Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the Grand Committee do consider the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the 2014 regulations so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury, known as TDDI, is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. This change will be for the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided in sports grounds or gymnasiums, or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events, where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities.
Let me start by clarifying what this is and what it is not. This regulated activity relates not to the task being carried out but to who is doing it. It is the assessment and treatment of physical or mental state when provided by a specifically defined list of healthcare professionals, as per the CQC’s website. The scope of this activity requires those carrying it out to be listed healthcare professionals registered with the appropriate professional body, such as the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council or the Health and Care Professions Council. When a healthcare professional uses their professional title, qualification and skills to assess and treat a person for a disease, disorder or injury, they must be registered with or employed by a company registered with the CQC.
Providers carrying out the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at events may include independent ambulance services that employ paramedics, doctors and nurses, and which are commissioned to attend an event such as a music festival, marathon or football match and be on hand in case anyone there experiences a medical emergency.
Perhaps I can give some context. Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others. The subsequent inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that these shortcomings may have been present at other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of appropriate regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was absolutely clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has itself outlined additional concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations of unregulated provision resulting in severe patient harm.
The Government, as noble Lords would expect, are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important that they be carefully considered in order to understand the impacts. I am pleased that they have now been laid before us.
To turn to what the amendment will do, the 2014 regulations exempted the treatment of disease, disorder or injury provided at sports venues or gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements from regulation. This SI removes this exemption. It will bring the provision of this treatment at events into line with provision in hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes where it is already registered. This means that any provider delivering the treatment of disease, disorder or injury at an event must register with the CQC and must comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in the health system. Of course, some of the providers will already be registered to provide this treatment in other settings, which will make the process quicker for them.
I should say to noble Lords that there has been some misunderstanding about what is covered by
“the treatment of disease, disorder or injury”.
It includes a wide range of treatments, from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation.
By making these changes to the 2014 regulations, the Government will make true our commitment to fulfilling the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and the drive to improve patient safety. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I shall speak briefly to this statutory instrument and ask a number of questions, if I may, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I think that I understand the structure of what is proposed and the exclusion of first aid so that it is not covered, but when I look at the providers that are likely to be affected, I am trying to work out carefully which are the providers concerned. I am assisted by a friend who is part of the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and who said that it had undertaken a survey.
It seems to me that many of the people who responded to that as healthcare professionals may well be working in registered providers already, so they may be concerned about the need to register in relation to the services that they provide at events but in fact they do not need to register. However, the event organisers themselves may need to register if they bring healthcare professionals on site in order to provide services that go beyond first aid at their event. I am trying to understand how, when the department went out and identified 89, or whatever the number was, potential providers that were not already registered, it ended up with a figure of 36, which seems very low. It certainly bears no comparison to what those who are working in the sector believe would be the number of presently unregistered providers. We need to understand who these 36 are, the character of those providers that the department has identified and why there is such a discrepancy between that and what others have been saying. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us much more about that.
As a practical example, are all football clubs, or the major football clubs in the Premier League, the Championship and so on, already registered with the CQC? Clearly, they, as organisations, provide continuing healthcare to their players. Do we not need to worry about any of that? Is an event like one of the big festivals that take place already registered, because it has put a team together in order to provide more than simply first aid? Perhaps we are worrying about a need for registration when actually we do not need to worry so much.
I have only one other question. An essential part of the follow-up to the Manchester Arena inquiry was the preparation of an event healthcare standard. Would the Minister be kind enough to update us on that process? Where does it stand and when might we see its publication for consultation?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will also ask a few questions. I declare my interests as the senior steward—namely, the chairman—of the Jockey Club and as the mother of an elite athlete.
I spent last weekend at two quite different sporting events, juggling my time between the Grand National and the Home Internationals lacrosse competition, as my daughter played for England for the first time— I did check with her that I was allowed to mention that in the Grand Committee. I mention them both because while one is really a grass-roots sporting event—it has a small crowd, but none the less there is an ambulance in attendance because it is a potentially dangerous sport—the other, the Grand National, is the second largest attended sport in the country and the second most watched sporting event on television. As I understand it, both are captured by the same changes being proposed today.
I express my condolences to everyone who was affected by the tragedy at Manchester Arena. In no way do I want to suggest that the questions I am posing negate the need to address the recommendations of the public inquiry. It is hugely important that we learn the lessons.
First, I took some time to speak to a former chief medical adviser of the British Horseracing Authority, Dr Jerry Hill, who told me that a clear standard of healthcare for events is an extremely positive move. I put on record that I wholeheartedly support the event healthcare standard. I understand that there has been good consultation on the draft and that, in Dr Hill’s view, it will help event medics fight their corner for resource. He told me that, at the moment, event medics often feel that they are behind Portaloos and security in priority at events. It is important that we recognise that we need that standard.
However, in moving from that standard being guidance to putting it on a statutory footing—I appreciate that this SI does not do that, but it sets us on that path—we need to evaluate formally whether the draft is effective. As I understand it, the DHSC was somewhat swamped by people wanting to participate in evaluating the draft, and that it was perhaps not following the more scientifically robust approach that a number of sports suggested—I think two focus groups were planned to evaluate the draft. Can the Minister assure us that that event healthcare standard will be evaluated to a scientifically robust standard rather than that of a more politically normal focus group? It is very important that we get it right.
Secondly, I also understood that, as my noble friend Lord Lansley says, the CQC’s initial impact assessment had claimed that only 36 healthcare providers would need to register. Horseracing alone thinks that we have 350 individual clinicians who would need to register, even allowing for the fact that each clinician tends to work in three different sports. Potentially, the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine UK’s estimate of 23,000 is an overestimate. Even if it is one-third of that, it is still massively more than the CQC expected.
I also understand that, in November 2024, the CQC said that it had a maximum capacity to register new providers of 1,000 per year. If we are not very careful, with all the best intentions we will be setting up a bureaucratic quagmire, which will mean that events, big and small, will not be able to find suitably registered clinicians to support them. What assurances can the Minister give us that the CQC can cope with the workload? Has the CQC recruited, or does it intend to recruit, anyone from the sports or cultural events sector? In the past, the CQC has had, in maybe more traditional healthcare settings, a bad habit of sending non-specialist inspectors—my noble friend Lord Lansley is laughing at that, but it is serious business. The best example I have is of occupational therapists being sent to inspect ambulance services.
What assurance can the Minister give us that the CQC is going to recruit the suitable expertise to deliver on this important obligation? Where will it sit in the priorities of the CQC which, after all, has an awful lot of important work to do? It currently has an interim chief executive and a chairman who wants to leave, so I am nervous about quite so much going on to the CQC. I support others who have called for pragmatism in the implementation of these regulations to allow time, if the CQC is struggling to put the resource to them that they need.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. The Explanatory Notes say that a full impact assessment was not completed because
“no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”.
I think it entirely foreseeable that there could be significant cost and complexity, as well as an inability to deliver the healthcare benefits that we all seek, for two important sectors of society that provide important glue as well as economic value. Whether we are talking about grass-roots or world-class sporting and cultural events, if we implement this SI badly, there will be substantial negative consequences.
I am aware that I have asked an awful lot of questions. May I be presumptuous and ask the Minister for a meeting with the department and the CQC so that a number of us can properly understand how this measure will be implemented?
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of Sport Wales; with that, I sit on the board of UK Sport. I am also a board member of Active Travel England.
I reiterate the comments made by others about how horrendous and horrific the Manchester bombing was, as well as how significant an impact it had on so many people. The recommendations are important. I absolutely understand why we want to protect people and improve the system. I am also going to ask a number of questions, so I would be very happy for a follow-up afterwards.
I have spoken to a number of organisations in the wider sport industry. It is fair to say, I think, that there is a level of concern about the statutory instrument that we are debating today and the impact that it could have on the wider sports industry. I understand that the Sport and Recreation Alliance has written to the Minister; I would be interested in the reply and to know what further work has been undertaken.
I know from speaking to a wide group of people who work in the sports industry that they generally feel as though His Majesty’s Government have failed to engage with the sector properly and have not understood the significant, negative effect that this measure may have on the provision of medical care at events. There is a real risk of this preventing some sports events and activities from going ahead, or going ahead without the medical cover that they currently have, in order to avoid the consequences of the proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made some interesting points on registration. Medics often work in a voluntary capacity across a number of events of various sizes. It is important that these people are not registered multiple times. We should try to avoid some of the failings of DBS checks, where people are registered on lots of different systems. That does not solve the problem that we are trying to solve.
The Sport and Recreation Alliance has called for a commitment to create a specific exemption for all treatment provided to athletes, performers and officials. This is also an important area for us to look at. We should include spectators in that as well, because some events have lots of spectators and some have absolutely none. Many believe that this would not be contrary to the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and could solve many of the issues that the regulations might cause.
Can the Minister explain what further considerations have been given to understanding the impact on sport and sporting events? I wonder if clarification is needed on the definition of different events and the sizes, because they are very different. Also, what is understood by “injury” and “first aid”? People working on the ground might struggle to understand that. I was also wondering whether the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided a view on this and on its impact.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the founder and director of Cignpost Express Test, which did a lot of Covid testing for sports events and currently does health screening at PGA golf events and Mercedes Formula 1 testing, so I have quite a bit of experience in health screening. As other noble Lords have said, what we are trying to do here is very well intentioned. Ours hearts go out to all those affected by the Manchester Arena bombing. This is designed to try to correct many of those ills. The fact that we have two Ministers here shows the important stress that the Government put on this, and I know that Minister Ahmed has been engaged on this, too.
There are good intentions here but, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the devil is in the detail and implementation. Everyone thinks of big events in this context but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, mentioned, the small events are the real concern. I have had volunteers at mini rugby tournaments asking, “How are we going to cope with this?” There is a confusion, which perhaps the Minister can clear up, about doctors who are currently CQC-registered through their practice and volunteer at, for example, weekend point-to-point racing events or mini rugby tournaments, who feel that they will no longer be able to do that without being CQC-registered separately for those events, which costs almost £1,000 a time. That drives a lot of the discrepancies we seem to have in the numbers: are we talking about 36 events or many thousands? It would be helpful to get an understanding of that because there is a lot of concern out there.
As a former Health Minister, I know that the CQC already has a lot on its plate. The 1,000 limit on new registrations was mentioned earlier, and this could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, to be honest. I am very concerned about this. Event organisers and chief medical officers have told me that if it becomes too burdensome, we will employ first-aiders instead of having volunteer doctors, because they do not have to be CQC-registered. That, of course, will mean that the care is less good. They gave an example: apparently, during Wimbledon, 4,000 people saw the medical support services during the whole tournament, and only 1% of them ended up being referred onwards to the NHS or hospital services, because good volunteer doctors and medics were there. Clearly, if they were just first-aiders, a lot more of those people would have been pushed straight on down to Kingston Hospital or wherever, which would have put a large burden on the local NHS services, which I am sure we all want to try to avoid.
I have three suggestions, if I may, the first of which is an athlete exemption. Will athletes be exempt from this, since their medical treatment is quite different, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said? Secondly, there is a feeling among the chief medical officers that it would be useful to get the event healthcare standard finalised in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, talked about, before we do this. It would be useful to have this standard, but it is hard to talk about implementation until we know exactly what that standard will be.
Thirdly, I, too, would like to be involved in the meeting, if I may, but a round table with the CQC and all the chief medical officers would be useful. I know that Minister Ahmed said that he was in favour of that and suggested to the CQC that it should meet with all four chief medical officers. However—I appreciate this is hearsay—I have heard from the chief medical officers themselves that the CQC refused to meet them all together and wants only to meet them separately. I do not know why that is, but the meetings would be more valuable as round tables, with everyone in the room, so that the CQC can get the full flavour of the things we are hearing about today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, so it is partly with that hat on that I am asking these questions.
The Manchester Arena inquiry makes harrowing reading, and I expect that there will be some bereaved people watching this debate, because they are aware that these regulations have come out following that inquiry. The deficits that the reports highlighted are really worrying, but I was struck that many of them are in the domain of so-called first aid: the failure to use tourniquets when people were bleeding, and the fact that the tourniquets were locked up in a first aid room anyway, compound the distress and the memories with which people who lost somebody in that event have to live.
So, one of my questions relates specifically to where the boundary defining first aid sits. The initial response of qualified doctors and physiotherapists may be first aid, but they may also start to instigate longer-term treatment for whatever happened at the event that could not be instigated by somebody who was trained in first aid only as a volunteer from a charity or group. I was thinking about the Glastonbury Festival, an event that is extremely well organised for medical emergencies. It is set up to do a lot of treatment on site, but some things mean that people have to be airlifted out sometimes. They go from the very minor—the joke is rashes from all the wellies rubbing on people’s legs—right through to life-threatening adverse reactions to the most bizarre cocktails of drugs. That needs a highly specialised knowledge. If emergency medicine consultants had not been working there, lives would have been lost because this is so complicated.
One of my other questions relates to the people who are to be used or employed. A level of first aid could happen anywhere, but what is needed at a sporting event may be very different from that at a large event where a lot of illicit substances are being used and the expertise required to avoid loss of life will be quite different.
My other main question relates to the boundaries around an event. How big and organised does an event have to be to qualify, or how small not to qualify? What about a local children’s football league that happens on a Saturday morning with lots of different clubs competing? The kids are traveling around with parents, and may cross from Wales to England, England to Wales, into Scotland or wherever. As amateur participants, their risk of a really bad injury is no lower —in fact, it may even be higher—than if they were playing as fully trained professionals with a full support team.
I am also slightly concerned about where the boundaries are around the person. For some of these smaller events, people will have volunteered as doctors. I know one who volunteers to work at football matches: he is employed by a large hospital and is not a sports medicine person, but he brings a lot of experience that you could say all falls within the realm of first aid, or you could say is tipping over the boundary, because general medical emergencies arise from time to time.
Both the national boundaries and the size of the event concern me. I am not quite clear where those physiotherapists sit who are in private practice—possibly solo private practice—but who are then providing support at a sporting event. If they are to register with CQC as a single worker, it might be quite a lot of money out of their practice pocket. They may therefore feel that they are not incentivised to carry on but they have a great deal of skills. The danger is that the skills available on-site at an event might, inadvertently, be lower than one is anticipating. I realise that there have been a lot of questions to the Minister, but we look forward to the answers.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I want to add to the comments and questions made by my noble friend Lady Harding about the potential impact of this regulatory change on horseracing. It is a very important sport, as the Minister responsible knows, and a sport that is already under considerable financial pressure, despite its tremendous popularity. There is concern about what the unintended consequences of this significant change may be, the bureaucratic burden that could be created by the extension of the CQC’s jurisdiction into event medicine and the cost, so I seek reassurance that Ministers are alive to these issues.
I want to raise a particular issue, which has also been raised by other noble Lords, about the possibility of exempting from registration the healthcare that is provided to athletes, performers and officials, as opposed to the healthcare provided to the public. I understand that that exemption exists already for treatment provided under arrangements between employers and employees, but not more widely. However, much medical provision might not be on an employer-employee basis and therefore would not be covered by the exemption. That would create an anomaly.
Ministers are of course right to draw attention to the importance of this issue, given the terrible events in the Manchester Arena nearly a decade ago, the awful loss of life and the very large numbers of people injured. But the extension of the CQC’s remit, as a consequence of the inquiry’s recommendation, was precisely to improve healthcare provision for the public. I am not aware that there was any perceived problem with healthcare provided for athletes and competitors—a much narrower group of people. That was not, of course, what the inquiry was thinking about when it proposed this extension, but the extension at the moment covers them, so there may be significant unintended consequences.
We know that one survey suggests that over a third of the doctors who currently provide medical cover for racing may not continue if required to register, because of the bureaucratic burden. There is obviously a tremendous reassurance job that has to be done, at the very least, but it seems that we also need to address the fundamental issue. I wonder whether the Minister would accept that there is a difference between the care that is provided for the public, which is what the inquiry was all about, and the arrangements for athletes and competitors, which are different and where there was not a problem that needed to be addressed. However, accepting that an event healthcare standard is a good thing, and that Ministers will look at the potential for exempting from registration healthcare provided for athletes, performers and officials on that basis, this instrument would seem to be commonsensical.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates where you think, “Who do I disagree with?” I am afraid that I have not disagreed with anything from anybody. As I speak for my party, it is important for me to restate that things went wrong with the treatment of the Manchester Arena disaster. We should do something about it—that would be great.
The problem here is that we seem to have gone far too wide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked, how far down do you go when covering an event? For instance, for small rugby union clubs—my own sporting background—you are lucky if there are three men and a dog watching. That is your crowd, but a local cup game could have a couple of thousand. Where does that support structure kick in? That is something that all amateur sport will confront from time to time. This is merely the first opportunity for the Minister to correct these perceptions. We need to have some cut-off points, going from when it is enough simply to have a first-aider within earshot to when we need better medical support and structure. When that changes and how they interact is really what the discussion here is about.
When it comes to sport, please let us not do anything that stops sporting events happening. There is a fear that we will do so inadvertently by providing a greater bureaucratic burden on providing help. We hope that the Government will not do that. I hope that the Department of Health will not do something that will make the country intrinsically less healthy. That is really what we are looking at.
Let us look at other specialist events. This is not an interest, but I live in the village of Lambourn so, even if I did not want to be, I am very aware of things to do with equestrian sport and particularly races. Anything to do with horses is intrinsically dangerous; indeed, we have a rehabilitation centre for neck and back injuries in Lambourn. When it comes to racing, as my wife has often pointed out to me, there are not many events when an ambulance follows you down the course as you are taking part—so there are structures there. If something that organised is raising concerns—it is not because they want it to be there but because it has to be there—there might well be something worth listening to. We must make sure, when we deliver this, that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that good intentions are erased out. We should go through all those things.
The Government need to start doing something to get better information out there about exactly what they are doing, where the barriers are and what will happen. A series of meetings might help—possibly with parliamentarians and certainly with larger groups—and they should get the information out quickly. It will dramatically help to let the information out in dribs and drabs—as and when they see fit as they go forward—setting out their intentions, and we will bring in stuff behind it. That way, if there is a real fault-line here, as opposed to a fear of one, we will find out. Then we can start to do something about it.
Can the Government give us something that reassures us on our worries about the extra bureaucratic burden, given that people are terrified? They are one newspaper report and a few tweets away from people having a panic about everybody being sued every time anybody gets cuts in an amateur football game. What are they doing? Where are the structures going? That is what is required here.
We all want the big events to be safer, but they will have got it wrong if they apply this to an open mic night at a pub and a Sunday league football game at the same time. We must make sure that people know where those fault-lines are. The exemption for people taking part in sports events is a no-brainer. Can we make sure that this happens and that people know about it? It is clear that they do not, at the moment, and that is a fundamental flaw in the Government’s approach.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, as other noble Lords were declaring their interests, I thought, “Oh, that’s good; I have no relevant interests”. But, the last time I thought that, a number of people tweeted at me for not declaring my interests, so I will bore all noble Lords with them. I am a professor of politics and international relations at St Mary’s University, Twickenham. I teach an MBA module on healthcare policy and strategy. I also work with the medical school that it is starting and have started co-operating with colleagues in the Faculty of Sport, Technology and Health Sciences. I also teach at the University of Buckingham, but I have no contact with its medical school. I just wanted to touch all the bases.
I thank the Minister for setting out these draft regulations in her usual clear manner. Obviously, they arise from the tragic events of the Manchester Arena attack and the subsequent inquiry. Like other noble Lords, my heart goes out to those who were affected; we offer our condolences to the victims and their families, some of whom are probably still in a state of bereavement. Clearly, that inquiry called for a review of healthcare provision at events, as well as clearer standards for public safety, which I think everyone who has spoken is in favour of.
Most of the people who have contacted us said that they support the principle that those attending sporting and cultural events should have access to safe, high-quality medical care—there is no disagreement there—but the question before your Lordships is one not of principle but of implementation and delivery. It is right, therefore, that the detail be scrutinised carefully.
In removing the previous exemption and requiring providers of event healthcare to register with the CQC, the SI clearly extends the CQC’s regulatory remit to a sector that is complex and, in many cases, heavily reliant on volunteers and small providers. You cannot just transplant knowledge from the hospital or mental health sectors into sports events; noble Lords have referred to the range of events that would be covered. This removal, while understandable, has given rise a number of concerns—I am sure that the Minister has heard them—among, but not limited to, small organisations and volunteer-run sports clubs. Like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I share the concerns of the noble Lords on different Benches who have spoken. There is no disagreement here.
The department’s own impact assessment acknowledges the increased costs associated with registration and ongoing compliance, but one of my concerns arose when I saw the estimate for the registration fee. It said that, for newly regulated providers, it will be between—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt but there is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Kamall (Con)
A number of noble Lords have raised concerns, and I am going just to outline or repeat a few of them. The first is that the department’s own assessment acknowledges that the costs associated with registration and ongoing compliance are estimated, for newly regulated providers, as being between £99,400 and £994,000 per annum. They are quite accurate figures, but let me rephrase that: it could be nearly £100,000 or nearly £1 million. We know that most forecasts are wrong, but a factor of 10 is rather a wide range. I have to admit that that raises concerns about the understanding of these regulations.
But more concerning is the evidence from the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine suggesting that many clinicians working in event medicine may reconsider their involvement if these regulations are implemented as proposed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, raised. As other noble Lords have said, events medical providers support the principle of these regulations but warn that they could lead to a reduction in workforce capacity, with the potential unintended consequence of reducing safety. My noble friend Lord Herbert referred to that unintended consequence.
There are also concerns that, where providers withdraw from delivering this regulated medical care, events may instead have to rely on first aid provision, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords. That falls outside the scope of CQC regulation. Well-run events such as Wimbledon, Royal Ascot, the Silverstone Grand Prix and the Glastonbury Festival currently manage most medical incidents on-site. But we could see a shift away from properly staffed medical provision, which risks increasing demand on already stretched NHS services off-site.
Stakeholders, including the Sport and Recreation Alliance, have highlighted a lack of comprehensive engagement with the sector to date. Given the unique characteristics of event medicine, it is essential that any regulatory framework be developed in close consultation with those who deliver care on the ground. However, I have been told by some medical professionals that the CQC is being selective in who it wants. I was told a similar story to that told to my noble friend Lord Markham: when three or four CMOs asked for a joint meeting, the CQC person refused and insisted that they wanted to meet only one of the CMOs. When I hear this, frankly, it gives me no confidence in the CQC or its consultation process. Let me be clear: I do not use those words lightly, but the CQC should be doing proper consultation and not refusing meetings.
I recognise the efforts by the previous and the current Government and the CQC to fix its previously poor reputation. Last year, in the mental health debates, these Benches supported the Government in resisting the appointment of a separate mental health commissioner, because we agreed that the mental health part of the CQC was getting its house in order. Indeed, I met today with some people from the CQC on transitional care, and I was very impressed with them.
However, when I am told that for this regulation the CQC suggested that an additional 36 organisations would require registration, compared to an estimated 25,000 in the survey by the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine, this, as my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, said, demonstrates a massive gap in understanding that needs to be addressed. Once again, I am sorry when I say this, but it gives the impression of the CQC being out of its depth.
I am sorry if that is not exactly the ringing endorsement that the Minister was hoping for, but I also know that she has been willing in the past to meet to discuss legislation, and we have worked constructively together in the time we have both been on our respective Front Benches. So, in that constructive spirit, I will make three suggestions, which in fact touch upon those that that were made by other noble Lords.
First, we need to see meaningful CQC engagement with sector representatives, our national governing boards, the chief medical officers in sports groups, the Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine and the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care to ensure that any inspection framework is sector-specific and not simply lifted from the hospital sector. Imposing a CQC regulatory framework suitable for hospitals is inappropriate for pop-up clinics at park runs, cycle races or pitch-side at rugby. Let us be frank: the CQC does not have any existing knowledge of working in these sectors at that level, and it should be listening rather than seeking to impose.
Secondly, we should consider expanding the current employer/employee CQC exemption to athletes, performers and officials whose healthcare providers meet strict occupational health standards regardless of the patient’s contractual arrangement, as other noble Lords suggested.
Thirdly, although I understand that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns about the time taken to bring forward these regulations, given that the CQC is not exactly inspiring confidence from those who organise sports and other events, could the Government possibly ask the CQC to wait until the event healthcare standard being led by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care has been published? In addition, if and when it becomes apparent that the CQC has indeed underestimated the size of this and the cost to the sector, would they be prepared to perhaps extend that December 27 deadline, if appropriate?
However, really to emphasise the point that the Government are listening, I know we have asked for individual meetings, but a much better suggestion would be a round table with interested noble Lords, with the relevant Minister from the department—obviously we would love to have the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, there as we always enjoy her consultations— and the CQC, so it can stop being selective about who it speaks with and can actually listen to CMOs and other medical experts from across the sector. They are not doing this to score points; none of us is doing this for that reason. We agree with the principle, and we want this to work, whichever party and whichever Bench we work on, but we are concerned that the CQC’s approach will lead to the unintended consequence of the withdrawal of appropriate medical provision at these services.
It is quite clear that all noble Lords support the goal of improving public safety at events. All noble Lords have heard the concerns from public events medical experts, and all noble Lords hope that the Minister has listened to their concerns and will agree to the modest requests they have made in today’s debate.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the debate today. I will make a few general points.
I very much welcome the points and the concerns that noble Lords have been willing to outline. I also want to acknowledge that I have heard the understanding of why we are doing this. I know that we all understand the intent, and I understand the numerous questions— I make that as a comment, not as any criticism—trying to understand the workability. I very much welcome them. What I take from this debate and what I will share with Minister Ahmed as the Minister for Patient Safety is that clearly there is considerable concern. To refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said about fault lines, I think this is about fear of fault lines, but even fear of fault lines is fear enough, so I absolutely take that point.
Let me say at the outset that, if noble Lords had not asked for it, I would have suggested having a round table for interested Peers. It will indeed include officials from the department and the CQC. Ministerially, because it is Peers, I would want to be there in any case. I am sure that Minister Ahmed would want to be there too, but my anxiety is to get on with the meeting, so I will happily have a discussion with him, but I certainly want to be there. If noble Lords remain concerned about a lot of the points, we can tease them out there.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am grateful for the offer of further discussions and a round table, but there are several numbers relating to the number of providers that might be anticipated to require registration. We keep coming back to this figure of 36 in the impact assessment, but I do not understand exactly who those providers are. For example, I imagined it would probably be football clubs but it turns out that it is not. Who are they exactly?
The Minister and the department in their impact assessment have moved from that figure of 36, which presumably had some substance, to a guess of somewhere between 100 and 1,000, which, as my noble friend said, is a very high degree of uncertainty. I still do not know—if there were to be as many as 1,000—who these providers are and how many, for example, would be small charitable organisations or small, sporting voluntary organisations for which £1,000 is not a small matter.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I can add to that. What is the process for notifying those who will come under this regulation? That would be helpful to know as well.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
If I may add to the list of questions, I think it might be helpful for the Minister to explain how the decisions over the size relate to the Purple Guide that the Health and Safety Executive produced, because I understand from page 114 of volume 2 of the Manchester Arena inquiry report that the Purple Guide for an event of that size set things out quite clearly, but was not adhered to at all. I have a slight concern from the responses that we have had that we may have two completely separate things going on. The Minister may not be able to answer that now, but it would be helpful in this meeting that we are all anticipating if there is a cross-reference to the Purple Guide and if the discussions could include how that would impact and be used by the CQC in regulating.
Lord Markham (Con)
If I may, I hope this may be helpful: the confusion that I have heard is over whether a doctor, for a CQC registration at their GP surgery, can use that to volunteer on a point-to-point racecourse, as an example, or whether they have to separately register with the CQC to be a volunteer on the racecourse and pay the £1,000. Again, if that comes in the letter, that is fine, but that is one of the main points of confusion.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On all these areas, as I said, I am happy to meet with noble Lords in person. To be honest, I think that that would be more helpful, not least because we are talking about scenarios and we have a note of the questions that noble Lords are raising. I would be delighted to go through them. Again, in the responses today, I am probably going to be repeating some of what I said earlier and I am not sure that that will take us forward, so I would rather that we held those points for a meeting, if noble Lords are agreeable.
With that, I thank noble Lords. This has been a very valuable debate. It shows the work that needs to be done and we will be pleased to do that. I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions and support of the principle of why we are here.
Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I ask that the Committee considers two statutory instruments made under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023: first, the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026; and, secondly, the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the UK’s capital framework remains agile and responsive for banks and investment firms. I will first set out the context in which this legislation is being delivered.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 revoked assimilated law in the UK related to financial services, to bring it in line with the UK’s domestic model of regulation. The UK’s domestic model—the Financial Services and Markets Act model—was first established through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. That model prioritises the setting of regulatory standards by expert, independent regulators, working within an overall policy framework set by the Government and Parliament. This approach maximises the use of expertise in the policy-making process by allowing regulators with day-to-day experience of supervising financial services firms to bring their real-world experience into the design of regulatory standards. It also allows regulators to flex and update those standards to ensure that regulation responds to emerging developments.
One area of financial services regulation where the Financial Services and Markets Act model will apply is capital requirements regulation. Capital requirements regulation is an existing body of assimilated law that covers the detailed and technical capital rules that apply to credit institutions, such as banks and building societies, and larger investment firms. Applying the Financial Services and Markets Act model in this area means replacing the existing capital requirements regulation in three ways.
First, some of it is being replaced by rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority. This includes rules in relation to Basel 3.1, the final set of post-crisis reforms designed to strengthen the resilience of the UK banking system. Secondly, provisions relating to prudential equivalence, also contained in the capital requirements regulation, are being replaced by a new overseas prudential requirements regime in legislation. Thirdly, important definitions in the capital requirements regulation are being restated in new legislation because they are essential for ensuring that the system of prudential regulation continues to operate as intended.
The statutory instruments that we are debating relate to the first and third of these areas: the replacement of rules by the Prudential Regulation Authority, specifically in respect of Basel 3.1, and the restatement of key definitions in the existing capital requirements regulation. They do not relate to the new overseas prudential requirements regime, which will be legislated for separately.
The first statutory instrument that I will address is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. The sole purpose of this instrument is to restate important definitions from the existing capital requirements regulation in law. For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated so that it remains in legislation, rather than being defined by the Prudential Regulation Authority rulebook. This is necessary to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of what activities should be regulated.
This instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, neither does it make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended, as we complete the move to the Financial Services and Markets Act model.
I turn to the second statutory instrument, the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. This instrument relates to the first part of the capital requirements regulation reform process—namely, the replacement of certain capital requirements regulations with rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority, specifically in respect of Basel 3.1. Most of the work to deliver Basel 3.1 has already been completed and, following extensive consultation, the Prudential Regulation Authority has published the new rules that will apply to credit institutions and larger investment firms. These rules will ensure that the UK banking system is well capitalised, while protecting the ability of firms within scope to support economic growth, including the ability to provide finance to small businesses and infrastructure projects.
The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms. The Prudential Regulation Authority intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027, which will give UK-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and invest in the real economy. The timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions, however, remains unclear, particularly for certain market-risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. This is particularly relevant for internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity. Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks causing unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms, including the need to run different systems and processes in parallel across jurisdictions.
That is why the Government, in conjunction with the Prudential Regulation Authority, have decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach. The Government announced last year that implementation of new international model market risk requirements—the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets—will be delayed until 1 January 2028.
This instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated international model market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027. During that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements. This will apply only to a small number of internationally active firms. This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions.
The instrument also provides the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations if international developments warrant it. Any such extension would be time-limited, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments.
These statutory instruments are limited in scope and carefully targeted. They restate important provisions in the capital requirements regulation which need to remain on the statute book to ensure that the system of prudential regulation continues to operate as intended. They also enable a flexible and pragmatic approach to Basel 3.1 implementation, minimising disruption and protecting the competitiveness of UK firms while uncertainty over implementation remains in other jurisdictions.
Taken together, these limited changes will help to deliver an agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the definition of a statutory instrument is very technical, and I frankly have nothing to add to it. The capital requirements SI, in that it provides the temporary flexibility to see how other jurisdictions will behave, seems understandable and we on these Benches oppose neither. However, I have some questions for the Minister on the changes that underlie these SIs.
The Minister will know that undue risk taken in their trading activities by internationally active institutions played a significant role in the depth and complexity of the 2007-08 crash and the economic stagnation that followed. I have always been concerned that the regulators will be persuaded by their competitiveness and growth objective to relax the risk requirements on this sector, and these SIs seem to confirm that that is indeed the direction of travel. Am I right?
The finance industry, which is keen to get profits from risk so long as the losses fall on taxpayers, has certainly been calling for scope to take more risk, always assuring us that its genius means that risk is not really risk. The Treasury is strongly encouraging risk-taking in the name of growth, but its view is very short-termist and again there is very little understanding of the way in which risk takes impact.
This SI refers constantly to competitiveness with other jurisdictions, particularly the US and the EU. What assurances can the Minister give me that we have not now entered the world of the lowest common denominator, which of course has been the greatest fear of many of us as we have seen regulation continuously softened?
Some I have talked to have said that the regulator is easing capital requirements, as this SI illustrates, to help the big conventional institutions counter the surge in private credit as the lesser of two evils. Is that correct? Some have said that the reduction in the risk requirement is to counter the pressures that will flow from the EU capital requirements directive 6, which could significantly restrict the ability of non-EU banks to provide core banking services to EU clients from outside the EU, thereby encouraging the further relocation of operations and staff from London to EU locations. Is it correct that this is an anticipative countermeasure to what the Treasury sees coming?
Others are saying that President Trump’s determination to significantly deregulate US banks and financial activities means that we have to enter and accept an era of high-risk banking and serious financial volatility. I am very cautious when the risk profile of British banking is set by President Trump’s definition of what is risk and what is not, but is it the view of the UK Government and regulators that we have to adjust to be competitive with President Trump’s perspective on what risk should be undertaken in the financial sector? I am most concerned that increases in risk across the piece in the financial sector are not being acknowledged and are consequently treated with complacency. The various protections that we have in place are partial, many of them are untested and even those that do exist are consistently being undermined. Does the Minister share my anxiety?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, these instruments are being taken together and I shall address them accordingly in the light of the helpful introduction by the Minister. However, before turning to the specific provisions, I would like to raise some broader questions about the Government’s approach to financial services regulation.
First, on the matter of dynamic alignment with the European Union, there has been considerable speculation about whether the Government intend to pursue closer regulatory alignment with the EU in financial services. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s position on this. My understanding is that the City itself has moved away from enthusiasm for dynamic alignment, recognising that regulatory autonomy, properly exercised, offers competitive advantages that should not be lightly surrendered. There is also the important point about regulatory uncertainty, which the Minister mentioned and which we all know stifles growth and deters investment. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether dynamic alignment remains under active consideration in this area and, if so, in what form?
Secondly and relatedly, on progress with EU-related regulatory changes, the Government have previously indicated certain commitments regarding implementation timelines for their reforms. Can the Minister update the Committee on whether these commitments are being maintained and the proportion of EU-derived legislation that has already been replaced, and give some indication of the timescales involved?
I turn to the instruments themselves, which are technical but important for the direction of travel. The first instrument provides transitional relief for the new market risk internal model framework, inserting a one-year pause before full implementation, for reasons that the Minister has set out. The second instrument restates and domesticates EU capital requirements regulation definitions into UK statute, addressing what would otherwise be a gap when existing EU-derived definitions fall away.
I have several questions for the Minister, some of which come from a slightly different perspective to those from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. On the definitional instrument, any process of transposition carries some risk that meanings shift in translation. Has any assessment been made of that risk? Have the PRA and FCA reviewed the new definitions from an operational standpoint to identify any areas where domesticated versions could give rise to interpretive uncertainty?
On the transitional instrument, the fact that it is necessary at all implies something concerning about the readiness of firms, the complexity of the new framework or both. The Minister also mentioned developments overseas, but can he confirm whether the new market risk framework, once fully in force, will represent a material increase in compliance burdens? He will know that this is something I am always concerned about. What concrete steps are being taken during 2027 to ensure that firms will genuinely be ready for full implementation, other than finding themselves reaching for another transitional instrument in 12 months’ time?
I should also like to know how much additional regulatory capital banks are likely to have to hold under the new rules, when they are finally implemented. Last year, the Financial Policy Committee concluded— I thought, helpfully—that overall bank capital levels could be 1% lower. Did the FPC take the trading book changes we are discussing into account?
On the questions of regulatory capacity, is there a risk of a bottleneck in the PRA’s model approval process? Has the PRA assessed its own readiness to manage applications without that becoming a practical choke point? Alternatively, and if the answer to that is reassuring, is it because, given the complexity, only big banks with big trading desks will opt for model approval under FTRB?
Turning to broader international comparisons, how does the UK’s implementation timeline approach to approvals compare with other major jurisdictions? If our framework proves materially more demanding than equivalent regimes elsewhere, there is a genuine risk of competitive disadvantage in global wholesale markets.
I heard from some involved that our regulators feel good about implementing international rules, while the US—and, indeed, the EU—are less driven to comply quickly or in detail. Can the Minister give the Committee his assessment of where the UK stands in relation to its peers and reiterate his commitment to growth in financial services, which he mentioned in his introductory remarks?
Finally, on the power to extend the transitional period, can the Minister set out the criteria by which the Treasury would judge whether an extension is warranted and what signals would prompt the Government to consider using that power? The Minister said that it would be time-limited and used only if necessary, but I am not quite sure what that means.
The integrity of our prudential supervisory framework depends on sound legal foundations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has always emphasised. These instruments appear to address that, but technical competence is not the same as strategic direction. As we build out a domestically rooted regulatory framework, the question of whether that framework is orientated toward competitiveness and growth, and not merely toward prudential conservatism, becomes pressing.
I was glad to hear the Minister mention both growth and the importance of SMEs, but the Committee will no doubt recall the report published by the Financial Services Regulation Committee on this subject and the good debate it prompted in Grand Committee, for which the Minister was sadly unable to be present. As several of us stated, the regulators are still too risk-averse and their culture needs to change. The report by that respected committee found that the competitiveness and growth objectives were “work in progress”.
In conclusion, is the Minister able to tell us how the Government are keeping up pressure on the regulators on these important objectives, and perhaps provide some live examples of what they are actually doing on competitiveness and growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their extensive questions on these relatively modest SIs. I have some answers to the questions posed by the noble Baronesses. I do not have all the answers but I will, of course, write with the answers that I do not have to hand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me, as we have debated many times in the past, about risk and growth. She knows my position on this. We are not undermining many of the incredibly important elements of a system that were put in place post financial crash. We are, though, seeking to tilt the system slightly more towards growth and away from regulating purely for risk.
The noble Baroness asked whether this was a race to the bottom to the lowest common denominator and whether we were undermining the strength of standards in the UK regulations. Of course, as she knows, it is an asset to the UK that the PRA is a global leader in promoting strong international standards, having played an important role in developing the Basel standards and now implementing those standards in the UK. The UK’s priority for Basel implementation has always been aligned implementation across the major jurisdictions, in particular the US. The UK is pressing ahead with implementation, as it has committed to do, while putting in place transitional measures to reduce operational complexity while the US finalises its approach.
The uncertainty surrounding the US implementation of Basel 3.1, particularly in relation to the market risk elements of their package, meant that a UK implementation date of 1 January 2027 would be materially out of line. Therefore, the decision was taken to delay the UK’s implementation of the market risk rules for new internal models to facilitate alignment of implementation dates as much as possible.
The noble Baroness asked whether we were adjusting to President Trump’s perspective. I do not believe that is the case at all. She asked me about delaying Basel to defend against CRD VI. The Treasury is aware of developments relating to Article 21c and is monitoring the position. The Treasury engages regularly with EU counterparts on a range of financial services and banking regulatory matters. Strengthening our relationships with international partners, including the EU, is a key focus of the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me initially about dynamic alignment with the EU. She will know that much of the commentary at the moment is speculation about the forthcoming King’s Speech, and I am obviously not going to comment on what may or may not be contained in it. Specifically on financial services and alignment with the EU, the UK is not directly linking our implementation with that of the EU. The UK has published its Basel package and continues to plan to implement a Basel package that aligns with international standards by 1 January 2030. However, if any jurisdiction releases proposals that may have a material impact on the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector, we will work closely with the PRA to address these impacts as needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about definitions and whether they may be changed in any way. We consulted on the legislation at Mansion House last year and sought views from industry and the regulators to ensure that the effect of the definitions remained the same, and no issues were raised throughout that process. The noble Baroness also asked me about increasing admin burdens from market risk rules. The PRA has designed its Basel package to result in an overall capital level that remains stable and will be no more complex to comply with.
The noble Baroness also asked me how the PRA is ensuring that its model approval is effective. The PRA’s work is obviously supported by the Government. We support what it is doing to develop a more responsive and agile approach to banks, using its own internal risk models for capital requirements. This in turn could help improve competition and lending in a mortgage market, allowing banks to invest more into the UK. In March, the PRA set out changes to its approval processes for firms with existing models, including enhanced pre-application engagement, to help resolve difficult issues before formal submission, dedicated submission slots and a commitment to complete quality checks within four weeks and review complete applications within six months.
The noble Baroness also asked me about how UK banks will prepare for implementation. The UK has published proposals for Basel 3.1 which strengthen the resilience of our banking system and deliver the certainty banks need to finance investment and growth in the UK. This announcement is a positive example of the UK’s FSMA model of regulation, providing a package tailored to UK needs and a clear plan for implementation, giving banks the certainty they need to plan and invest for the long term.
The noble Baroness also asked me to restate my commitment to growth in financial services; I am more than happy to do that. I am aware that both noble Baronesses asked me a couple more questions that I do not have answers to immediately, but I promise I will write on the specifics of those. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Aviation Safety (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument has two objectives. The first is to amend Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation to give the Civil Aviation Authority more flexibility to grant exemptions to the basic regulation. The second is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable further legislation later this year in order to bring the UK into line with international requirements on how far aircraft can operate from diversion airports.
This instrument was originally laid before Parliament in January this year as a negative procedure statutory instrument, in accordance with the procedures set out in the retained EU law Act 2023. Following scrutiny by both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments during the sift, the Transport Committee recommended that this instrument be relaid as an affirmative SI. The Government accepted that recommendation, and the instrument was relaid as an affirmative SI in January.
During that sift, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns about how genuinely exceptional exemptions to Article 71 would be, given the suggestion that they would be used to facilitate day-to-day activities, and the JCSI raised a concern that
“the changes proposed by this instrument could represent a significant diminution of existing regulatory protections”.
Once the instrument had been relaid, the SLSC reiterated its original concerns and the JCSI had no comments. I will go into the detail of the amendments and then address those concerns.
Article 71 of the assimilated basic regulation sets out the conditions under which the Civil Aviation Authority may grant an exemption to the basic regulation for an applicant. A legacy of EU legislation, the existing wording of the law means that the CAA can grant an exception in only two possible scenarios: urgent unforeseeable circumstances, and urgent operational needs. This means that the CAA cannot issue exemptions for foreseeable circumstances with no urgent operational need, such as festivals or testing drones—consider, for example, the Formula 1 races at Silverstone, which handle around 1,000 helicopters over four days.
Under the assimilated aviation law, which is a legacy of the UK’s membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency—the EASA—all the basic requirements of the basic regulation would need to be met. This legislation was developed with the requirements of airports providing a permanent service in mind; such requirements are disproportionate for a short event. Currently, the CAA cannot grant exemptions for these events because they are yearly, predictable and foreseeable, even though granting an exemption would clearly enhance safety.
In addition, this amendment will allow the CAA to grant exemptions to businesses in order to enable the testing of new and innovative technologies. Today, that is difficult because many of the requirements of Article 71 do not take into account future developments in technology, such as testing “beyond visual line of sight” drone flights in airspace that is not separated from regular air traffic. The existing rules were made before current “beyond visual line of sight” developments, and it is difficult for the CAA to grant exemptions specifically for testing as testing is usually neither urgent nor unforeseeable. By enabling exemptions to be granted beyond urgent operational needs or urgent unforeseeable circumstances, the UK aviation sector will be able to trial and test new technologies more easily.
As the UK has now left both the European Union and the EASA, the Government are now able to amend Article 71 to give the CAA more flexibility to support safety and innovation. The CAA has developed a robust framework to ensure that exemptions granted under Article 71 will not degrade safety. Each request will be risk assessed by the CAA’s aviation safety experts and will be granted only if they believe that the exemption will maintain a high standard of safety and there is no other way of achieving the same goal. The CAA will examine each request individually, and just because the request has been granted once, it will not then set a precedent for future exemptions.
These criteria are deliberately strict, ensuring that the CAA considers the existing protection requirements for aircraft noise, fuel venting and engine emissions, whether decisions are non-discriminatory, the creation of unreasonable working conditions or safety risks, and whether exemptions support public protection and broader aerospace development. This means that while exemptions will be given for day-to-day activities such as testing, each exemption will still be exceptional. The CAA’s framework will ensure that each request is scrutinised and granted only if applicants can demonstrate high levels of aviation safety, as well as setting out a path to future full regulatory compliance. Regulatory protections will remain and my officials will continue to work closely with the CAA to oversee how the new exemption process is used.
I note that during the consultation, 42 of the 51 respondents supported the amendments to Article 71. One respondent, Unite the Union, raised concerns that exemptions might be granted on a regular basis, particularly where such exemptions could weaken the working conditions of crew onboard aircraft. I assure noble Lords that exemptions will be granted only where a high level of safety can be assured, and the CAA must and will carefully consider the impact of exemptions on working conditions.
I turn to the second objective of this SI, which is to remove a criminal sanction that has never been used. The removal of this sanction will enable amendments later this year, which will allow operators of two-engine aircraft more flexibility in how far they operate from diversion airports. Operators of aircraft with more than two engines will now also need to consider their distance from diversion airports. This change will bring the UK into line with international requirements. These amendments could not be introduced without removing the criminal sanction, as the powers needed to amend provisions with criminal sanctions are contained in the retained EU law Act, which expires in June this year. The Civil Aviation Authority has never brought a prosecution under this provision, and I am confident that it already has sufficient regulatory tools to ensure compliance without relying on a criminal offence—for instance, by revoking approvals to fly extended diversion time operations or by limiting operators’ air operator certificates.
On the wider powers gap issue in relation to criminal sanctions, the Government are aware of the powers gap. We are reviewing whether existing powers on the statute book may be able to fill the gap, and we are also considering introducing primary legislation when parliamentary time allows—I await with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. I beg to move.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the Minister mentioned, has looked at this and suggested that the House may wish to seek assurances from the Minister regarding the use of exemptions. In the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee yesterday, the Minister said:
“I can confirm that we are confident in the capacity of the CAA to manage this process effectively. I am cognisant of the points raised by the shadow Minister and the Lib Dem spokesperson about the DFT having to exercise robust oversight over these processes and to liaise closely with the CAA to ensure that it is using these powers proportionately”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
The issue that I wish to question the Minister on is the capacity of the CAA to handle the various applications. Will he also address the issue of the testing by companies of new products, either aircraft or drones? We know of public events where there are a large number of helicopter flights coming in—golf tournaments, for example; I do not know whether Glastonbury has a lot of helicopter traffic—and I presume that these are covered by this sort of thing.
Without wishing to see things kept overly tight, particularly when we would like to see and encourage companies to develop new products—after all, this country has a tried and tested record of innovation in the aviation sector—the question is: who is overseeing the overseers in this case? I presume it has to be the CAA and the Department for Transport, ultimately, but is there sufficient capacity? Does the Minister expect an increase in these applications, or will it be only short term? If he does, is the capacity there and is his department sufficiently well organised to oversee that process?
The issue, I presume, comes down to the definition of “exceptional”. The Minister in the other place said:
“The shadow Minister asked me to say a little more about what we mean by ‘exceptional’. These exceptions will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way for the applicant to achieve the aims that have been put forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/4/26; col. 6.]
He went on to give some examples.
This is a fairly straightforward regulation, but whenever regulations change there is always the risk that the organisation overseeing them may not be as fully prepared as we would like. I perfectly understand the Minister’s position on the powers that have not been used; it seems that there are alternative ways of dealing with those matters without having to regulate any further.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, these regulations will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to exempt industry from certain safety requirements to allow for such things as greater research and development, as well as allowing increased air traffic control for one-off major events with increased air traffic. I thank the Minister for arranging a briefing with his officials, who answered my questions and provided clarity on a number of matters. I was really pleased to read the CAA exemption policy, which makes it clear that:
“When considering whether or not to issue an exemption, the CAA’s starting point will be that the requirements exist for good reasons and exemptions should therefore be exceptional. We will only issue an exemption on the basis of this Policy if to do so will maintain a high standard of safety, having regard to the safety of all aircraft, crew, passengers and persons on the ground”.
I was also pleased to hear the Minister’s assurance regarding risk assessments. Those points should assure us all.
We on these Benches support greater research and development in aviation, which these changes will allow. The regulations will allow the CAA to issue more exemptions, although within those safeguards, around trialling new aircraft and testing uncrewed aircraft or new fuel types and technology. In recent years, we have seen rapid developments in aviation technology, particularly in uncrewed aircraft. It is important that the UK is not left behind, but it will be essential that the CAA does not overuse these increased powers. Therefore, my only question for the Minister is: could he clarify what criteria have been drawn up by the department to set clear guardrails for how the CAA can use these powers and then report on their use?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for arranging a short briefing for me yesterday on this measure, which I found very helpful. That was a useful thing to do and I thank him.
The substance of this statutory instrument is not terribly interesting. We could go on about whether the CAA could be trusted to do its job, and exactly how you might define exemptions, but these issues have been raised in the course of debate; there is no point in my belabouring them. Generally speaking, I trust the CAA to do the job that it has done so well for so many years. I do not see any reason to think that it will go wild and start indulging in or approving unsafe practices in the near future.
I think that there are more interesting things about this statutory instrument that relate to its circumstances. The first circumstance that we want to take account of is the EU reset. The third clause of this instrument—the second operative clause in this instrument—is undoubtedly a Brexit benefit. It is a relaxation of regulation that could not be brought about had we remained a member of the European Union. The Minister has said this. I am not making a controversial point. We are doing this in a context where the Government have said, without any mandate, that they want to align our laws with the European Union, making us subject to laws that they make without any consideration of what the benefits might be for us. These advantages that we are getting today by passing this statutory instrument could be yanked away at any moment in the next year or so as the reset starts to bite.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, quoted the Minister in the other place in two respects, and because he quoted him, I do not feel I need to add to either of the things that he said in this Committee this afternoon.
On the question about testing how the Civil Aviation Authority assures itself that operators are acting safely, I have faith in the Civil Aviation Authority. This would not have come forward, fundamentally, if the Civil Aviation Authority was not confident that it was capable of overseeing the changing regulations that are being proposed today. It oversees and audits approval holders and individuals granted privileges, as set out in the regulation. That includes monitoring the effectiveness of organisations’ quality and safety management systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, referred to the policy framework for assessing requests for exemptions, which she helpfully asked for during the briefing that she referred to. The Civil Aviation Authority will seek clear justification, demonstrating compliance with the new policy, supported by a robust and documented safety risk assessment, showing that high safety standards can be maintained.
The Civil Aviation Authority is overseen by the department through the State Safety Board, which is a formal body. In addition, my officials maintain a good working relationship with the UK’s independent regulator, the CAA, which is responsible for enforcing all the aviation safety regulations. As I say, I am very confident that the Civil Aviation Authority has the resources to carry out what this statutory instrument is seeking to do. Of course, it has the option of rejecting applications if it cannot resource looking at individuals.
I believe I have answered the point about policy raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. She also raised the question about reporting on actions that have been taken by the CAA. The CAA will publish details of general exemptions applied to defined classes, such as all operators involved in short-term events. It will not publish all exemptions due to concerns about exposing commercially sensitive information for technical developments. I can see the noble Baroness nodding, and I am sure that that is right, because it will also have a duty of protecting people’s commercial positions.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to the European Union reset. These powers would only be changed if we joined the EASA, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, which is the organisation I previously referred to. We would have to have rejoined that to make a change to these powers again. I am not aware of any proposal to rejoin the European Union Aviation Safety Agency as part of the reset, which is why we are bringing this forward today.
The noble Lord referred to the gap in powers. I already said that I am awaiting with interest the King’s Speech on 13 May. He will be aware that this first parliamentary session has been a long one, so the Government need to take the opportunity of putting forward legislation when they can. I cannot say any more about that, but I do not think that he will find that the gap in powers is quite the terrible thing that he describes.
The noble Lord lastly referred to the reorganisation of the Department for Transport. Today I have signed off an Answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from the other place. There is a reorganisation; a number of people have not moved to join Network Rail—they have moved to join DfT Operator as a precursor to the radical programme of railway reform that the Government put in their manifesto and have committed themselves to. That still leaves—and the Answer to the Parliamentary Question will say so in the other place—no less than 477 people who work on railway policy and HS2. We are not leaving the department bereft of people. I expect that number may go down over time as reform is finished, but that has no effect on the rest of the department, and there is no suggestion in that change that the department is making any change which will affect its capabilities in supervising aviation or the Civil Aviation Authority.
For any question that I have failed to answer or to which I have not given a sufficient answer, I am happy to write as soon as possible. In conclusion, the safety of aviation and the travelling public is a priority for the Government. The Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain our exemplary record for aviation safety; these regulations represent a further step in doing so. I beg to move.
Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Committee to consider these three instruments together today: the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026, the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026 and the Warwickshire County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
These statutory instruments were laid before this House on 25 February 2026 under the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. If approved, the Department for Work and Pensions will transfer adult education functions and the associated adult skills fund to these local areas for the start of the new academic year, 1 August 2026. These local areas will then have the freedom to use their adult skills fund to help their residents meet their skills needs, fulfil their potential and contribute to the growth of their region.
Since 2018, a portion of the adult skills fund has been devolved to local bodies, which have exercised control over that spending in their area. For the most part, these organisations have been combined authorities, although functions and funding were devolved at Cornwall Council one year ago.
In March 2024, the previous Government agreed devolution deals with the three local authorities we are considering today. Those deals, taken forward by this Government, committed to full devolution of the adult education budget, now called the adult skills fund. This was to be exercised from the academic year 2026-27, subject to readiness conditions and parliamentary approval. It has been judged that all three authorities have demonstrated readiness to acquire functions; therefore, these instruments are the final step in ensuring that they are able to deliver from August this year.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will confer the same functions on strategic authorities, to be exercised from at least one full academic year after the authority’s establishment. The package of these instruments, and that Bill, will increase the percentage of the adult skills fund that is devolved from 67% to 76%.
Six further areas agreed devolution deals through this Government’s devolution priority programme. The Government are going through the legislative process to form these areas, with the intention that they deliver adult education functions from August 2027, subject to ministerial approval. Taken together, these actions deliver on the Government’s commitment to empower local leaders and unlock growth.
The specific adult education functions being transferred to these three local areas are under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and will be exercisable by these local authorities. These SIs transfer three specific duties set out in the 2009 Act from the Secretary of State to each local authority. These duties are: Section 86, which places a duty to secure appropriate facilities for education for individuals aged 19 or over, excluding those under 25 with an education, health and care plan; Section 87, which places a duty on the authority to secure the provision of facilities for adults who lack particular skills to obtain relevant qualifications; and Section 88, which places a duty on the authority to ensure that these courses of study are free for eligible learners. The duties above, solely exercisable by the local authority, are subject to an exception in relation to apprenticeships training, persons subject to adult detention or any power to make regulations or orders.
The SIs also confer other powers and duties on each local authority to be exercisable concurrently with the Secretary of State. These are also set out in the 2009 Act and are: Section 90, the duty to encourage participation in education and training for persons aged 19 or over; Section 100(1), provision of financial resources, which is the general funding power for the adult skills fund; and Section 100(1B), provision of financial resources in connection with technical education.
The adult skills fund supports millions of adults across England to develop the skills they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. Local areas are best placed to identify what their local people, communities and businesses need. Strategic authorities decide how they spend their funding to deliver opportunity and growth in their area, and they will be able to respond in a more agile way to local priorities and emerging challenges, and address barriers more effectively.
Local areas can apply the flexibility that devolved adult skills funding offers to identify adults in their region who are most in need and invest more funding to support those groups, to work directly with employers, training providers and other local partners to commission new provision to meet local needs, and to set funding rates that incentivise delivery of provision that offers the most positive impacts for their region. Within this local flexibility, strategic authorities must offer free courses for adults to deliver national statutory entitlements in English, maths, digital courses, level 2 and 3 qualifications for those who do not yet have those skills, and free courses for jobs. This funding provides an essential stepping stone for adults with the lowest skills.
I recognise that the nature of skills challenges and the solutions will be different in every region. That is why I am pleased that three new areas are poised to take the opportunities and to develop new thinking and priorities for the adult skills fund in their areas. If the draft statutory instruments are approved, Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire will be responsible for managing their adult skills funding allocation efficiently and effectively to deliver for their local residents. The DfE and the DWP have worked closely with each area over the last two years to ensure that they are ready to take on these functions and have provided implementation funding to help them to prepare effectively and support a smooth transition.
Each area has consented to the transfer of these powers and the making of these statutory instruments. They have also provided assurances that a permanent skills team is in place to manage delivery effectively. They have each developed a strategic skills plan setting out how they will use their devolved adult skills funding to meet key priorities, and I can confirm that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, Ministers have concluded that the statutory tests have been met. Each area has given its consent and demonstrated that devolution is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of people who live and work in the region, and a report has been laid before Parliament explaining how these conditions have been met.
To support future devolution and identify best practice, the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to hold constructive conversations with existing strategic authorities, other local areas and our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on how devolution can help to shape future skills provision to meet local needs. I take this opportunity to thank all our partner organisations, particularly colleagues at Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council, for their expertise and input in getting to this important milestone.
These statutory instruments will give those three authorities the opportunity to shape their adult education provision, address local barriers, focus provision to meet local needs, enhance economic growth and bring greater prosperity to their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us that introduction. It is nice to have her back, and I hope she is fully recovered. The most pedantic thing I could think to say is that the Minister said Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire but the regulations are in a different order on the Order Paper, which says Warwickshire, Surrey and Buckinghamshire.
Having got that out of the way, my main question is this: we are in a situation where we are reforming local government involving different groups. Could she give us a slightly better idea, as I may have missed this in her initial statement, of how this actually transfers? Which authorities are expected to take it on once the county councils change? That is something that I would like to hear because it would give us an idea of what is going on. I remember from when we discussed this that the idea is that authorities will respond to local needs in their training. I had reservations because I am not quite sure how you define that, who should be moving on and what the structure will be, but that is for another day. Could we have an idea of which group will be taking charge after we have had the changes to local government?
I do not really have any other fundamental objections to these instruments, but I will add that the Minister spoke about those with low attainment. I wonder if one day I will get up in a debate on education and not mention special educational needs—I suppose it is quite possible—but what about identification of those who would benefit from this support and structure in acquiring these local resources? Do we have any development plans for it? That is a speculative question. If the Minister has any information that could be sent to me then I would be grateful to receive it, and if she has it now then I would be grateful to hear it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations, which transfer adult education functions to Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire councils from the 2026-27 academic year and, as the Minister said, from 1 August 2026. I am very grateful for the detail that the Minister has given in setting out these measures.
The principle of devolution in adult skills is well-established and enjoys cross-party support. Bringing decisions closer to local labour markets and employers makes intuitive sense and these regulations build on that foundation. I do not oppose them; indeed, this policy is in line with the principle that we established during our time in government of devolving the adult skills budget. However, I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on a number of points.
First, on funding, the Department for Education has cut the adult education budget by 60% for this academic year. Devolution is of limited value if it simply transfers responsibility without the resources to deliver. I know that the Minister gave some details on this, but can she confirm the indicative allocations for these authorities and explain how the Government will ensure that funding keeps pace with local demand? What data will the Government collect on devolved adult skills fund money spend and how this is being translated into outcomes? I am aware that industry experts have expressed some concerns about this.
Secondly, on accountability, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this point, but I want to go a little bit further. One of the long-standing concerns with devolved skills funding is the absence of consistent comparable outcome data. Will the Government commit to publishing performance information at local authority level across both devolved and non-devolved areas so that Parliament and the public can assess whether the model is actually working? Can the Minister please tell us more about the lines of accountability and reporting? Who will have oversight of how adult education services in these authorities are performing, and how often will they be kept abreast of outcomes?
Thirdly, on structural stability, Surrey County Council is due to be abolished in 2027. Warwickshire is expected to be reorganised in 2028. The Government have indicated that functions will transfer to successor bodies, but I would welcome further clarity on the providers during this period of change. I know the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised this issue. To go further, what safeguards are in place to protect learners and providers during this period? More broadly, why have the Government chosen to devolve these powers to local authorities now on the eve of their abolition?
Finally, on coherence, with some areas now holding devolved powers and others not, there is a real risk of a patchwork system emerging with uneven provision, inconsistent entitlements and fragmented oversight. How do the Government intend to maintain a coherent, national skills strategy while pursuing this localised approach? I am certain that the Minister is well placed to cover this area with her portfolio profile.
These regulations change not what adult education is provided but who controls it. That shift can bring real benefits, but only if accompanied by adequate funding, robust accountability and, of course, stable governance. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points I have raised but, as I have said before, we are broadly behind the measures that are being taken today.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I start by thanking noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I will endeavour to answer them and to get the SIs in the right order as I do so. Before I turn to the questions and the reasonable points that have been raised, I reiterate the important strategic role that devolution has to play in the growth of our economy across our country. These instruments broaden the scope of devolution, meaning more local decision-making in more areas across England than ever before. I recognise the noble Lord’s point, and I reiterate, as I did in my opening comments, that this was a process for these three authorities, started by the previous Government in 2024 and taken forward by this Government.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We could argue about the figures but, in the academic year 2025-2026, it was the case that the Government made a small cut to the adult skills fund in the very challenging fiscal context that we inherited. There have been no further reductions, nor will there be for this forthcoming academic year.
I do not want to get into a row about this, but adult skills funding has seen a considerable cut, along with its predecessor funds, from 2010 onwards. The job for this Government is to at the very least stabilise this important contribution to developing skills and providing opportunities for adults. We will determine the proportions of funding for each of these areas using historical spending from 2017-2018, with each area’s share calculated as the proportion of the ASF spent on local learners prior to devolution. We will continue to work closely with devolved areas to support them and to ensure efficient use of funding and the long-term sustainability of skills provision.
Noble Lords understandably asked how that accountability and reporting will work. Accountability arrangements for devolved organisations are set out in the British devolution accountability framework. As part of this, local areas with devolved powers are required both to submit annual assurance reports to the Department for Work and Pensions and to publish them on their own organisation’s website. They will set out what a devolved area has delivered against its strategic skills priorities over the previous academic year; that will include an assessment of key outcomes, local partnership work, achievements, challenges and lessons learned. Key data against which local areas are expected to report include adult skills fund data on spend and data on the number of learners in their local areas who are taking up their statutory entitlements. Skills England uses the information in each of these reports to undertake annual skills stocktakes with each local area in order to discuss key findings, including how any issues can be addressed.
Finally—I would have been disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord Addington, had not raised special educational needs and disability—I reiterate the point I made on devolution when I talked about the exception being for young people with education, health and care plans up to the age of 25. Those young people will still be funded through the 16-to-19 funding and will still have the provisions in their education, health and care plans delivered through that funding; the responsibility will remain.
More broadly, the statutory national entitlements focus in particular on those people who, perhaps by virtue of special educational needs or disabilities, have not been able to get a grade 4 in their English or maths GCSE, for example; have not had the opportunity to get to a level 2 or level 3 standard of education; or have not been able to develop digital skills up to level 1. They have a statutory national entitlement that must continue to be funded, regardless of the devolution of funds here. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
Lord Addington (LD)
What I would like to extract is the identification of those who have a learning disability or special educational need and who will require slightly different learning patterns to get the best results. More of the same in a system in which you have already failed will probably lead to more failure. That change in style requires some identification. It is something that we are told we will talk much more about in the next parliamentary Session; I just wondered whether there is any information available to us today about that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Much of what we will be talking about in the next parliamentary Session will obviously relate to special educational needs and disability funding and provision in schools, both in early years and post-16. What we are talking about today is adult skills funding, which, as I said, for those with special educational needs, will be above the age of 25.
This does not mean that I do not think the noble Lord is making an important point. One of the things that devolution enables authorities to do—and one of the things that the adult skills fund already does—is provide opportunities for people who are a very long way away from the labour market, perhaps by virtue of disability, to get the necessary training for that. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord about the other routes supported by DWP that would help enable people with learning disabilities, for example, to access work and get the sort of development that they might need in order to succeed in life. I will provide some more detail about that.
I reiterate that this fund carries out a very important function: supporting adults with the skills and learning they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. It can provide a stepping stone to progression and prosperity, particularly for disadvantaged adult learners. We believe that it can be delivered to greater effect, more efficiently and in line with local priorities through these devolution proposals. For that reason, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Surrey County Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the Grand Committee do consider the Buckinghamshire Council (Adult Education Functions) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 54th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 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 Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee considers these draft regulations. Before I speak to them, I thank both Local Authority Building Control and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for raising the important issues that led to these regulations coming before us today.
The amendments are technical in nature. The purpose is to maintain legal clarity and make sure that the responsible actors scheme and its associated prohibitions operate as intended. They do not alter in any way the legal requirements on developers to undertake remediation under the responsible actors scheme.
These amendments are made using powers in Sections 126 to 129 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and amend the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating, or paying to remediate, life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years prior to April 2022. It is an important scheme under which more than 2,500 buildings are being remediated at an estimated cost to developers of around £4.1 billion.
The scheme is underpinned by planning and building control prohibitions. Where an eligible developer decides not to join the scheme or seriously fails to comply with its conditions, those prohibitions can prevent that developer and entities they control from operating freely in the housing market. This incentivises developers to sign up to the scheme and undertake remediation. The amendments in this instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and exceptions to how they are applied would operate in practice if a developer was prohibited, following a failure to join the scheme or live up to the developers’ obligations. It is important that if this eventuality occurs, protections for residents, leaseholders and property purchasers work as intended. These amendments make sure that this will be the case.
First, the instrument clarifies the scope of the building control prohibition. The Building Safety Act 2022 provides that the building control prohibition should prevent prohibited developers from making applications for building control approval. However, as currently drafted, the implementing regulations do not clearly capture applications for building control approval within the prohibition. This creates a risk of ambiguity and inconsistent application. The amendments correct that omission to align the regulations with the intent of the primary legislation and update terminology to reflect current building control processes. The result is greater clarity and certainty for the building control bodies administering the system.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I thank the Minister for bringing this statutory instrument before the Committee. As the Minister said, this instrument makes a number of minor technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023, which were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. These amendments are minor and seek to ensure that the exceptions to the building control prohibition are effective and clear to the building control professionals, and that they respond to the drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We support these changes, but I have a couple of questions.
First, I understand that the Government will continue to monitor and publish data on the RAS regulations to determine their effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of these technical changes. I would be grateful if the Minister can provide the Committee with an update on the progress made so far by developers in meeting their obligations under the RAS regulations.
Secondly, the responsible actors scheme is part of a wider range of actions to address building safety, a key part of which is the building safety regulator. In October, only 15 of 193 high-rise applications had been approved. Can the Minister update the Committee on the number of applications and approvals, and the average turnaround times for each of the stages? I appreciate that the Minister may not have that information with her and would be very happy if she would write. With that, we support this statutory instrument.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, for his support for the instrument and I will pick up his two questions. First, on the publishing of data for developer-led remediation, the ministry carefully monitors developer remediation performance, including through scrutinising detailed quarterly data returns. Data from these quarterly returns is published on GOV.UK and includes information about each developer’s progress. In relation to the BSR, I may have to come back to the noble Lord on the specific numbers that he asked for, but, in general, improving the speed in which remediation applications are approved is an absolute priority for the BSR, which has recently announced a remediation improvement plan.
Before I go on to the rest of the answer, the change in management of the BSR has driven very considerable improvements in its performance and I am very pleased to see that. The improvement plan includes improving internal processes, ramping up capacity to deal with remediation cases and working very closely with the industry to support applicants to improve the quality of their applications. That was one of the issues that was raised when we debated this previously. We expect applicants, particularly large developers, to work with the BSR to improve the quality of their applications, so that remediation can progress without delay. I hope that, with those improvements and the improvements that are taking place within the BSR, we are already starting to see considerable improvement, and I hope that that will continue. I will respond in writing to the noble Lord on the numbers issue.
In closing, this instrument makes technical amendments that clarify, as I said, drafting inconsistencies and defects previously reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and makes sure that the responsible actors scheme and its prohibitions will function smoothly in practice, should they be applied. It maintains the integrity of the existing system while making sure that residents and other affected parties are protected.