ensuring that both service personnel and their families are supported. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Opposition support these regulations. This is a straightforward piece of legislation, but we have some points that we would like the Minister to clarify.
When will the new Armed Forces Commissioner will be appointed? In January 2025 the hon. Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), then Armed Forces Minister, stated:
“Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 930.]
Could the Minister confirm that that position remains extant? If it does, could she indicate the timeframe within which the Government expect the Armed Forces Commissioner to be appointed?
In the interim, once this legislation comes into effect on 1 April, how will the responsibilities of the Service Complaints Ombudsman be discharged? Will the current ombudsman remain in place until the Armed Forces Commissioner is appointed or will this role, and those responsibilities due to be transferred to the Armed Forces Commissioner, be gapped?
The statutory instrument states in paragraph 3(3):
“For the purposes of this Regulation, references to A’s spouse or civil partner includes—
a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners;
a former spouse or civil partner of A;
a person whose relationship with A was formerly akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners.”
Could the Minister clarify that long-term relationships are covered in the same way? From the way she described it, it sounds as though they are, but I want to clarify that point. Could she also clarify the definition of
“akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”?
It would be helpful to know that there is a clear understanding of how this legislation defines a relationship and therefore who is or is not covered by the legislation.
I reiterate that we support this SI, but those are some minor points of clarification that we believe need to be addressed.
Louise Sandher-Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the regulations. To answer his questions, the new Armed Forces Commissioner and his office are expected to be operational from April; I hope that also addresses some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about a possible gap with the service complaints process. Long-term relationships are, as he says, covered, and guidance will be issued in due course with the exact clarification.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026.
It is great, as always, to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am pleased to be speaking to this order, which was laid before the House in draft on 28 January 2026 and requires that the Government continue to provide funding for the Churches Conservation Trust, or CCT.
The CCT, which was established by legislation in 1969 as the Redundant Churches Fund, is a charity aimed at protecting an essential part of our national heritage. It demonstrates a successful partnership between Church, Government and communities. The CCT plays a crucial role in caring for some of the most architecturally impressive churches no longer required for regular worship. It currently cares for more than 350 churches in towns, villages and cities across England, all of which are listed, mostly at grades I and II, and some of which are scheduled ancient monuments. The CCT’s collection showcases how historical buildings can be brought back to life creatively to continue to serve the communities that they were built for, once they are no longer required for their original use.
Historical places of worship are a valued part of this nation’s heritage. Around 45% of all grade I listed buildings are Church of England churches or cathedrals, and they represent some of the finest examples of our historical buildings, heritage and exceptional craftsmanship. Those buildings are also often at the heart of communities, admired by visitors and beloved by residents. The CCT’s work is crucial to ensuring that they can be kept open and enjoyed as cultural, social, tourism and educational assets. Working in partnership with local communities is key to achieving that, as collaboration helps to secure the futures of historical places of worship as living, useful buildings that continue to contribute to the social fabric of their local places.
That approach was recently demonstrated at St Torney’s in North Hill, Cornwall, the newest addition to the CCT’s portfolio. The CCT took one of the last remaining community buildings in an isolated village on the edge of Bodmin moor and turned it into a hive of community activity, hosting art shows, music, talks, children’s activities and much more. Close consultation with local residents was paramount to the success of the project, which continues to be successful. Other recent notable successes include the CCT’s work to conserve the internationally important stained glass in St Mary’s in Shrewsbury, again in close consultation with the local community, which is critical.
The CCT recognises the importance of passing down traditional heritage skills to the next generation and building expertise in skills. Through its successful heritage skills summer programme, run jointly with Historic England, the CCT provides high-level repairs to the grade II listed St John’s church in Lancaster while helping to train a cohort of young people in the craft skills needed to take care of historical churches.
Closer to home, last year saw the CCT move into its new headquarters at the Old Black Lion in Northampton. Following an innovative regeneration project, that unique space combines the fantastic revitalised historical pub with St Peter’s church, in what is the crown jewel of the CCT’s estate and its new national office. Through the Old Black Lion project, the CCT is contributing to Northampton’s wider regeneration, investing more than £2 million in the town’s most deprived wards.
The CCT is supported by funding from both the Church of England and the Government—the Government are providing more than £3 million in the current financial year. It has also sought to diversify its income streams to multiply its core funding, so it can further support its activity at a time of public funding pressures. This debate takes place at a pivotal time for the funding of places of worship: to make a lasting difference to historical places of worship, this Government are shifting towards capital funding and will invest more than £90 million over the next four years, with the launch of the places of worship renewal fund.
That new fund, which was announced in January, will allow for longer term planning, enabling us to target resources at the areas that are most in need, particularly areas with double disadvantage. In 2025, the CCT launched its new strategy, which is designed to guide the charity’s work for the next five years. Under the strategy, the CCT will focus on three interdependent principles: conservation, community and creativity. It will work with local communities both to conserve the historical fabric of churches, and to find creative new ways to reimagine such places.
This order allows the Government to continue to provide funding to support the CCT and enable it to continue its work in giving future life to the historical places of worship in its care. The instrument covers three years, providing the CCT with certainty about Government funding support for this period and helping it plan its activities with confidence. The funding will allow the CCT to continue to conserve the fabric of one of the largest collections of highly listed buildings in the country, keeping them open, for free, to everyone of all faiths and none.
I hope that Committee members share my enthusiasm for the important work done by the CCT, and recognise the key role that it plays in preserving and promoting a vital aspect of our nation’s heritage. I hope that they will approve the draft order, which will provide for the CCT from 2026 to 2029, and I commend it to the Committee.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am very pleased that I can start my speech by saying that I agree with the Minister: the Churches Conservation Trust does indeed play a vital role in the preservation of our heritage, and our religious heritage in particular.
The CCT cares for more than 350 listed churches across England that are no longer used for regular worship, including several in my constituency, and is the custodian of the third largest collection of heritage properties in the country, surpassed only by the National Trust and English Heritage. Together, CCT churches receive as many as 2 million visitors a year. They play a key role in our tourism economy, a point especially pertinent to today’s debate, which takes place during English Tourism Week.
The Churches Conservation Trust keeps these buildings open to the public for free, operating on a far smaller turnover than the National Trust or English Heritage. It not only performs vital restoration and preservation work but, working alongside the local community, often seeks new use opportunities for its churches, which helps to revitalise and rejuvenate those spaces for the benefit of all. Our churches contain some of the country’s best examples of historical art and architecture, from medieval wall paintings to stained glass and stunning monuments. By looking after them for future generations, the CCT also helps to sustain our country’s vital craft and heritage skills.
Government funding, in the form of an annual grant, is vital to the CCT’s work, and the Opposition therefore support the grant being awarded by this statutory instrument. Other funding comes from the Church of England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, donations, legacies and commercial income, including the innovative idea of “champing”, or church camping—something I am sure you have partaken in, Sir Desmond. The CCT keeps its costs down thanks in no small part to the more than 2,500 volunteers in churches across the country who assist the trust in its work; I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking them all.
Funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport represents less than a third of the CCT’s funding, but provides a crucial foundation on which to build and raise other funds. A modest sum of state investment keeps nearly 360 of our most precious historical buildings safe and open for millions of visitors in each English county, and provides a network of valuable community facilities in urban and rural settings alike.
In recent years, the CCT has been given responsibility for looking after many more churches, and its costs have increased significantly due to inflation and the effects of a changing climate. Last month, the Church of England’s General Synod agreed to increase its annual contribution to the CCT in light of those growing challenges. Yet for many years the DCMS grant has been frozen, and this statutory instrument once again provides a flat cash settlement with the same ceiling for the two subsequent years, representing a real-terms cut. Along with the abolition of the listed places of worship VAT scheme, which will cost the CCT more than £300,000 next year, those funding cuts from the state cancel out the rise from the Church.
That situation reflects a broader anxiety among the custodians of our religious heritage. Many current and former places of worship are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register, meaning that without significant intervention they are at risk of being lost to the nation due to neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Yet the Government recently announced the end of the listed places of worship scheme, having halved its budget last year to a maximum of £23 million per year, compared to the £42 million budget when my party was in power.
To the surprise of no one but the Government, last month the fund ran out of money. The replacement scheme is due to start next month, but there is still little detail about how it will work in practice, particularly for historical churches, which now face large tax bills for carrying out essential works to look after these important parts of our shared heritage. The VAT grant scheme gave the custodians of our historical places of worship the certainty they needed to carry out vital works to these public buildings, and it sent a message that these were places that we all valued.
Scrapping the VAT scheme means that people caring for historical churches, including the Churches Conservation Trust—the Government’s own body that was set up to do just that—will now have to pay a 20% tax to repair or maintain a church, while someone demolishing one would pay 0%. That sends a terrible message about what we value as a nation. To give two examples of trust churches in my constituency, investigation work to locate and fix a leak on the roof of St Lawrence’s in Evesham will cost an estimated £12,000, of which £2,000 is VAT. At All Saints in Spetchley, re-roofing the nave and chancel to protect the 700-year-old church with its fabulous medieval paintings will incur a VAT bill in the region of £20,000.
Uncertainty about the Government’s changes has meant that important—indeed, vital—repair work has been delayed or cancelled. The Government announced other changes to heritage support, but again few details have been forthcoming and the high-level information that we have received so far has just given an indication that the VAT reclaim scheme will be replaced with capital grants instead, which has caused considerable anxiety to many stakeholders who fear they will lose out. Can the Minister confirm whether that means fewer sites will receive funding? Will there be winners and losers? If so, who?
We are still in the dark about the eligibility criteria, about timescales, the application process, the Barnett consequentials for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and whether any underspend may be carried forward from one year and so on. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in his closing remarks to provide some reassurance to those entities, including the CCT, about when more details on the new scheme will be announced. In particular, can he confirm the eligibility criteria for the new places of worship renewal fund? Finally, will he lobby the Treasury to support the Conservatives’ commitment to fully restoring funding for the places of worship scheme up to the levels we had when we were in Government?
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. At the risk of dangerous levels of cross-party agreement breaking out, I echo what the Minister said about the important role that the Churches Conservation Trust plays in protecting some of our nation’s most significant historical churches. This debate is timely because the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, is currently undertaking an inquiry into built heritage and how we protect it, examining the effectiveness of current heritage protections, funding structures and the current successes and challenges of organisations tasked with looking after our most important historical assets.
Evidence we received during our inquiry has shown clearly that the Churches Conservation Trust plays an invaluable role in preserving our heritage, but is increasingly struggling to meet the growing challenges placed upon it. Witnesses told us that funding from the Church of England has not kept pace with the rising costs of conservation. What was also particularly concerning was that around 50 to 60 churches, some unused and deteriorating for over two decades, remain in limbo. Additionally, DCMS funding, which forms less than a third of the trust’s income yet provides an essential foundation for its other fundraising events, has effectively been frozen, meaning the trust has continued to take on new churches without any corresponding uplift.
Although the Church of England has now agreed to increase its annual contribution, the combination of frozen DCMS funding and the loss of the listed places of worship grant scheme, which is worth more than £300,000 a year to the trust, means it is no better off in real terms.
The new places of worship renewal fund is welcome, but we still do not know how it will be distributed, and there is understandable concern about eligibility for it and about its overall adequacy, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham. It is not clear how much the Churches Conservation Trust will receive from the new fund, or whether the new fund will make up for the money that it loses as a result of the old scheme’s being axed. The order before us will help the Churches Conservation Trust to continue carrying out the critical work of conserving and maintaining our shared historical assets, but it is essential that it can access new funding schemes and wider cultural support.
Does the Minister accept that, as the amounts paid to the Churches Conservation Trust are frozen, the money being made available through this instrument amounts to a real-terms cut in funding? When will we get more updates about how the new places of worship renewal fund will operate? Above all, we need certainty and predictability, so will the Minister guarantee that the Churches Conservation Trust will be able to access the new fund and that it will not lose out as a result of the old grant scheme’s being axed? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the number of churches that will close as a result of the listed places of worship scheme’s ending?
Ian Murray
I thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the shadow Minister for their contributions. First, I will deal with some of the questions about the listed places of worship scheme.
The replacement scheme will be a £92 million fund over the next four years, which is actually an increase in funding over what was available on the VAT reclaim scheme, because it is England only and not a UK-wide scheme, therefore only eligible in England. There are no Barnett consequentials to that for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, because the scheme is the Department spending budget that has already been Barnettised through the spending review. In the case of Scotland, while I know there has been a lot of discussion from Scottish Members about this, it is up to the Scottish Government to determine how they spend the spending review Barnett consequential. There is no Barnett on this allocation of budget.
The CCT should be able to apply for the places of worship renewal fund, as it can already for the listed places of worship fund, as the shadow Minister laid out. In terms of when, I can confirm it will be soon—as hon. Members know, “soon” in Government terms is anything between 1 January and 31 December, but it actually will be soon, because we acknowledge that people are a little bit in limbo here.
The reason the scheme was closed—to answer one of the questions put to me—was because 80% of the projects that were brought forward said that the work would go ahead regardless, and another 15% on top of that said that the work would have gone ahead on time and on budget, so the public purse was funding stuff that was already happening. The fact that we have gone to the new grant system means that people will be able to apply for more funding in that sense. In the past there was a £25,000 cap, and the average spend was between £3,000 and £5,000—quite small amounts of money in terms of VAT reclaim.
We encourage the heritage sector—the CCT and otherwise—to come forward with projects as soon as the criteria are announced. The fund sits under the umbrella of the £1.5 billion that DCMS announced last month for arts, heritage, museums and places of worship, so there is a lot of money going into the sector, and the sector has welcomed that. I think that answers all the questions, unless anyone would like to come back to me on that.
There is eligibility for places of worship and former places of worship—CCT places—to apply for heritage at risk funding if they fall into that category. Recently, half a million was announced for repair work to St Catherine of Siena Church and more than £250,000 for emergency repairs at St Michael’s in Birmingham, because they are both sites classed as heritage at risk. There are other avenues of funding, so I encourage the custodians of churches to come forward if they need any advice on finding the best model for them.
Government funding for CCT, along with funding from the Church of England, is crucial to the heritage sector, enabling these remarkable buildings of cultural significance to remain open and in good repair, serving the communities for which they were originally built. I want to pass on my thanks to the trustees and staff at the CCT, and all the individual volunteers who keep these buildings going in a time of need. There is a positive outlook for historical places of worship under the Government’s new funding and with the CCT’s new strategy.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Contracts for Difference (Sustainable Industry Rewards and Contract Budget Notice Amendments) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine, and it is wonderful to see so many Scots reunited for this debate. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 5 February; I should say from the outset that they still carry the legacy name of this policy, although it is now known as the clean industry bonus. I will briefly set out three things: first, the purpose and direction of the clean industry bonus; secondly, how the draft regulations help us to evolve the contracts for difference scheme; and thirdly, why funding under the scheme is now conditional on applicants adhering to the fair work charter, which I will come to in a moment.
First, the purpose of the statutory instrument is to amend regulations governing the clean industry bonus ahead of allocation round 8. As I am sure Members are aware, the contracts for difference scheme is our main renewable energy support mechanism. The clean industry bonus offers additional CfD revenue to offshore wind developers who invest in UK factories and ports needed to deliver offshore wind, driving investment in our industrial heartlands. Offshore wind developers have rightly prioritised reducing costs, but the CfD scheme was missing a mechanism to ensure that investments went back into the UK, and to cleaner factories, so that consumers got both clean power and local jobs. That goes to the heart of this Government’s mission to deliver not only clean power but our industrial strategy.
Funding under the clean industry bonus is allocated through a competitive process that is run ahead of the main CfD round, with awards given out for the best value investments in the UK or for cleaner supply chains. Payments are released only on delivery of those commitments.
In the most recent allocation round 7, £204 million was allocated through the clean industry bonus, which crowded in £3.4 billion of private investment—that is £204 million for £3.4 billion of private investment into supply chains and ports in the UK, delivering a strong return on public investment. The scale of private investment leveraged by the clean industry bonus represents an unprecedented vote of confidence in the UK’s supply chains, compared with previous allocation rounds.
Let me set out the direction of travel in the draft regulations. The aim is to make targeted, practical improvements to the operation of the scheme for allocation round 8, such as simplifying the application process and clarifying how budgets and delivery rules operate. The draft regulations also provide a legislative basis for making the subsidy conditional on fair work, ensuring that investments come with a commitment to good-quality jobs. The aim of the scheme’s operational improvements is to speed up the process and reduce the administrative burden by diminishing the volume of paperwork required, as well as clarifying budgets and rules, such as if events outside an applicant’s control derail their project. The draft regulations also set a sunset clause on the scheme, meaning that no CIB can run after 31 December 2028 without further parliamentary scrutiny.
In the coming allocation round, we are also thinking beyond just offshore wind; the scheme will be extended to onshore wind projects in allocation round 9, and the regulations have been amended to make that possible. The period before introduction will give industry a small amount of lead-in time to get ready. Taken together, these changes improve and widen the scheme, as we speed up the delivery of renewables.
Thirdly, on fair work and skills, the most significant change in allocation round 8 is that clean industry bonus applicants will need to sign up to the offshore wind fair work charter, which is a series of commitments to improve worker voice and representation and health and safety in the offshore wind industry. If an applicant wants to apply for the subsidy, they will have to sign the charter. This was designed by industry and trade union representatives, and it reflects their constructive engagement. I thank the representatives from both the industry and the trade unions, who engaged constructively in pulling this together.
The purpose is very simple: if we are going to give public money, it should help to improve the quality and security of jobs in the offshore wind industry. It will mean that workers and communities across the country reap the rewards of offshore wind and that the sector becomes an even more attractive place to work amid fierce competition for skills. The charter builds on forthcoming commitments in the Employment Rights Act 2025, in particular by asking that the offshore wind sector proactively implement voluntary access agreements for trade unions. It also includes a commitment to strive for best practice health and safety standards that go beyond the legal minimum.
Our commitment to good jobs through the clean industry bonus does not stop at the fair work charter. We are pressing ahead with a skills investment fund that will help develop the skills needed for the clean energy transition. The idea is that offshore wind developers pool together skills funding and initiatives, rather than relying on individual projects trying to address particular short-term needs. The Government and the offshore wind industry have agreed that they will work together to set that up by 2027; that will be funded by existing developer contributions to the supply chain, not by any new money. Once that skills and investment fund is up and running, developers may be asked to contribute to it as a condition for taking part in the CIB and CfD schemes. That way, the bonus can drive improvements in how the offshore wind sector addresses fair work and skills, while continuing to fund UK industrial heartlands.
As I have set out, the regulations build on the strong foundations achieved in allocation round 7. They ensure that the clean industry bonus continues to drive supply chain growth in support of clean home-grown power. They make targeted improvements to the operation of the scheme and, crucially, ask that public funding supports public goods such as fair work and investment in skills. Taken together, the measures support the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, to lead in producing affordable clean energy and to support the creation of good jobs right across the country. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The primary purpose of the statutory instrument appears to be twofold: to extend the scheme to onshore wind and to put ringfenced spending on a statutory footing for nascent technologies such as floating offshore wind. We also see some technical adjustments in the extension of the sunset clause and the altering of timeframes, alongside amendments to the Electricity Market Reform (General) Regulations 2014 to uphold financial minimum standards as a prerequisite for the release of payment.
The clean industry bonus scheme was introduced by the current Government in 2024 to promote investment in domestic supply chains, although it of course follows the excellent work of the previous Government to reduce our reliance on foreign supply chains. However, there is irony here on multiple accounts. First, it was only following immense pressure from the Conservative party official Opposition—and from the other place—that the Government were persuaded to amend their flagship legislation introducing Great British Energy, in order to prevent investment in supply chains with proven links to slave labour. I am immensely pleased that the Government U-turned on that, as taxpayers’ money absolutely ought not to be spent on importing solar panels from China manufactured in horrendous conditions in regions where slave labour is proven to be commonplace.
We should be promoting domestic supply chains, building domestic capacity and seeing investment to benefit British workers and British communities. Nowhere is that more evident than in the north-east of Scotland, home to a world-leading energy industry and supply chain. The irony there is the Labour Government’s reckless disregard for our home-grown supply chains in the north-east of Scotland. They are the very same offshore logistics specialists, subsea cabling manufacturers and workforce that the Government claim to need more of, yet the Government have shown them nothing but disdain since getting into office. At a time of maximum geopolitical uncertainty, our domestic oil and gas sector deserves support. If the Government wish to support domestic energy supply chains, I suggest that the Minister starts there.
The statutory instrument broadens the scope for allocation to technologies other than offshore wind, facilitating the inclusion of onshore wind in allocation round 9. If the Government were as interested in securing domestic supply chains they would have been much better doubling down on nuclear, which has the most secure supply chain of any power generation technology. Yet the Government cancelled the third large-scale nuclear power plant that we signed off at Wylfa. After all the effort it took to get Hinkley and Sizewell’s development consent order across the line, we find ourselves with no pipeline for large-scale nuclear projects in this country. We should be under no illusion that this scheme represents yet another subsidy for wind developers, on top of the subsidies that the Secretary of State already handed to them through the renewables obligation scheme—which we have committed to scrapping in its entirety—and on top of the subsidies that they received through their CfDs.
This instrument also puts on a statutory footing the protected allocation of funding for certain technologies, such as floating offshore wind. The Department’s explanatory memorandum explains that that is
“to safeguard some investment in a newer technology with higher costs in its exploratory phase and to support investment in the supply chain”.
Although I do not wish to stand in the way of the statutory instrument today, I reiterate the fundamental irony in the Government’s attempt to invest in domestic supply chains while accelerating the decline of industry across the country, particularly in the North sea, and refusing to double down on large-scale nuclear, all while the Secretary of State signs secret deals with China.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Notwithstanding the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, I am a little alarmed by this statutory instrument and its implications for my residents in North West Hampshire. I have a number of questions for the Minister.
My understanding is that this scheme was originally established in the aftermath of the disruption to supply chains caused by the conflict in Ukraine. There was significant concern about the ability of the offshore industry to continue, so the subsidy was put in place on a supposedly temporary basis. That was to allow for the uninterrupted development of an industry that had hitherto been working quite well, but was suffering at that point.
This statutory instrument, however, turns that temporary subsidy into a permanent feature of the landscape. We are voting through, colleagues, a permanent subsidy to the wind industry. [Interruption.] Well, there is no sunset clause; that has been taken out. There is no review mechanism—there is nothing. If the Minister wants to intervene on me, I am quite happy to be corrected, but as far as I can see this is an open-ended subsidy scheme through the CfD system. My questions are configured around that assumption.
First, could the Minister confirm that there will be no annual parliamentary vote on this subsidy? Normally, a subsidy to an industry would expect to come through direct expenditure from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade or whatever it might be. This is being funded through the supplier obligation levy, which is a direct levy on consumer bills. There is no approval by the House of the budget. In fact, I think it is just approved administratively—it is what it is. The consumer will pay, whether we like it or not. If the Minister could confirm that, that would be great.
As I understand it, the budget for AR7 was about £544 million. Could the Minister confirm for us the projected budget that the Government expect for AR8, and therefore how much my residents in North West Hampshire can expect to be added to their electricity bill to pay for this statutory instrument?
Much of the Government’s case for extending what is—let us be clear—an industrial subsidy is that there is a very high leverage. I looked at the maths, and the leverage of private sector to public sector is about 16:1. How was that number reached? I could not see in the impact assessment what the maths was, what assumptions had been made or whether this had been independently verified. Is there some kind of National Audit Office examination of that number? I have been a Minister myself, and I was always very sceptical about these public-private leverage numbers. They are often promoted by the industry looking for the subsidy, and make their way into these sorts of impact assessments without any kind of checking. I would be grateful to understand what the assumptions were.
Could the Minister also confirm that this is now a permanent feature of the landscape—that there is no sunset, statutory timeline, let or control? People will effectively just bid through the CfD system, the subsidy will make up the difference, they get to build their onshore, floating offshore or whatever wind it might be, and my constituents and I have to pay no matter what.
Then I wanted to ask a bit about this fair work charter. I understand that the Government are very keen on employees’ rights. We should all make sure that people are treated with respect in employment, but using a statutory instrument effectively to extend employment regulations seems very odd. I wonder whether that will be an ongoing feature of the landscape for statutory instruments such as this and whether we can expect a kind of extension of regulation by stealth.
I am sure these regulations are perfectly amenable, but their being contemplated in a small Committee of Members, rather than on the Floor of the House, as the Employment Rights Act 2025 was, or indeed going through both Houses in all their pomp, seems to me a slightly sneaky way to get around proper Government scrutiny. I would be very interested if the Minister could point me, please, to the specific statutory authority that permits the use of CfD contracts to impose employment standards on developers and their supply chains. If he cannot point me to that, what is the legal authority, please, for that being included in this statutory instrument?
Finally, CfDs were designed originally to bring down the cost of alternatives. That was the original plan. Yet what we are voting on today will do precisely the reverse: raise the cost for me and my constituents. I wonder how the Minister can justify that at a time of difficulty for so many of our constituents with the cost of living. If this industry is as attractive to the private sector as he says it is, why does it need the subsidy in the first place?
Michael Shanks
I will address a few things. There were some contradictory comments from different Members of the same party: on the one hand, we should support the supply chains, but on the other, the Government should do nothing to actually build them up. I will come to that point, because—
Michael Shanks
That is how we end up with absolutely no industry left in the country. That is what we are trying to rebuild after 14 years of it falling apart.
I will turn to the specific points. First of all, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, made a good point about the strength of supply chains in the north-east of Scotland; I will be in Aberdeen again on Thursday. One of the key things that the North Sea Future Board has taken as a real priority is how we map those supply chains, not just over oil and gas but over what could come in terms of offshore wind, decommissioning, hydrogen and carbon capture. For too long, the pipeline of future projects that that supply chain could be redeployed on has not been clear enough. As a result, we have been losing out on contracts that could be dealt with here in the UK. We are determined to try to fix that, because there are significant supply-chain opportunities, but we need to make it easier for companies to take those up.
The shadow Minister and I always agree on new nuclear, although we slightly disagree on how much he achieved when he was the Nuclear Minister—but I will not mention that, because I want us to work co-operatively on nuclear. New nuclear is incredibly important. As he is right to say, the supply-chain benefits in the UK from nuclear are substantial: thousands and thousands of jobs in communities right across the country, not just in proximity to Sizewell or Hinkley, are contributing in different ways to building what are phenomenal engineering projects here in the UK.
The small modular reactor fleet that the Government not only consulted on but have actually delivered—and are delivering—will result in even more supply-chain jobs across the country as well. The shadow Minister and I also agree that we would like to see some of those SMR projects being built in Scotland, with even closer supply chains in Scotland as well, but we first need to change the Scottish Government in May; I am glad that he will be supporting a vote for Scottish Labour on 7 May to do that.
The shadow Minister also raised a number of other points about the supply chain that I think are right. It is absolutely right to say that floating offshore wind is an expensive technology, but we are at the cutting edge of its development. We have a real opportunity to do something differently on deep-sea wind, which we were not able to do on fixed-bottom wind, to have the supply chain here in the UK. We have the biggest pipeline anywhere in the world; we have one of the biggest projects in the world. That is an opportunity for us to deliver on that innovative supply chain, but it takes investment for that to happen.
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire asked a number of genuine questions, which I appreciated. First, the regulations themselves very clearly set out the sunset clause as 31 December 2028. This will be eligible for the allocation rounds before that date; if we wanted to continue the scheme beyond that, we would have to come and update these regulations again, but it is not an unlimited fund.
On the projected budget for AR8, I cannot get into projected budgets because they are driven by the initial allocation that is set, and then by the bids that come in. In AR7, we reformed the process so that we could see the bid stack in order to see what projects were in that option round, although they were anonymised. That resulted in the budget getting us the output of offshore wind that we did, at a price that was 40% cheaper than new-build gas. That is what we should hold on to: the AR7 option round was cheaper for consumers than the equivalent would be.
I remind right hon. and hon. Members that there is no option to not build new energy infrastructure in this country. We have two choices: we either double down on gas, and the world as it stands right now is a reminder of why that would be a mistake; or we build renewables. There is no option to build nothing. There is a cost for consumers, regardless of what we choose to do. There is also a huge cost for consumers of building the grid that the previous Government failed to build for 14 years, which we are now determined to do.
On the fair work charter, there is no compulsion on any developers to bid into the clean industry bonus. If they want to participate in the contracts for difference auction, they are very welcome to do that. If they want to participate in the clean industry bonus and have public support for supply chains here in the UK, then they should conform to the requirements of that scheme. We think it is absolutely fair to say that if the hard-working people of this country are putting money into building those factories, fair work should be at the heart of it. I am surprised, frankly, that in 2026 anyone would think that fair work is something that we should not support by any means necessary.
Kit Malthouse
As I think I said, I agree that people should be treated with respect; my question was more about why it is being done through this particular route. For the Government to legally have grounds to include what we are discussing as part of, effectively, a procurement process, there has to be a statutory basis on which they are doing that; it cannot just be shoved through on a non-universal basis. I was asking for the authority on which it is included.
I am sorry if I misread the time limits regulation. Could the Minister confirm that, if the Government give notice before 31 December 2028 for 12, 15, 19 or 120 more rounds to come, they will then be able to continue post that deadline? So they can in fact manufacture a deadline.
Finally—rather than my having to intervene again; I hope you will bear with me, Ms Jardine—could the Minister confirm to colleagues what he said: we are being asked to vote today for higher energy bills for our constituents in perpetuity, or certainly for the next few years, as a result of this instrument? Just so everyone is clear: you are voting for higher bills.
Michael Shanks
I thank the right hon. Member for his second speech in the debate.
Kit Malthouse
I was trying to save time; I can intervene more if the Minister wants.
Michael Shanks
I understand the point. First of all, I have been really clear. This regulation, as it clearly sets out, comes to an end on 31 December 2028. We will come back to the Committee to update the regulations should we wish to continue the scheme. We have run AR7—it was a successful scheme. Obviously, we want to monitor what happens in AR8 and AR9. We may be able to devise other schemes. It may be that by then that our industrial strategy has delivered the supply-chain benefits across the UK and that that is not necessary, but supply chains do not come out of nowhere.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, made one other point that I wanted to come back to. When we left Government, two supply chain companies were building solar in this country. When we took back Government in 2024, there were none. If we want to have supply chains in the UK, we have to support and invest in them. That is not just a cost. It also delivers good jobs across the country, and our energy security.
On the question about raising bills, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire is quite wrong. The outcome of building the clean power system is that we will bring down bills, but we have to be able to build it and that means supply chains here in the UK as well, because the rest of the world is also in a race to build clean energy infrastructure.
Michael Shanks
It is a no, because the counterfactual, of relying on gas, as his party is so determined to do, would put up everyone’s bills significantly. We are the ones bringing down bills, and on 1 April all our constituents will see that the decisions this Government have made will reduce their bills by 7%.
There are a number of points in this statutory instrument that I could go over again; in the interests of everyone’s time, I will not. I reinforce the point that we believe that if we are building an energy system for the future here, we should deliver the good jobs and industrial benefits that come with that. That should not be a controversial argument, but it seems that it still is. If we want to have an industrial strategy, we cannot be agnostic, sit on the sidelines and hope that someone else will do it—we have to drive it forward. If we want our constituents to have good, well paid jobs across the country, helping build the energy system, we have to do something about it. This Government are doing that, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Kit Malthouse
On a point of order, Ms Jardine. I do not mean to be difficult, but the Minister has not answered all the questions I posed—not least about the assumptions of the 16:1 leverage, which is apparently the big bonus coming in. I also do not know whether it is appropriate for us to vote on what is effectively an open-ended budget. Fundamentally, the impact I am most worried about is the one on my constituents—that I am not going to be able to tell them how much this will cost them; that is quite a significant hole in the Government’s argument. I am not aware of other statutory instruments where we vote for an open-ended budgetary allocation that our constituents will have to pay for, whether they like it or not.
I have time this afternoon. If you, Ms Jardine, want to suspend the sitting while the Minister goes and finds the answers to those questions, I am quite happy for that to happen. It seems to me disrespectful for us to rattle through something that will have an impact quite soon on people’s electricity bills.
The Chair
Thank you. That is not a matter for the Chair but the right hon. Member’s comments are on the record, and I have taken note of them. It is appropriate now for us to move on.
Question put.
Draft Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. The draft order was laid before the House on 2 February. It will make changes to UK legislation that are necessary as a consequence of the Senedd’s Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022. The order must be enforced by 1 April to coincide with the Welsh Government’s commencement plan for the Act.
The 2022 Act created a new statutory framework for publicly funded tertiary education and research in Wales. It established the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research—recently named Medr—which is responsible for funding and overseeing the tertiary education sector in Wales. The sector encompasses higher education, further education and training, apprenticeships, sixth forms and adult community learning. I will refer to that body as either the Commission or by its name, Medr.
The Act provides the Commission with new powers to fund tertiary education in Wales and repeals corresponding functions that were previously in place. The order ensures that several pieces of UK legislation are kept up to date by making amendments that account for the new system introduced by the Senedd’s 2022 Act. The order mainly removes references to the powers that are now being repealed and replaces them with references to the equivalent powers in the 2022 Act. That ensures that the legislation being amended will continue to operate in largely the same way as it does now, but with the Commission integrated into the legislative framework.
Article 2 of the order amends the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to ensure that education and vocational training provision funded through powers in the 2022 Act will be an exempt supply for the purpose of value added tax. The Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 includes provision for the tax treatment of income derived from shares in research institution spin-out companies. Article 3 ensures that the definition of “research institution” in that Act includes any university or other educational institution receiving funding under powers in the 2022 Act.
Article 4 amends the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to enable Welsh Ministers to exercise functions in the 2022 Act jointly with other public authorities, including the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation. Article 5 amends the Charities Act 2011 (Principal Regulators of Exempt Charities) Regulations 2013 to designate the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research as the principal regulator for specific charities in Wales. That reflects the fact that the Commission—or Medr—will now be responsible for regulating further education and training in Wales under the 2022 Act, whereas previously Welsh Ministers were. The order also ensures that existing restrictions on principal charity regulators relating to the onward sharing of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs information are applied to the Commission.
Article 6 amends the Seafarers’ Wages Regulations 2024 to ensure that the apprenticeship rate for seafarers can apply to those carrying out apprenticeships funded by the Commission under powers in the 2022 Act.
The amendments to UK legislation in the draft order fall outside the legislative competence of the Senedd as they relate to reserved matters such as tax, charities and employment. Taken together, those amendments ensure that existing legislation will continue to operate as intended by taking account of the changes made by the 2022 Act.
I welcome the implementation of the Senedd’s Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act and the positive impact that Medr is already having in Wales. The draft order will make the consequential amendments necessary to keep UK legislation up to date, and it will help ensure that the 2022 Act can take effect as intended.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to respond to this timely and important discussion on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I welcome today’s discussion on tertiary education, which is long overdue. I thank the Minister for her helpful introduction to the order.
The 2022 Act abolished the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and, as the Minister spelled out, the new Commission for Tertiary Education and Research— Medr—became operational in August 2025, bringing responsibility for higher education, further education, apprenticeships, sixth forms and adult learning together in a single strategic body. I recognise that the draft order does not revisit policy decisions; it simply updates legislation so that it continues to function properly following the creation of Medr.
While the instrument is technical, as the Minister said, it sits within a wider set of reforms that will shape the future of tertiary education in Wales. Audit Wales has rightly emphasised the importance of ensuring that Medr’s strategic planning reflects the views of learners, employers and providers, and that its long-term planning aligns with statutory missions.
Education as a whole should be at the forefront of the Government’s focus for Wales. Many members of the Committee will be concerned that, while Welsh Labour has been in charge of education in Wales from as far back as 1999—when Tony Blair was still Prime Minister—it has been somewhat distracted by other priorities, with some youngsters leaving school unable to progress. The Opposition have concerns about politicians ploughing hundreds of millions of pounds into other focuses, such as Cardiff airport, or sending millions of pounds to plant trees in Uganda.
Those spending decisions reflect where the Labour Welsh Government’s focus has been, so I welcome this interest in tertiary education in Wales. There will be some who feel that Labour Ministers in Cardiff Bay have somewhat ignored this issue. Every Government’s first duty should be to create the right conditions for our young people to succeed, no matter where they live, because they are the future of our country.
Under both Governments either side of the M4, ideological decisions have impacted on education in Wales in some way. A lack of ambition and motivation is a concern, particularly in higher education. The educational evidence is clear that Welsh pupils continue to record the lowest scores in mathematics, science and reading across the United Kingdom in the PISA figures. Those inherent weaknesses in schools are having a profound effect on the broader tertiary system because they mean that pupils are poorly prepared for further and higher education.
It is important to recognise that the target of delivering 125,000 apprenticeships has currently fallen short in Wales by around 25,000 places—or 25,000 opportunities that young people in Wales simply do not have—so it is important that this measure works. There is a shortage of degree apprenticeships, which has been exacerbated by the previously somewhat narrow scope in Cardiff Bay, and flexibility is needed.
There is also a degree of worry about developments in universities in Wales. Given these concerns from parents, guardians and students, I would appreciate the Minister’s addressing some points on the proposals and changes. First, will she outline any specific detail on how today’s proposals will tangibly improve tertiary education across Wales? What is her understanding on that? Secondly, will she kindly explain how the proposals address the worrying decline in the number of people entering Welsh tertiary education? Thirdly, what feedback has been received from relevant authorities, particularly in relation to article 4, which requests them to carry out joint functions? Fourthly, has there been an impact assessment to evaluate the potential consequences or opportunities of the proposals? Fifthly, will the Minister outline how these changes will affect the private school sector, which is somewhat struggling in Wales? Sector leaders are approaching us as the official Opposition, because they are currently unable to obtain answers from the Wales Office or indeed from Education Ministers in Cardiff Bay. Sixthly, will there be an update to the House on how any change in these regulations will directly deliver for the people of Wales and support the college sector? Finally, can the Minister talk about the transition to the new Commission? Is it proceeding smoothly? It is, as I know the Minister will understand, a large institutional change. Any evaluations and safeguards are key so that it is properly regulated and all responsibilities and changes are understood. I look forward to her response.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the shadow Minister for her valuable contribution to the debate this afternoon and members of the Committee for being here. This order provides for several consequential amendments to UK legislation necessary before the next phase of the 2022 Act comes into force in April.
The shadow Minister made several points in her speech. I am very pleased that Wales managed to withstand 14 years of austerity from a Tory Government. More than that, the Welsh Government invested in building more 21st-century schools than anywhere else in the UK. Medr is shaping a tertiary education system in which everyone can acquire the skills and knowledge they need for a changing economy and society. The Welsh Government reflected and consulted on that—they consulted widely with tertiary education providers—and they are taking it forward. Medr was established last August and is looking at tangible improvements to raise standards across the board. That is why the 2022 Act is in place. Importantly, it will ensure that education, skills and apprenticeships are available for everyone, no matter what their background.
I offer my thanks for the constructive manner in which the UK and the Welsh Governments have worked in preparing this order, and in which the shadow Minister made her points. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.