Draft Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In keeping with wider efforts to improve the accessibility of public services, the draft regulations form part of the Government’s programme to modernise the registration of births, stillbirths and deaths in England and Wales. They support the move from paper registers to a fully electronic registration system, while preserving the integrity, reliability and legal certainty that have always been central to civil registration.
Before setting out the detail of the draft regulations, it may be helpful if I provide some historical context. Since 1837, the registration of a birth, stillbirth or death has involved an individual attending a register office and signing a paper register in ink. Although that process has served the public well, it reflects a system designed for a different era. As public services increasingly make use of secure digital technology, it is right that the registration system keeps pace, and the draft regulations will aid us in that endeavour. Instead of requiring a handwritten signature in a paper register, if a person complies with certain specified requirements at the time of registering a birth or death, they will be treated as having signed the register and, where relevant, in the presence of the registrar.
Removing the requirement to physically sign the register in the presence of the registrar will enable us to offer more flexible ways for the public to provide information for a registration, such as over the telephone or online using a portal on gov.uk, and they will be able to do so securely and at a time that suits the individual, without having to visit a register office. They will still have the choice to attend the register office in person to register an event.
It is important to emphasise that this is not about lowering standards or reducing safeguards; the core principles that underpin civil registration remain unchanged. Individuals will still be required to confirm the accuracy of the information they provide and formally declare that it is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. Accountability therefore remains at the heart of the process.
The draft regulations also provide appropriate safeguards in relation to identity verification. Where identity assurance is required for the registration of a birth, individuals will be able to verify their identity through a recognised digital route such as One Login, or by providing documentary evidence to the registrar. The draft regulations set out the types of evidence that may be accepted, giving both registrars and the public clarity about the requirements. Importantly, the approach has been designed to be both secure and inclusive. Not everyone will wish to use digital services, and not everyone will possess the same forms of documentation. By providing more than one route for proving identity, the draft regulations ensure that people can continue to access registration services regardless of their circumstances.
The Committee will understandably want reassurance about security, and I can assure Members that the move to electronic registration is supported by robust cyber-security measures, developed in line with guidance from the National Cyber Security Centre and broader Cabinet Office security standards. In addition, the identity verification arrangements are aligned with the Government Digital Service’s “Good Practice Guide 45”, ensuring that checks are both proportionate and effective.
The benefits of these changes are significant. An electronic registration system will reduce reliance on paper processes, improve the efficiency and resilience of registration services and provide a stronger platform for future improvements.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a real joy, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
The regulations before us are welcome. They will make it more convenient for people to register major events in their lives, some of which are the most immensely joyous, and some of which are profoundly heartbreaking. We in this place should be very cautious about imposing duties or obligations on people when they experience a major event in their lives. When we impose such obligations, as we clearly do in respect of registering births and deaths, we should try to make it as easy as possible for them to fulfil those obligations.
I particularly welcome the move to make the process easier in relation to stillborns, but I urge the Government to look at what more can be done to ensure that those having to register the stillbirth of a child do not, at a time of great difficulty for them, have to go into a waiting room that is often full of babies and parents who are celebrating a great joy coming into their lives.
The Bill applies a principle correctly, but it could and should be applied more broadly. The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced by this Government ought to make it simpler to ensure that people’s interactions with the state are as hassle-free as possible, yet in areas such as healthcare, where digitisation and use of personal data can have a profound impact on user experience, we have often heard resistance to reform. Properly implemented digitisation can make life easier for healthcare staff and patients, particularly people waiting for or recovering from major surgery. The difference can be measured in weeks or months of stress and uncertainty. Our duty is to make life simpler for millions of people across the country, so can the Minister say whether this Government are prepared to take the side of the public over trade unions in any future dispute about digitisation, and can she set out what further steps the Government are planning to make it easier for citizens to engage with state services?
The regulations before us are welcome. Again, I urge the Minister to specifically look at what more can be done at registry offices for those coming to register a stillbirth, and we hope to see that approach extended to other areas.
Jo White
In relation to stillborns, the new process will mean that people can telephone or record the death digitally. That means that they can do it in the privacy of their own homes. They will not have to confront the difficulties that are present with going in to register a stillbirth, where there is the fear of seeing people presenting the joyous side of the birth of a new baby. It gives them privacy and comfort, as well as the security that their lives can begin to start again once they have gone through that process.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for International Development (Kirsty McNeill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Further Payments to Capital Stock) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The draft order was laid before the House on 16 June. It will permit the UK Government to make financial contributions to the Inter-American Investment Corporation, up to the stated values. Allow me briefly to take the Committee through the background and purpose of the draft order.
The draft order permits the UK Government to make further payments to the Inter-American Investment Corporation, also known as IDB Invest, which is the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank Group, also known as the IDB. The IDB is the largest source of development finance for Latin America and the Caribbean, with the group’s overall financing reaching about $35 billion in 2025 alone. The IDB is a trusted UK partner and is instrumental to the achievement of regional objectives on sustainable development, action on climate change, biodiversity protection and pandemic and disaster preparedness.
The G20 has called on multilateral development banks to adopt new business models to stretch balance sheets, increase lending and take on more risk to support smaller businesses. In response, IDB Invest has committed to implementing a new business model. IDB Invest will shift to an originate-to-share approach to transfer its investments to the private sector, recycling funds and enabling greater impact through increased scale. IDB Invest’s innovative approach to development is why, together with other shareholders, the UK agreed to a $3.5 billion capitalisation package, to allow IDB Invest to more than double the support it provides the region from about $8 billion to more than $20 billion annually.
The UK is a strong proponent of this new model, and of the leadership and innovation showcased by IDB Invest. In 2025, the UK authorised an increase in its shareholding in the corporation from 0.22% to 1.5%, subject to shares being available, for a total value of up to $106 million. When the IDB Invest share subscription period closed in March 2026, more shares became available than initially anticipated. This presents the UK with a strategic opportunity to further increase our shareholding in IDB Invest beyond the level previously authorised. By investing an additional $25 million, the UK can deepen its influence with the institution and strengthen its overall position.
Let me highlight a few outcomes that IDB Invest has committed to delivering by 2030 through its new business model and capital increase. It will finance 2.5 million micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, which will in turn support 9.5 million jobs. It will directly support more than 300,000 women in gaining access to finance, jobs, training and entrepreneurship opportunities. It will support 1.6 million of the region’s poor and vulnerable people in gaining access to services, opportunities and resources. It will improve access to agricultural services and investments for 44,000 farmers. It will dedicate at least 60% of its investments to climate and green finance. It will reduce 3.9 million tonnes of CO2 emissions and generate 1,400 MW from renewable resources for new clean energy projects.
In addition, IDB Invest will continue to share lessons learned on the implementation of its business model with other development finance institutions to encourage more investment into the private sector globally. This represents excellent value for money. For every £1 that the UK invests, £5 of development-related assets are generated, taking us a step closer to achieving the region’s sustainable development goals.
IDB Invest is instrumental in achieving UK objectives in Latin America and the Caribbean, and it is among our closest and most important development partners. The financial contributions covered by this draft order will support the UK’s development and foreign policy objectives in Latin America and the Caribbean, promoting private sector development and sustainable economic growth.
I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Let me start by welcoming the new Minister to her position.
The Inter-American Development Bank Group is an important source of development finance across Latin America and the Caribbean, and its private sector arm has an important role to play in mobilising investment and supporting private sector-led growth. The draft order, however, authorises a further $25 million of UK taxpayers’ money, taking the UK’s total investment in the Inter-American Investment Corporation to approximately $131 million. It would increase the UK’s shareholding from 0.22% to 1.83%. For the benefit of the Committee, can the Minister confirm to which financial year this relates? Given the pressures on the aid budget, it is right that Parliament seeks clarity about what additional influence and outcomes the investment will secure.
My first question is about the decision to provide this additional funding. Can the Minister set out precisely what the additional $25 million will be used for and whether any conditions have been attached to it? What assessment has the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office made of the additional development impact this investment will deliver compared with alternative uses of that funding?
Secondly, what has the UK sought to achieve through the corporation’s new strategy and capital increase? The Government say the increased shareholding will strengthen UK influence and representation at board level. It would be helpful to understand more about that. Can the Minister set out what priorities the UK has pressed for, how far those priorities have been reflected in the corporation’s plans and how the Government intend to use that greater influence?
The corporation is implementing a substantial programme of reform, including its new originate-to-share model, which is intended to mobilise significantly greater levels of private capital. We welcome the efforts by multilateral development banks to use their balance sheets more effectively and to crowd in private investment, rather than continually relying on additional taxpayer funding. Can the Minister update the Committee on the progress of those reforms? In particular, what improvements do the Government still believe are required on efficiency, accountability and value for money? What assurances have they received that the increase in the corporation’s capital will genuinely leverage additional private finance, rather than simply expanding the institution itself?
Finally, there must be clear accountability for results. The explanatory memorandum refers to a new impact framework and institutional scorecard alongside FCDO annual reviews. What specific measures will the Government use to judge whether that additional investment has been successful, and how will Parliament be able to scrutinise those results? If the corporation falls short of its targets, what mechanisms does the UK have to press for change?
His Majesty’s official Opposition recognise the importance of mobilising private investment to support growth and development in Latin America and the Caribbean, but additional contributions to multilateral institutions must demonstrate clear value for money, measurable outcomes and alignment with the UK’s strategic interests. We will oppose this delegated legislation today, but the Government must provide clear answers to the questions I have raised, and they must justify and explain further the reason for this contribution. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Kirsty McNeill
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her comments and reflections. Starting with her question about financial years, the new capital paid in will be spread across seven years, starting in 2025-26. She also asked about the conditions attached to it, and I will reflect on those when I talk about the particular areas we have pressed for prioritisation. I should say, as I did in my opening, that this institution has already innovated in response to pressure and reflections from the G20. We were delighted to have had that influence at the outset.
We have pressed for a new focus on climate, on supporting Caribbean small island developing states, including the overseas territories, and on vulnerable populations. The right hon. Lady asked for any reflections on the development impacts that we anticipate. I reflected on those in my opening remarks, and I will not repeat them now. On increasing and securing the UK’s influence, we have secured greater board representation for the UK, which is always something we seek to do.
IDB Invest is a unique institution at the forefront of private sector investment in Latin America and the Caribbean. IDB Invest aims to dedicate 60% of its investments to climate and green finance, and it is also supporting micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, empowering women, expanding access to essential services and driving innovation. Through its new originate-to-share business model, IDB Invest is scaling up its impact, mobilising capital at unprecedented levels and helping to deliver sustainable growth across the region. I hope and trust that the Committee will support this order.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In the autumn Budget, the Government acted to reduce energy costs to benefit all households with a domestic energy contract. We did that by closing the energy company obligation scheme to new costs on bills and by moving 75% of the domestic cost of the renewables obligation to the Exchequer. Those decisions are already making a real difference. From April 2026, they took an average of £150 in costs off household energy bills, and they continue to keep bills lower than they would otherwise be.
The renewables obligation exists to support renewable electricity generation through a system of tradeable certificates. The scheme is closed to new applications, and the first generators will come off the scheme from April 2027; the scheme will close finally in 2037.
The scheme has been instrumental in building the UK’s renewable energy sector. It supports about 35 GW of generation capacity and about 30% of total UK electricity generation. The core of the renewables obligation scheme is a process in which electricity suppliers purchase certificates from renewables generators. Previously, suppliers recovered all the costs of complying with the obligations from consumers via their electricity bills, with Ofgem reflecting those costs through the price cap.
From 1 April, the Government have instead provided grant funding to electricity suppliers to cover 75% of the domestic share of the costs in Great Britain. We have also taken steps to ensure that those savings are passed on: for customers on standard variable tariffs, Ofgem has factored the lower policy costs into the price cap; and for customers on other domestic tariffs, including fixed tariffs, the Government issued a legally binding direction requiring suppliers to pass through the savings in full.
The latest price cap illustrates why that action matters. On 26 August, Ofgem announced that the cap for 1 October to 31 December will increase by 4% to £1,723 for a typical household, driven by ongoing wholesale price volatility as a result of the war in the middle east. Ofgem has been clear that the increase is likely to be felt primarily in gas bills, with electricity bills remaining broadly flat. Without the action we took at the Budget, the cap would be significantly higher still.
The draft regulations are concerned with the legal basis for continuing to deliver the bill reduction measures. Section 13 of the Energy Prices Act 2022 provides the power we are using to take such steps to reduce people’s bills, but the power in section 13 is time-limited and may be extended only by six months at a time. Earlier this year, Parliament approved regulations extending the power from 25 April to 25 October 2026. The regulations before the Committee extend that time limit again, from 25 October to 25 April 2027, so that the policy can continue without interruption.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s intent is to maintain this—albeit on a six-month rolling basis—for the entirety of this Parliament?
Ms Billington
To be clear, we will do this while we need to. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will change the law so that we do not need to continue to extend in this way.
The regulations do not give the Secretary of State any new powers. They simply extend the period in which the existing power may be used. I assure hon. Members that the Department is working on primary legislation to provide a more permanent solution when parliamentary time allows.
The position is slightly different in Northern Ireland, where energy costs are a transferred matter for the Executive, and the Northern Ireland renewables obligation forms a smaller cost on energy bills. The Department has been supporting colleagues in Northern Ireland as they develop a comparable offer to the policy in Great Britain. Following a request from the Northern Ireland Minister for the Economy, separate regulations came into force on 20 June to enable the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver their comparable offer.
The regulations are a straightforward extension of an existing time-limited power. At a time when international events continue to put pressure on wholesale energy markets, it is vital that the Government can continue to deliver the bill reductions announced in the Budget while work progresses on a longer-term legislative solution. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has the Minister assessed how much the additional six-month extension will cost the Exchequer?
Ms Billington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am happy to write him about the specifics of that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The draft regulations extend the period during which the Government may exercise the existing powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022. Specifically, they extend the Secretary of State’s power to fund a proportion of the renewables obligation costs attributable to domestic electricity supply from 25 April 2026 until 25 October 2026.
No new powers are created through this instrument; it simply prolongs the exercise of powers that Parliament has already granted. The Minister has explained that the purpose of the extension is to support the Government’s policy of reducing domestic energy bills by transferring 75% of renewables obligation costs from consumers to the Exchequer, claiming that it will reduce household energy bills by an average of £150 from April 2026. However, the measure is solely another exercise by the Government in moving costs from one pocket to another. Households may pay less through their energy bills, but they are still expected to meet those costs through general taxation.
It is also worth reminding the House of what the subsidies are funding. The renewables obligation provides long-term support to renewable generators, with consumers now bearing the brunt of the cost. The Government are not, as they are claiming, tackling the underlying drivers of high energy prices; they are simply shifting the burden from energy bills on to the public finances. The Minister speaks of a commitment to lowering household energy bills by £300, yet household energy costs are now higher than when the Government entered office in 2024.
Graham Stuart
Is my hon. Friend as astonished as I am that the Minister—I know she is new to her post—has come here to propose a six-month extension of the movement of costs from bills to the Exchequer and cannot tell the Committee how much money that will cost? That is the most basic question a Minister would ask when drafting the instrument—hopefully refreshment has arrived for her and she will be able to tell us in due course. She cannot turn up to this House with a proposal like this and not know the basic money she is adding to the national debt. As I read this morning, which my hon. Friend may have seen, this comes at a time when we have record levels of costs on gilts—5.88%.
Bradley Thomas
My right hon. Friend is experienced in these matters. I would have thought that question would be in the 101 of presenting this instrument to the House.
We are pleased to see the Government finally adopt our Conservative party policy of abolishing the carbon price support on electricity generation, but their plan for the promised £300 savings is still nowhere to be found. While Labour transfers the cost of renewable subsidies on to taxpayers, the Conservative party has set out our cheap power plan to reduce the underlying cost of energy for households. That plan would abolish the renewables obligation altogether, accelerate the delivery of new nuclear power by cutting unnecessary planning barriers, remove VAT from domestic energy bills for three years and abolish the carbon tax. Together, those measures would reduce household bills by around £200—not simply move costs from one bill to another. Can the Minister outline what the Government’s plan for cheap power is, and if not, whether they are willing to accept ours as a solution? Finally, when, if ever, will households receive the £300 reduction in energy bills, as promised at the last general election?
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I do not wish to detain hon. Members for any longer than necessary, but it would be remiss of me not to mention the issue of heating oil, because more than 22,000 households in my constituency are reliant on it. Hon. Members may be aware that heating oil was never subject to the energy price cap. Over a number of years, we have seen huge price increases, which, in March this year, culminated in many households seeing a doubling or tripling of heating oil costs linked to the ongoing war in the middle east, specifically in Iran.
I am pleased to support the measures in the regulations, which add to the support that the Government gave in March: £53 million for heating oil customers specifically, £3.5 million of which went to the support offered by Norfolk county council. However, many residents have been reluctant to apply for that support because it is not universal. I am delighted to see the Minister in her place and encourage her to reiterate the Government’s commitment to those who rely on heating oil, and to outline what the Government are doing to support them.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The extension of the Government’s powers to support energy costs will be welcome news for my South Cambridgeshire constituents and for people all over the country, who face continued pressure from high bills. We Liberal Democrats support this necessary extension but remain concerned that families and businesses are still far too exposed to global energy market shocks.
The latest tensions and the ongoing conflict in the middle east serve only to increase the volatility in energy markets, so the Government’s £150 reduction on energy bills was welcome. However, the increase in wholesale gas prices resulting from the closure of the strait of Hormuz and from the existing tensions between the US and Iran was the main reason for Ofgem’s recent 4% price cap rise, which meant that the average household now faces a further £60 a year in costs.
The extension enables the Government to continue to fund 75% of the renewables obligation with public spending through the Exchequer, rather than through energy bills. We have called for that for a long time. We urge the Minister to go further and to remove the entirety of the levy from people’s bills. The £150 reduction in bills also comes from the discontinuation of the energy company obligation scheme. At the time of that discontinuation, we warned that delays in detailing how the scheme will be replaced would mean many households once again facing cold, damp homes this winter. I know that is an issue of deep concern to the Minister, but it is deeply concerning that only 5,470 homes have been upgraded through the warm homes local grant—just 0.1% of the Government’s target of upgrading 5 million homes by 2030. With energy prices remaining so volatile, improving the energy efficiency of our homes is one of the best ways to reduce bills in the long term and to protect households from future shocks.
It is time to provide a progressive social energy tariff for those struggling with costs. It is time that we acknowledge energy as a basic human need. That is why we Liberal Democrats call for an essential energy guarantee to give every household a discount on the basic portion of their energy use. That would save a typical family around £100 a year, and save the 20% least well-off around £140. Although we support the extension and the Government’s action to reduce some of the costs on energy bills, much more needs to be done to bring bills down and to protect households from future energy price shocks.
Ms Billington
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I will turn briefly to the points raised. The No. 1 priority of this Government is to tackle the cost of living crisis that people face. The Government acted at last year’s Budget by taking an average £150 of costs off energy bills. Those decisions are now factored into bills for the years to come. That decision was taken at the autumn Budget 2025 before the conflict in the middle east and the subsequent increase in wholesale energy prices. As a result, households are better protected from those increases than they would otherwise have been.
The rise in the price cap announced by Ofgem will be deeply concerning news for families. We will continue to monitor the situation ahead of the winter and plan for all contingencies. I recognise that some would like us to go further in immediately reducing bills in response to recent events. One of the first steps that the new Prime Minister took was to cut VAT on electricity bills. Without that intervention, the price cap figure would have been around £45 higher than announced. Although the price cap will increase by 4% on 1 October, driven by ongoing wholesale price volatility as a direct consequence of the events in the middle east, it would have been considerably higher still without the ongoing effects of moving the renewables obligation to the Exchequer, which continues to suppress bills.
Where impacts have been felt by those outside the energy price cap, we have acted, with £53 million of support via the crisis and resilience fund for vulnerable heating oil customers announced in March. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk for his question about the crisis and resilience fund. I understand people’s concern about whether they should apply. I urge anyone who relies on heating oil who has any concerns about their ability to afford to keep their home warm this winter to apply to the fund, and I will be keen to ensure that local authorities recognise their responsibilities when it comes to disbursing funds accordingly.
Graham Stuart
The Minister is being most generous in giving way. There was a clear manifesto promise to reduce energy bills by £300. Is that manifesto promise still extant? Is she intent on delivering it, and if so, how and when?
Ms Billington
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am sure we will continue to have conversations about this. Our manifesto commitment is absolutely to make sure that we have lower energy bills in the future. We also have to be honest about how we manage external shocks to our system and make sure that we are protecting customers and consumers from those. That is one reason why we have the clean power plan, and why we are looking to reform the market over time so that we are not exposed to the kinds of global shocks that push up prices, as we have seen recently.
Graham Stuart
The Minister is being most generous again. I did not ask her about protecting consumers from energy price shocks; I asked about a clear, unequivocal manifesto pledge to reduce household energy bills by £300. She, like her predecessors, refuses to address it directly. It was a clear promise. She and her colleagues were elected on the basis of delivering that, and this Government are not delivering it. They are delivering higher bills at a time when people are struggling with household finances. Those people demand and expect that Ministers in the Government account for that promise and tell us whether it will be delivered, and if so, how.
Ms Billington
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is very clear. As I said, we absolutely stand by our commitment. The previous Energy Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), said:
“Bills are too high and we stand by our promise to get bills down by up to £300 by 2030.”
We have already taken £150 off bills as a consequence of the decisions made in the previous Budget. The new Prime Minister has announced a £45 reduction on average across an energy bill because of the reduction in VAT. The independent Resolution Foundation found that across 2026 as a whole, the typical energy bill is now expected to be more than £200 lower in real terms than in 2024 before the conflict in the middle east began.
I understand that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness knows a lot about the energy system and I respect his understanding, but when there are global shocks like there are, we have to do everything we can as a Government to protect consumers from those global shocks. That includes the short term with the efforts we are putting in now, and the long term in reforming the market. I look forward to seeing him supporting our reform of that market in order to be able to protect consumers in the future.
The UK has a diverse and resilient energy system—indeed, one that the right hon. Gentleman oversaw for some time—and we will of course continue to monitor the situation in the middle east closely. I assure colleagues that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality to ensure that the Government can be responsive and responsible. It is important to understand that we need a principled reform to shift the balance of levy costs from the bill to the Exchequer, because we need to make sure that that is a fairer way of dealing with the cost of a shift to a cleaner and more resilient energy system. The reason we have given for not abolishing the renewables obligation, which is a suggestion from the Conservatives, is that it would significantly impact on investor confidence and energy security. There is a risk of there being no certainty that 25,000 renewable energy projects would continue generating without that subsidy. I am sure that His Majesty’s Opposition would not want a set of policy proposals that would threaten the security of our energy system in that way.
The draft regulations extend a time limit on essential legal powers that will enable us to take action to reduce people’s energy bills. While simple in themselves, the regulations support the reduction of energy bills, which is a key part of the Government’s focus on the cost of living.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Mr Calvin Bailey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. The purpose of the draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 29 June 2026, is to make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following amendments introduced through the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. The draft regulations ensure that the service complaints system remains aligned with primary legislation and continues to operate effectively.
The draft regulations introduce two principal amendments. First, they amend the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015 to replace references to the “appropriate officer” with references to the “appropriate person”. That reflects amendments made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025 to section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006. It clarifies that suitably qualified civilians as well as military personnel may carry out specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The draft regulations also include a transitional provision to ensure that existing cases continue smoothly when the changes come into force. Overall, the amendments provide greater flexibility and efficiency in the administration of the system, while maintaining existing safeguards and preserving service personnel’s rights.
Secondly, the draft regulations amend the list of matters that may not be the subject of a service complaint. Specifically, they provide that decisions relating to whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints system. That will ensure that the system is not burdened with complaints concerning procedural admissibility decisions and will support the efficient operation of the service complaints process.
Together, these amendments ensure that the service complaints regulations remain consistent with the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025, while improving administrative flexibility and supporting the efficient operation of the service complaints system.
The draft regulations are made under the powers contained in the Armed Forces Act 2006. They make consequential amendments to the Armed Forces (Service Complaints Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2015, following changes to primary legislation made by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. The amendments contained in the draft regulations are technical and consequential in nature. The amendment permitting suitably qualified civilians to undertake specific administrative functions within the service complaints system was requested by the single services to provide greater flexibility in administrating the system. The amendments will be implemented through existing service complaints processes and procedures, and any necessary guidance and administrative instructions will be updated to reflect the changes made by the draft regulations.
In summary, the draft regulations make two technical and consequential amendments to the service complaints system. They improve administrative flexibility, support the efficient operation of the service complaints process and ensure consistency between the service complaints regulations and the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, these amendments do not alter service personnel’s rights, the grounds on which service complaints may be made or the protections available within the service complaints system. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The service complaints system is a vital safeguard for members of the armed forces and those who have served. It has been brilliant to be on the Armed Forces Bill Committee over the past year with Members from the Liberal Democrats and many Government Members. It is nice to be able to touch on this in a consensual way, and those on the Government Front Bench will be happy to know that we will not seek to divide the Committee.
This statutory instrument gives people who believe that they have been wronged in a matter relating to their service a route to seek redress. Everyone who serves or has served has an interest in a process that is fair, accessible and efficient. There has been progress, but serious pressures still remain; the Armed Forces Bill Committee heard that repeatedly when we visited the service justice unit down in Portsmouth. In her 2025 annual report, the Service Complaints Ombudsman, Mariette Hughes, assessed the system as efficient and effective for the first time, but not yet fair. The report also records that the tri-service timeliness targets were not met, and that staffing problems across all three services hindered progress on cases.
The Royal Air Force, in whose outfit the Minister served, illustrates the pressure. Its workforce review identified under-resourcing of all four full-time case management roles. Under the new timeliness measure, 42% of RAF complaints were closed within the 24-week target in 2025, against a 90% target. The average resolution time rose from 22 weeks to 28 weeks, and the number of open RAF cases increased for the third year running.
Against that backdrop, the Opposition believe that the instrument replacing the term “appropriate officer” with “appropriate person” is a good change. It allows for administrative roles, following a referral from the commissioner, to be carried out by a competent civilian as well as by military officers. The role includes informing the individual that the allegation has been referred, finding out whether they wish to make a service complaint and notifying the commissioner of the outcome. Those are referral and notification functions. The instrument does not give a civilian a new power to determine the merits of the underlying complaint. This reform will streamline the system, ease resourcing pressures and deliver better value for money.
The second change enacted by the instrument concerns a decision on whether an appeal was brought on a ground permitted by the applicable regulations. The instrument adds that decision to the list of matters about which a person may make a service complaint, and the 2025 annual report gives useful context. Between 2021 and 2025, admissibility applications to the ombudsman increased by 72%, from 108 to 186, while substance and maladministration applications increased by 5%. In 2025, 37% of the admissibility applications concerned appeal admissibility reviews, while only 15% of the admissibility review cases were upheld—by far the lowest proportion of all applications being upheld.
We know from having heard directly from the service justice unit that the wider system is already under pressure, and it is an issue we have tried to resolve through the Armed Forces Bill. A complaint received in 2025 that was not appealed took an average of 20 weeks to close; where an appeal was admitted, the average was 33 weeks. It is therefore reasonable to prevent the specified decision on valid appeal grounds from becoming the subject of fresh service complaints. The instrument will help to relieve pressure on the complaints system and increase the resourcing available to deal with other complaints, and it will not touch the right to appeal on applicable grounds. The risk of injustice, we believe, is minimal, and as such, the Opposition support this instrument.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I would just like to ratify and concur with what has been said. The explanatory notes say:
“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”
I agree with the wording and the amendments to the wording, so I am happy to support the instrument.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I will not keep the Committee long. I am very pleased to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Minister, still in post, as this is a policy area that he has cared deeply about throughout his life. I share the broad support for the instrument expressed by the shadow Minister, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East.
I have only two questions, and I appreciate that the Minister may want to write to me afterwards for clarification; I am perfectly content for him to do so. On paragraph 5.3 of the explanatory memorandum, I would be grateful if he could set out to the Committee, now or subsequently, what the definition of “competent person” is and what that constitutes. I appreciate it may be set out in the 2006 or 2025 primary parent legislation to these draft regulations, but if he can, I would be grateful for a little clarification.
Finally, paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum refers to the legislation being continuously monitored. If the Minister can offer a little more flesh on the bones as to how that monitoring takes place—whether it is by serving officers, his Department or Ministers—I would be grateful. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I support what the Minister seeks to do with this statutory instrument.
Mr Bailey
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine, and I thank Members for their contributions. I welcome the statement from the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East and the questions from the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, who is a passionate advocate for service-related matters and for his constituents who have served. It would only be fair for me to write to him with some clarity on the two points he raised, because they are slightly more technical than the actual substance of the draft regulations, which are quite straightforward.
As I have set out, the draft regulations make two very simple but consequential amendments to the service complaints system. The first provides greater flexibility, which the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East spoke about, by allowing suitably qualified civilians as well as military personnel to carry out the specified administrative functions within the service complaints system. The second amendment clarifies that decisions on whether an appeal has been brought on valid grounds cannot themselves be challenged through the service complaints process, supporting the efficient operation of the service complaints system.
Together, those amendments ensure that the service complaints regulations remain consistent with the Armed Forces Act 2006, as amended by the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025. Importantly, as we have heard, the amendments do not alter service personnel’s rights, the grounds on which service complaints may be made, or the protections available within the service complaints system. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.