Lords Grand Committee
Tuesday 14th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:00
11:00
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, the environmental permitting. Waste, controlling or transporting and relevant functions of primary authorities. Amendment England Regulations 2026 were laid before the House on the 20th of May 2026. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in their review of the statutory instrument. The committee's scrutiny is a vital part of our legislative process, ensuring that the policy intentions behind secondary legislation are clear and well-founded. Waste crime blights our communities across our streets, fields and woodlands.
Criminals dump waste illegally. This is an eyesore and causes damage to our environment. A light touch registration system for those who transport and deal in waste has been exploited over the years by waste. These regulations will introduce permits for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site based waste activities. Dealers registration system. 16 Environmental Permitting Regulations while repealing the current carriers, brokers and control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site based waste activities.
Permitting will mean that those who apply will need to undergo a stricter range of background checks, including criminal records checks, as well as demonstrate that 16 environmental permitting regulations. While repealing the current carriers, brokers and dealers registration system, these regulations will introduce permits for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site based waste activities. Permitting will mean that those who apply will need to undergo a stricter range of background checks, including criminal records checks, as well as demonstrate that they are technically competent to do the job.
System of permitting will be managed by the Environment Agency, who will be responsible for managing applications and ensuring compliance. The Environment Agency will also be able to suspend and ultimately revoke permits when conditions are breached. They will be able to prosecute, leading to fines or up to five years imprisonment. The fees introduced for permits will mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for compliance work. Actions will make it easier for the public to trust the people. They hand their waste to, alongside permits.
Being able to be checked online. We are requiring that waste controllers and transporters include their permit number on advertising. Whether this is a Facebook or a branded van ad, the public will be able to spot and check on the operators that they work with. This reform is one of a number and in the government's Waste Crime Action Plan that was published in March, which together strengthen the regulatory framework and the Environment Agency ability to prevent, detect and act against waste crime. We have taken further legislative action by replacing outdated paper based methods for monitoring waste movements with digital waste tracking, and we will also be tightening the waste permit exemption system by removing three exemptions and tightening the conditions of seven others that have long been abused by waste criminals.
Alongside the reforms, it is important we provide those responsible for tackling waste crime with the tools needed to effectively stamp it out. We have committed an additional £45 million for the Environment Agency to spend on waste crime enforcement over the next three financial years to support this. This funding will mean that there are more boots on the ground to expand its enforcement activity and ensure that waste criminals face the consequences. I want to acknowledge the strength of support from the industry and their patients over the years as it has been developed.
These regulations represent a significant change for the waste system and will help level the playing field for operators, as well as protecting our communities and the environment from waste criminals. Alongside the reforms to the carriers, brokers and dealers system, the regulations also bring the Environment Act of 2021 into the scope of primary authority by adding it to schedule three of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act. Primary authority is a means for businesses to receive assured and tailored advice on meeting regulations such as environmental health trading standards or fire safety through a single point of contact.
This amendment is particularly necessary to enable primary authorities to play a role in effectively supporting retailers in undertaking their obligations required in the deposit return scheme. I beg to move question.
Criminals dump waste illegally. This is an eyesore and causes damage to our environment. A light touch registration system for those who transport and deal in waste has been exploited over the years by waste. These regulations will introduce permits for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site based waste activities. Dealers registration system. 16 Environmental Permitting Regulations while repealing the current carriers, brokers and control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site based waste activities.
Permitting will mean that those who apply will need to undergo a stricter range of background checks, including criminal records checks, as well as demonstrate that 16 environmental permitting regulations. While repealing the current carriers, brokers and dealers registration system, these regulations will introduce permits for those who control and transport waste, bringing the system in line with site based waste activities. Permitting will mean that those who apply will need to undergo a stricter range of background checks, including criminal records checks, as well as demonstrate that they are technically competent to do the job.
System of permitting will be managed by the Environment Agency, who will be responsible for managing applications and ensuring compliance. The Environment Agency will also be able to suspend and ultimately revoke permits when conditions are breached. They will be able to prosecute, leading to fines or up to five years imprisonment. The fees introduced for permits will mean that the Environment Agency will be effectively resourced for compliance work. Actions will make it easier for the public to trust the people. They hand their waste to, alongside permits.
Being able to be checked online. We are requiring that waste controllers and transporters include their permit number on advertising. Whether this is a Facebook or a branded van ad, the public will be able to spot and check on the operators that they work with. This reform is one of a number and in the government's Waste Crime Action Plan that was published in March, which together strengthen the regulatory framework and the Environment Agency ability to prevent, detect and act against waste crime. We have taken further legislative action by replacing outdated paper based methods for monitoring waste movements with digital waste tracking, and we will also be tightening the waste permit exemption system by removing three exemptions and tightening the conditions of seven others that have long been abused by waste criminals.
Alongside the reforms, it is important we provide those responsible for tackling waste crime with the tools needed to effectively stamp it out. We have committed an additional £45 million for the Environment Agency to spend on waste crime enforcement over the next three financial years to support this. This funding will mean that there are more boots on the ground to expand its enforcement activity and ensure that waste criminals face the consequences. I want to acknowledge the strength of support from the industry and their patients over the years as it has been developed.
These regulations represent a significant change for the waste system and will help level the playing field for operators, as well as protecting our communities and the environment from waste criminals. Alongside the reforms to the carriers, brokers and dealers system, the regulations also bring the Environment Act of 2021 into the scope of primary authority by adding it to schedule three of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act. Primary authority is a means for businesses to receive assured and tailored advice on meeting regulations such as environmental health trading standards or fire safety through a single point of contact.
This amendment is particularly necessary to enable primary authorities to play a role in effectively supporting retailers in undertaking their obligations required in the deposit return scheme. I beg to move question.
11:05
11:05
11:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We want to congratulate the government. I think this was first put forward eight years ago and it's finally happening. I just want to say well done, and I appreciate it's not happening till next year. But we need to recognise the long amount of time it's got there and I hope its results will be very rapid.
11:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for introducing this instrument. And on these benches we welcome it warmly. As the minister is all too aware, I've raised the issue of waste crime in the House several times. I'm genuinely pleased that this instrument is arriving as a crucial part of the long term solution. We need to get control of our waste system and to lock the criminals out. And this, see, as the minister has said, does not arrive in isolation.
It does follow on waste crime action plan and the instrument beginning the roll out of real time digital waste tracking that's already been introduced together with the exemptions reform promised later this year. And next. April's instrument completing end to end digital tracking ahead of the deposit return scheme. We're finally beginning to see the basic architecture. This sector is needed for years so that we can know who's moving waste, where it's going, and making sure that our systems are fit for purpose.
So this is really the first time I've really been able to say that. I am really hopeful, and I see a future and a way forward. So, you know, I really do welcome that. Um, on the Environment Agency's own estimates, around 18% of the waste in England passes through criminal hands at some point in its journey. Um, the, the structural feature of the current system has allowed been allowed to flourish. And, and this has been allowed to happen for, for a number of years.
And as a result, we have a big historical legacy of, of waste sites do still need to be cleared. I notice the Environment Agency's watch list for high priority sites has grown to 139 as of the 10th of July. Um, I welcome this transparency. But again, this this legacy does still need further work. So I do want to thank the minister and officials in the Environment Agency, um, for all the work and really a change of culture that has happened under this government over the last sort of 18 months or so.
So that that is genuinely welcome. Turning to the instrument itself, as the minister said, it replaces the older carrier, broker and dealer registration system with a proper environmental permit, split sensibly into three categories waste, controlling, waste transporting and combined activities so oversight can match risk rather than apply. And as a single blunt instrument. Gone are the days when it was possible to register your dog as a waste carrier. Permits will run for three years, and the Environment Agency gains real power to check before granting a permit, rather than only acting after the damage is done.
Plus, powers to suspend and revoke. So this is a genuine structural improvement. Um, I want to be fair with the minister on timing. The minister has already spoken about this, but obviously this instrument has been a long time in coming. Consultations closed in 2022, but the delay is obviously not with. This government entirely. It was with past governments. Um so, you know, it is great that this this instrument is here. Um, I do have several questions.
Excuse me. Um, on, on it. So on exemptions. Can I ask the noble baroness, Minister, how will the department ensure charities and other low risk categories are not quietly colonised by operators or organised criminal networks seeking to avoid scrutiny?And will monitoring be ongoing?Not one off assessments at the drafting stage on interrogation. How will permitted regimes interact with the digital waste tracking that's already rolled out?Maybe if the minister could just say a word on that.
Obviously a permit is only as good as the data behind it. On exports, illegal and misdescribed waste exports do also remain a major, um, route for criminal activity. So could I ask what assessment has been made of this instrument's bearing on waste that should not be leaving our shores or is leaving our shores?Miss. Miss permitted on funding and delivery with £45 million, which obviously we welcome in new money for the Environment Agency and several reform strands running in parallel. Could I ask how will the government monitor and review the programme as a whole?Not just instruments or instruments, so that we know how the money is working and that it's delivering results that we were expecting?And does the Minister agree that we need overall benchmarks and reporting sort of across this piece as as we're undertaking these various strands of structural reform on.
Industry awareness, um, reform only closes a loophole if waste produces no. And carriers need need permits and that they're checking that one is in place. So can I ask what, what steps will ensure that businesses understand this and are encouraged. Um. To apply for the right permits and they know what they need to do. Um, I slightly worry that the resources for this information, part of working with industry may not be sufficient for structural change across the whole of the industry.
Um, on renewal, obviously they're renewed three years time. Could I just confirm with the minister that at that point there will be proper checks in place to, to review what's happened over over the first three years on an individual carrier and broker basis. Um, a permit granted once and never revisited would simply not resolve the problem, but could allow illegal activity to continue. Um, and then it's coming towards the end on transition. Obviously criminals and the organised criminal networks do adapt quickly, sometimes much more quickly than governments can.
We have this 12 month window during which the old registration remains valid. And I just wanted to ask the minister, I'm just in this transition period, what what work is being done to make sure that that isn't actually an additional opportunity for the organised networks to, to exploit the change of system. None of this works without an Environment agency, properly funded and staffed to issue permits, monitor compliance, and take enforcement actions against those who ignore them. So I just finally ask, really, what?What?Continuous review the government is undertaking to make sure that the Environment Agency has the staffing, the computer systems, and the ability to conduct all the tasks that it needs to do.
To conclude, we absolutely welcome this instrument. We're really pleased to see it. Um, it's about time that we turn the tables on these organised criminals. And then just finally, Baroness Sheehan has her own, um. Uh, private member's bill coming up. And I would encourage the minister if she could work with, with her on trying to, um, offer whatever government support they can for it.
It does follow on waste crime action plan and the instrument beginning the roll out of real time digital waste tracking that's already been introduced together with the exemptions reform promised later this year. And next. April's instrument completing end to end digital tracking ahead of the deposit return scheme. We're finally beginning to see the basic architecture. This sector is needed for years so that we can know who's moving waste, where it's going, and making sure that our systems are fit for purpose.
So this is really the first time I've really been able to say that. I am really hopeful, and I see a future and a way forward. So, you know, I really do welcome that. Um, on the Environment Agency's own estimates, around 18% of the waste in England passes through criminal hands at some point in its journey. Um, the, the structural feature of the current system has allowed been allowed to flourish. And, and this has been allowed to happen for, for a number of years.
And as a result, we have a big historical legacy of, of waste sites do still need to be cleared. I notice the Environment Agency's watch list for high priority sites has grown to 139 as of the 10th of July. Um, I welcome this transparency. But again, this this legacy does still need further work. So I do want to thank the minister and officials in the Environment Agency, um, for all the work and really a change of culture that has happened under this government over the last sort of 18 months or so.
So that that is genuinely welcome. Turning to the instrument itself, as the minister said, it replaces the older carrier, broker and dealer registration system with a proper environmental permit, split sensibly into three categories waste, controlling, waste transporting and combined activities so oversight can match risk rather than apply. And as a single blunt instrument. Gone are the days when it was possible to register your dog as a waste carrier. Permits will run for three years, and the Environment Agency gains real power to check before granting a permit, rather than only acting after the damage is done.
Plus, powers to suspend and revoke. So this is a genuine structural improvement. Um, I want to be fair with the minister on timing. The minister has already spoken about this, but obviously this instrument has been a long time in coming. Consultations closed in 2022, but the delay is obviously not with. This government entirely. It was with past governments. Um so, you know, it is great that this this instrument is here. Um, I do have several questions.
Excuse me. Um, on, on it. So on exemptions. Can I ask the noble baroness, Minister, how will the department ensure charities and other low risk categories are not quietly colonised by operators or organised criminal networks seeking to avoid scrutiny?And will monitoring be ongoing?Not one off assessments at the drafting stage on interrogation. How will permitted regimes interact with the digital waste tracking that's already rolled out?Maybe if the minister could just say a word on that.
Obviously a permit is only as good as the data behind it. On exports, illegal and misdescribed waste exports do also remain a major, um, route for criminal activity. So could I ask what assessment has been made of this instrument's bearing on waste that should not be leaving our shores or is leaving our shores?Miss. Miss permitted on funding and delivery with £45 million, which obviously we welcome in new money for the Environment Agency and several reform strands running in parallel. Could I ask how will the government monitor and review the programme as a whole?Not just instruments or instruments, so that we know how the money is working and that it's delivering results that we were expecting?And does the Minister agree that we need overall benchmarks and reporting sort of across this piece as as we're undertaking these various strands of structural reform on.
Industry awareness, um, reform only closes a loophole if waste produces no. And carriers need need permits and that they're checking that one is in place. So can I ask what, what steps will ensure that businesses understand this and are encouraged. Um. To apply for the right permits and they know what they need to do. Um, I slightly worry that the resources for this information, part of working with industry may not be sufficient for structural change across the whole of the industry.
Um, on renewal, obviously they're renewed three years time. Could I just confirm with the minister that at that point there will be proper checks in place to, to review what's happened over over the first three years on an individual carrier and broker basis. Um, a permit granted once and never revisited would simply not resolve the problem, but could allow illegal activity to continue. Um, and then it's coming towards the end on transition. Obviously criminals and the organised criminal networks do adapt quickly, sometimes much more quickly than governments can.
We have this 12 month window during which the old registration remains valid. And I just wanted to ask the minister, I'm just in this transition period, what what work is being done to make sure that that isn't actually an additional opportunity for the organised networks to, to exploit the change of system. None of this works without an Environment agency, properly funded and staffed to issue permits, monitor compliance, and take enforcement actions against those who ignore them. So I just finally ask, really, what?What?Continuous review the government is undertaking to make sure that the Environment Agency has the staffing, the computer systems, and the ability to conduct all the tasks that it needs to do.
To conclude, we absolutely welcome this instrument. We're really pleased to see it. Um, it's about time that we turn the tables on these organised criminals. And then just finally, Baroness Sheehan has her own, um. Uh, private member's bill coming up. And I would encourage the minister if she could work with, with her on trying to, um, offer whatever government support they can for it.
11:12
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Well, I thank the noble lady, the Baroness, the Minister, for bringing these regulations before your lordships House. I can be commendably brief or briefer than I normally am, because we give a very, very warm welcome to these excellent regulations. Uh, we on these benches have repeatedly raised the issue of waste crime and called for tougher measures against the perpetrators during the Crime and Policing Bill. The government did not support our amendments to give police the powers to seize the vehicles of perpetrators of these crimes.
I'm sure if the noble lady, the minister, were to draw this to the attention of the excellent, caring and meticulous Lords Minister for Crime and Policing, he might wish to reflect on this again. Nevertheless, we welcome this step to better monitor the transportation of waste, taking into account which activities are low and high risk. These regulations, at least intended to ensure compliance and better and and better identify criminal activity. Now, I understand that the consultation demonstrated that a majority of respondents supported replacing the carrier, broker and dealer registration system.
With this permitting regime under the 2016 environmental Permitting England and Wales regulations. That said, could the noble Baroness, the Minister, outline how the government will ensure businesses are made aware of the changes, as well as their ability to afford the costs involved, because there will be permit fees, registration fees, time costs, technical competence, costs and tax, etc.. Now these regulations give more power to the Environment Agency as well as responsibilities in order to issue permits. The increased enforcement costs are estimated to be 22.1 million, but the explanatory memorandum also states that the Environment Agency may benefit from efficiency savings.
So could the noble lady, the Minister, provide an exact figure of how these savings will be made?And more broadly, I come back to the one major quibble we've had on the opposition benches, and that is to make the National Crime Agency the lead. When in, in in the joint unit, when it comes to tackling waste, we're dealing with massive organised crime here. I perfectly well accept and believe that if a farmer slurry tank leaks, then vitamin agencies have perfect one to investigate it. There was a leak from a factory.
The Environment Agency is the best one to tackle it, but when I served until recently on the on the Food Standards Agency, I was the lead for the National Food Crime Unit. And the briefing we'd get there was that the people who were moving, hundreds of tonnes of condemned food were in the transportation business of anything illegal, so they could be moving condemned food one day, rubble the next, stolen high value vehicles the next day. It's part of that big organised crime syndicate. And quite frankly, I think the Environment Agency and these benches, we believe Environment Agency is not capable of dealing with that massive £1 billion cross border fraud.
So we all want to see a crackdown on crime. And all I'm asking of the government is will they will Defra and the Minister, please consider carefully that with the extra money they're giving to the to the Joint Unit on Waste Crime, if they would put the National Crime Agency in this regard in the lead in tackling waste crime, keep the Environment Agency working there as second in command. But the National Crime Agency are the only ones capable, in our opinion, of handling £1 billion criminal enterprise.
So with these few little quibbles, I look forward to the minister's response in due course.
I'm sure if the noble lady, the minister, were to draw this to the attention of the excellent, caring and meticulous Lords Minister for Crime and Policing, he might wish to reflect on this again. Nevertheless, we welcome this step to better monitor the transportation of waste, taking into account which activities are low and high risk. These regulations, at least intended to ensure compliance and better and and better identify criminal activity. Now, I understand that the consultation demonstrated that a majority of respondents supported replacing the carrier, broker and dealer registration system.
With this permitting regime under the 2016 environmental Permitting England and Wales regulations. That said, could the noble Baroness, the Minister, outline how the government will ensure businesses are made aware of the changes, as well as their ability to afford the costs involved, because there will be permit fees, registration fees, time costs, technical competence, costs and tax, etc.. Now these regulations give more power to the Environment Agency as well as responsibilities in order to issue permits. The increased enforcement costs are estimated to be 22.1 million, but the explanatory memorandum also states that the Environment Agency may benefit from efficiency savings.
So could the noble lady, the Minister, provide an exact figure of how these savings will be made?And more broadly, I come back to the one major quibble we've had on the opposition benches, and that is to make the National Crime Agency the lead. When in, in in the joint unit, when it comes to tackling waste, we're dealing with massive organised crime here. I perfectly well accept and believe that if a farmer slurry tank leaks, then vitamin agencies have perfect one to investigate it. There was a leak from a factory.
The Environment Agency is the best one to tackle it, but when I served until recently on the on the Food Standards Agency, I was the lead for the National Food Crime Unit. And the briefing we'd get there was that the people who were moving, hundreds of tonnes of condemned food were in the transportation business of anything illegal, so they could be moving condemned food one day, rubble the next, stolen high value vehicles the next day. It's part of that big organised crime syndicate. And quite frankly, I think the Environment Agency and these benches, we believe Environment Agency is not capable of dealing with that massive £1 billion cross border fraud.
So we all want to see a crackdown on crime. And all I'm asking of the government is will they will Defra and the Minister, please consider carefully that with the extra money they're giving to the to the Joint Unit on Waste Crime, if they would put the National Crime Agency in this regard in the lead in tackling waste crime, keep the Environment Agency working there as second in command. But the National Crime Agency are the only ones capable, in our opinion, of handling £1 billion criminal enterprise.
So with these few little quibbles, I look forward to the minister's response in due course.
11:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, can I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion, and can I thank all noble Lords for their strong support for the measures that are being brought forward?Um, clearly, as noble Lords have said, this has been a long time coming. Um so it's really good to see that we've finally got this, uh, in front of you today. Because one thing as well that's come across really clearly, not just today, but in a number of questions and parliamentary debates is the huge problem of criminal waste activity that blight so much of our our countryside.
Um, there were a number of questions asked. I will, um, do my best to cover them off and if there's anything else then I've missed off. Well, I will make sure that I get back to noble Lords in, in writing. Um, first of all, um evaluation, monitoring uh, was came up so clearly we recognise tackling waste crime requires sustained effort and a willingness to adapt to circumstances evolve. So, um delivery of waste crime action plan will be accompanied by a process of continuous review and improvement.
And we will also regularly assess the effectiveness of the measures that are introduced. We'll also consider any new evidence as it emerges. And also, I think quite importantly identify opportunities to go further where existing interventions are not achieving the desired outcomes. And this is designed to ensure our approach to tackling waste remains agile, responsive and focused on achieving lasting change. And and also, just while I'm on that, um, the Environment Agency is also developing improved indicators for 2022, 2026, 27, including measures on larger scale offending response times and deterrents, the current Environment Agency Scorecard metric covers only a narrow proportion of illegal waste activity, and waste crime is hard to measure, as it is deliberately hidden.
Um, we reckon that only around 27% of incidents are actually reported, so we're working closely in depth with the EA to deliver new indicators so we can improve the visibility of what the problem is and get a better grip on it. Um. Now on the Waste crime action plan, just moving on to how we actually deliver that. Um, the way it's set up is, is, is leading the delivery of the action plan, working closely with the Environment Agency as the national lead for waste crime.
But that's being done alongside HMRC, the Home Office, police forces and local authorities. Because if we're going to successfully tackle this, we need coordinated cross-government action. Um, I think I mentioned in my speech we've committed an extra £45 million over three years. Um, but also an extra 5.6 million uplift in 25, 26. And that's designed to, uh. Increase frontline enforcement intelligence and operational capacity so that we have more officers, we have more specialised units, and we have more multi-agency act activity.
And also the structural reforms bringing in, whether that's CBD reform, whether that's digital waste tracking, the exemption reforms they're being implemented in order to design crime out of the system so that prevention and compliance are integral, rather than reliant on reactive enforcement alone. And we're also driving through other concrete operational measures. Earlier interventions permit action restriction notices, prosecutions, use of advanced technology, things like drones, satellite imagery and strengthened intelligence via the joint unit, which I'll come on to shortly. And again, just on monitoring effectiveness of all of that.
We will be improving the improved metrics, but we're also going to be reviewing the multi-agency waste crime response and adapt delivery on that. So, so that the the action plan remains very alive and responsive. And on digital waste tracking. I know the noble, uh. Asked about digital waste tracking, the way that's going to work is it's going to require information to be submitted to a central system of all movements of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, with a few pragmatic exemptions from the point the waste is produced to the point that it arrives at the waste receiving facility.
Replace paper processes with consistent near real data and sorry, near real time data, so it will improve traceability and highlighting any unusual movements that are linked to misdescription diversion or illegal or illegal exports. That's one of the ways we will tackle the illegal export issue that the noble Lord asked about. Um, the first phase started in April and it's going to be mandatory from October. And then the second phase will cover the whole waste movement chain. Um, and it is planned that that will be available for all relevant operators to use voluntarily from spring next year with a mandatory rollout from the following October.
Um, the exemptions were raised again by the, the noble Lord. Um we need to reform the waste exemption regime because we need to stop criminals having the opportunities that they're currently, um, being able to, to get to hide illegal activity behind permit exemptions, which is why we are removing the three most abused and tightening up conditions on the others. Um, and exemptions allow low risk waste activities to operate without a permit. But we also know that some have been widely abused by criminals. Um, we're also going to bring in limits on quantities of operating conditions and stronger record keeping.
So what we need to do is remove the weak points, protect the permitting regime. Um and we are currently working on what the, the necessary legislative amendments would look like, uh, like on that. And again, when doing that, we can take into account some of the issues that the noble Lord raised around. We don't want to cause problems for people who are, who are, are legitimately doing their, doing their work. Um, the noble Lord also asked about, uh, businesses and people working in the system.
And clearly when we're designing regulations like this, we have to work with those who are going to be using it in order to ensure that it works in the most effective way. And we don't end up when we start monitoring, realising that actually it's not practical because it's all about how are things going to practically make a difference?Um, on the, the explanatory memorandum, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the Environment Agency and efficiency savings. Controllers and transporter system will mean that operators are required to submit more detailed information to permit applications.
And then this information will be used by the Environment Agency to more efficiently identify high risk operators and conduct monitoring and compliance work. The billion pounds um that. Uh, that the noble Lord referred to around um cross country organised crime the way. We're going to try to work with the National Crime Agency, which I think is the point. The noble Lord was to is that the Joint Unit for Waste Crime will provide the crucial collective operational capability and to ensure that the wider system for tackling waste crime remains effective in the face of an evolving threat.
Def is also working closely with the National Police Chiefs Council and the Home Office to undertake a review of the end to end multi-agency response to waste crime that will cover areas such as information sharing, local to national coordination and prosecution capabilities, and the review will also identify opportunities to strengthen how agencies work together and ensure the overall system remains effective, resilient and equipped to make future meet future challenges and the existing capabilities, including the J w, G, j, u, WC, will continue to play a key role within the strengthened framework.
Um, there were a number of questions asked. I will, um, do my best to cover them off and if there's anything else then I've missed off. Well, I will make sure that I get back to noble Lords in, in writing. Um, first of all, um evaluation, monitoring uh, was came up so clearly we recognise tackling waste crime requires sustained effort and a willingness to adapt to circumstances evolve. So, um delivery of waste crime action plan will be accompanied by a process of continuous review and improvement.
And we will also regularly assess the effectiveness of the measures that are introduced. We'll also consider any new evidence as it emerges. And also, I think quite importantly identify opportunities to go further where existing interventions are not achieving the desired outcomes. And this is designed to ensure our approach to tackling waste remains agile, responsive and focused on achieving lasting change. And and also, just while I'm on that, um, the Environment Agency is also developing improved indicators for 2022, 2026, 27, including measures on larger scale offending response times and deterrents, the current Environment Agency Scorecard metric covers only a narrow proportion of illegal waste activity, and waste crime is hard to measure, as it is deliberately hidden.
Um, we reckon that only around 27% of incidents are actually reported, so we're working closely in depth with the EA to deliver new indicators so we can improve the visibility of what the problem is and get a better grip on it. Um. Now on the Waste crime action plan, just moving on to how we actually deliver that. Um, the way it's set up is, is, is leading the delivery of the action plan, working closely with the Environment Agency as the national lead for waste crime.
But that's being done alongside HMRC, the Home Office, police forces and local authorities. Because if we're going to successfully tackle this, we need coordinated cross-government action. Um, I think I mentioned in my speech we've committed an extra £45 million over three years. Um, but also an extra 5.6 million uplift in 25, 26. And that's designed to, uh. Increase frontline enforcement intelligence and operational capacity so that we have more officers, we have more specialised units, and we have more multi-agency act activity.
And also the structural reforms bringing in, whether that's CBD reform, whether that's digital waste tracking, the exemption reforms they're being implemented in order to design crime out of the system so that prevention and compliance are integral, rather than reliant on reactive enforcement alone. And we're also driving through other concrete operational measures. Earlier interventions permit action restriction notices, prosecutions, use of advanced technology, things like drones, satellite imagery and strengthened intelligence via the joint unit, which I'll come on to shortly. And again, just on monitoring effectiveness of all of that.
We will be improving the improved metrics, but we're also going to be reviewing the multi-agency waste crime response and adapt delivery on that. So, so that the the action plan remains very alive and responsive. And on digital waste tracking. I know the noble, uh. Asked about digital waste tracking, the way that's going to work is it's going to require information to be submitted to a central system of all movements of hazardous and non-hazardous waste, with a few pragmatic exemptions from the point the waste is produced to the point that it arrives at the waste receiving facility.
Replace paper processes with consistent near real data and sorry, near real time data, so it will improve traceability and highlighting any unusual movements that are linked to misdescription diversion or illegal or illegal exports. That's one of the ways we will tackle the illegal export issue that the noble Lord asked about. Um, the first phase started in April and it's going to be mandatory from October. And then the second phase will cover the whole waste movement chain. Um, and it is planned that that will be available for all relevant operators to use voluntarily from spring next year with a mandatory rollout from the following October.
Um, the exemptions were raised again by the, the noble Lord. Um we need to reform the waste exemption regime because we need to stop criminals having the opportunities that they're currently, um, being able to, to get to hide illegal activity behind permit exemptions, which is why we are removing the three most abused and tightening up conditions on the others. Um, and exemptions allow low risk waste activities to operate without a permit. But we also know that some have been widely abused by criminals. Um, we're also going to bring in limits on quantities of operating conditions and stronger record keeping.
So what we need to do is remove the weak points, protect the permitting regime. Um and we are currently working on what the, the necessary legislative amendments would look like, uh, like on that. And again, when doing that, we can take into account some of the issues that the noble Lord raised around. We don't want to cause problems for people who are, who are, are legitimately doing their, doing their work. Um, the noble Lord also asked about, uh, businesses and people working in the system.
And clearly when we're designing regulations like this, we have to work with those who are going to be using it in order to ensure that it works in the most effective way. And we don't end up when we start monitoring, realising that actually it's not practical because it's all about how are things going to practically make a difference?Um, on the, the explanatory memorandum, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about the Environment Agency and efficiency savings. Controllers and transporter system will mean that operators are required to submit more detailed information to permit applications.
And then this information will be used by the Environment Agency to more efficiently identify high risk operators and conduct monitoring and compliance work. The billion pounds um that. Uh, that the noble Lord referred to around um cross country organised crime the way. We're going to try to work with the National Crime Agency, which I think is the point. The noble Lord was to is that the Joint Unit for Waste Crime will provide the crucial collective operational capability and to ensure that the wider system for tackling waste crime remains effective in the face of an evolving threat.
Def is also working closely with the National Police Chiefs Council and the Home Office to undertake a review of the end to end multi-agency response to waste crime that will cover areas such as information sharing, local to national coordination and prosecution capabilities, and the review will also identify opportunities to strengthen how agencies work together and ensure the overall system remains effective, resilient and equipped to make future meet future challenges and the existing capabilities, including the J w, G, j, u, WC, will continue to play a key role within the strengthened framework.
11:24
11:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah, I mean the so so Def and the Environment Agency will be the lead, but we will be working absolutely hand in glove with those other agencies in order to make sure that they effectively tackle the problem that we've got. And as I say, we're going to be monitoring anyway. So if we find that it needs changing in any way to strengthen that, then we will be able to do that. Once we've we've continued to review and monitor because we are bringing all these changes in because we want to make a difference and we want to stop what's been, what's been happening.
Um, two very final things. Um, I think I've mentioned to the noble lady, Baroness Sheehan before, I'd be very happy to meet her to discuss her private member's bill, and I'd hope that we can, we can do that, um, in the not too distant future. Um, and just to the noble lady, Baroness Coffey. I do appreciate the noble lady coming in to offer her support for this s I as she said, this has taken a long time and she herself, I'm sure, did quite a bit of work on this as well.
So I think it's important to see that work started by one government has been completed by another. With that, I beg to move.
Um, two very final things. Um, I think I've mentioned to the noble lady, Baroness Sheehan before, I'd be very happy to meet her to discuss her private member's bill, and I'd hope that we can, we can do that, um, in the not too distant future. Um, and just to the noble lady, Baroness Coffey. I do appreciate the noble lady coming in to offer her support for this s I as she said, this has taken a long time and she herself, I'm sure, did quite a bit of work on this as well.
So I think it's important to see that work started by one government has been completed by another. With that, I beg to move.
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Industrial training. Levy. Brackets. Engineering. Construction. Industry. Training. Ordered. 2026. Bernard Smith of Malvern. My Lords, I beg to move that the committee consider the draft. Industrial training Levy. Engineering. Construction. Industry Training Board order 2026 regulations and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue today. And in my view, the provisions in the instrument are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The statutory purpose of the engineering Construction Industry Training Board, or the Citb, is to make better provision for training across the engineering construction industry in England, Scotland and Wales. The engineering construction industry is critical to the delivery of the government's wider ambitions for economic growth, clean energy and energy security. It provides a skilled workforce needed to build, maintain and operate major energy manufacturing and industrial infrastructure across Great Britain. The ECI, TB and the Construction industry training Board's continued value was confirmed by a 2023 independent review.
It found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry wide investment in training, and is needed to address persistent and structural workforce challenges within the Itb's industry's. This statutory instrument gives effect to the ECI TBS levy proposals for 2026, 27 and 28. The levy remains the primary source of funding, and this order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on In-scope employers. The Citb continues to receive strong support from employers. Over 85% of levy paying employers supported the levy proposals, representing almost 98% of total levy value, exceeding the more than 50% statutory threshold for support required from industry.
Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I just wanted to point out that a 12 week government consultation has just closed on a proposal to bring together both Itbs, the Citb and the Construction Industry Training Board into a single unified body to support the combined skills needs of the engineering, construction and construction sectors. The government is now carefully considering the views raised before making any decisions on reforms that may be needed to ensure that the system delivers the support employers need. We can't prejudge the outcome, but it is vital to the continuity of the Citb support for employers that the levy order we are debating today continues.
If the government choose to proceed with this proposed reform, the earliest that a single body would be in place is spring 2028. The direction of reform require a new ITB levy order. Then this would come to the House through the proper parliamentary process. Returning to this levy order, I give my thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of the regulations laid on the 1st of June 2026. Um, I believe it would be fair to say that they had a clean bill of health from those committees.
This order retains levy assessment rates from the 2023 levy order and retains the exemption threshold to protect small and micro businesses who are nevertheless still eligible for Citb grants and support. An estimated £137.9 million will be raised in levy over 2026 to 2028, which will be invested in supporting the skills needs of the engineering and construction industry. That investment will fund vital programs to widen participation, raise skill levels, increase opportunity and to maintain occupational standards for the industry. This includes targeted grant support to employers to develop the skills pipeline in the Engineering Construction industry.
Since 2023, over 5000 apprenticeship starts have been supported through Citb employer funding across vital disciplines, including electrical, mechanical and nuclear specific roles. This could include direct grants to employers, travel and accommodation costs or costs for any additional qualifications required. The funding raised by the Citb levy directly underpins the country's broader economic priorities. Over 9000 people are employed in the Leviable workforce, with an estimated contribution to our economy. £33 billion in gross value added, rising up to £100 billion when including the wider sectors serviced by the engineering construction industry.
Industry faces significant long standing and future challenges in recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce, which makes voluntary investment in training less likely to occur. Without a statutory levy, we cannot guarantee that the skills, industry and skills industries urgently, urgently needs that the skills industry urgently needs will materialise at the scale required. If this order is not approved, the Citb would be unable to collect levy in 2026 with potential impacts on apprenticeships and vital industry qualifications. Employer support programmes, training standards and the future capability of one of the UK's most economically significant sectors.
According to the Citb, the UK faces an estimated requirement for an additional 40,000 engineering and construction workers and agreeing this order will play a critical role in supporting major infrastructure projects across Great Britain. In addition to industry support. The proposals before the House today have received the full support of the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as do we, that maintaining the TBS ability to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensuring employers across all three nations can access the engineering and construction skills that they need, and I commend these regulations to the committee.
The statutory purpose of the engineering Construction Industry Training Board, or the Citb, is to make better provision for training across the engineering construction industry in England, Scotland and Wales. The engineering construction industry is critical to the delivery of the government's wider ambitions for economic growth, clean energy and energy security. It provides a skilled workforce needed to build, maintain and operate major energy manufacturing and industrial infrastructure across Great Britain. The ECI, TB and the Construction industry training Board's continued value was confirmed by a 2023 independent review.
It found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry wide investment in training, and is needed to address persistent and structural workforce challenges within the Itb's industry's. This statutory instrument gives effect to the ECI TBS levy proposals for 2026, 27 and 28. The levy remains the primary source of funding, and this order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on In-scope employers. The Citb continues to receive strong support from employers. Over 85% of levy paying employers supported the levy proposals, representing almost 98% of total levy value, exceeding the more than 50% statutory threshold for support required from industry.
Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I just wanted to point out that a 12 week government consultation has just closed on a proposal to bring together both Itbs, the Citb and the Construction Industry Training Board into a single unified body to support the combined skills needs of the engineering, construction and construction sectors. The government is now carefully considering the views raised before making any decisions on reforms that may be needed to ensure that the system delivers the support employers need. We can't prejudge the outcome, but it is vital to the continuity of the Citb support for employers that the levy order we are debating today continues.
If the government choose to proceed with this proposed reform, the earliest that a single body would be in place is spring 2028. The direction of reform require a new ITB levy order. Then this would come to the House through the proper parliamentary process. Returning to this levy order, I give my thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of the regulations laid on the 1st of June 2026. Um, I believe it would be fair to say that they had a clean bill of health from those committees.
This order retains levy assessment rates from the 2023 levy order and retains the exemption threshold to protect small and micro businesses who are nevertheless still eligible for Citb grants and support. An estimated £137.9 million will be raised in levy over 2026 to 2028, which will be invested in supporting the skills needs of the engineering and construction industry. That investment will fund vital programs to widen participation, raise skill levels, increase opportunity and to maintain occupational standards for the industry. This includes targeted grant support to employers to develop the skills pipeline in the Engineering Construction industry.
Since 2023, over 5000 apprenticeship starts have been supported through Citb employer funding across vital disciplines, including electrical, mechanical and nuclear specific roles. This could include direct grants to employers, travel and accommodation costs or costs for any additional qualifications required. The funding raised by the Citb levy directly underpins the country's broader economic priorities. Over 9000 people are employed in the Leviable workforce, with an estimated contribution to our economy. £33 billion in gross value added, rising up to £100 billion when including the wider sectors serviced by the engineering construction industry.
Industry faces significant long standing and future challenges in recruiting and retaining a skilled workforce, which makes voluntary investment in training less likely to occur. Without a statutory levy, we cannot guarantee that the skills, industry and skills industries urgently, urgently needs that the skills industry urgently needs will materialise at the scale required. If this order is not approved, the Citb would be unable to collect levy in 2026 with potential impacts on apprenticeships and vital industry qualifications. Employer support programmes, training standards and the future capability of one of the UK's most economically significant sectors.
According to the Citb, the UK faces an estimated requirement for an additional 40,000 engineering and construction workers and agreeing this order will play a critical role in supporting major infrastructure projects across Great Britain. In addition to industry support. The proposals before the House today have received the full support of the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as do we, that maintaining the TBS ability to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensuring employers across all three nations can access the engineering and construction skills that they need, and I commend these regulations to the committee.
11:34
11:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I did say should start by saying I'm not seeking to oppose this order today, but I have got a number of questions. Um, but I'll start off again by praising the government. I strongly support the move to DWP, um, of this and the Citb and indeed more broadly, the changes that the government's made on the apprenticeship approach. Um one of the things that um uh. And by the way, I fully support the merger of the two bodies, which is under consultation.
And I hope that that consultation review will be concluded quickly. One of the things that the minister, the noble Baroness, mentions is about 85% of the levy payers who I think are attributed contribute 98% of the actual levy supportive. I guess I was interested in paragraph 33 of the impact assessment, where it said that, um, customer satisfaction survey, uh, in 2024, carried out independently, found 65% of employers agreed or strongly agreed that without the levy and the grant system, the training would not take place. So what I'm developing with this is that we've got a situation where elsewhere in the impact assessment, in order to generate more income, uh, they've started the Citb has started increasing its training of overseas learners.
And I don't really understand where this is going. Now, I'm sure that the minister has been diligent more broadly. Uh, and thinking about what is happening with the amount of people who go on to training, either don't complete training or don't continue into work. And that is really very worrying given the amounts of money being invested and what is happening on the follow up. And I wondered if there was an element here of where the government using the powers. This is an executive non-departmental public body, um, about thinking about how this could get a bit more refocused, working independently, but also in partnership with the department such that we do actually get, um, I think it's 47% of, of young people are dropping out.
Uh, the figures are even higher about people who just do the course. And then within so many years, they drop out of this industry entirely. So I know that there's work that goes on, on how to help employers on board. Um, people into whether it's apprenticeships, traineeships and the like. But I would suggest that perhaps some more focus could help with that. And to think about how perhaps the objectives for this board and key performance, key performance indicators could be published more regularly.
In terms of that, also, the 9th of July 2025 is when we last saw the annual report and accounts for 2024. So I wonder if the minister could explain or say when she expects the report and accounts to be laid for 2025 and, um, as I say, I think this is there is a lot of value in these two in the body to which we refer today, as well as its sister body. But I the other thing I'd just and I don't expect the minister to have this answer today, but this body is also a charity, and I'm unclear about why that's needed anymore.
And is that limiting what can happen in terms of trying to make this more effective?As I say, only it's a good number. 65% of, uh, of. People interviewed, uh, businesses interviewed said that all this training stuff probably wouldn't happen without this board. Um, but again, some of the link up with some of the other organisations involved in this, I think would be including the, um, the government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions. As I said at the start, I think this is a better home for it than its current DfE.
Its DfE, but I'd be interested to get some further understanding about the needs of it being a charity. Um, according to the Charity Commission accounts, it's not eligible for gift aid. Um it gets be a lot of complexity about why something's a trustee when actually they're all appointed, I think by the Secretary of State. And I'd be grateful. I say may not have the answer today, but perhaps have a follow up more broadly.
And I hope that that consultation review will be concluded quickly. One of the things that the minister, the noble Baroness, mentions is about 85% of the levy payers who I think are attributed contribute 98% of the actual levy supportive. I guess I was interested in paragraph 33 of the impact assessment, where it said that, um, customer satisfaction survey, uh, in 2024, carried out independently, found 65% of employers agreed or strongly agreed that without the levy and the grant system, the training would not take place. So what I'm developing with this is that we've got a situation where elsewhere in the impact assessment, in order to generate more income, uh, they've started the Citb has started increasing its training of overseas learners.
And I don't really understand where this is going. Now, I'm sure that the minister has been diligent more broadly. Uh, and thinking about what is happening with the amount of people who go on to training, either don't complete training or don't continue into work. And that is really very worrying given the amounts of money being invested and what is happening on the follow up. And I wondered if there was an element here of where the government using the powers. This is an executive non-departmental public body, um, about thinking about how this could get a bit more refocused, working independently, but also in partnership with the department such that we do actually get, um, I think it's 47% of, of young people are dropping out.
Uh, the figures are even higher about people who just do the course. And then within so many years, they drop out of this industry entirely. So I know that there's work that goes on, on how to help employers on board. Um, people into whether it's apprenticeships, traineeships and the like. But I would suggest that perhaps some more focus could help with that. And to think about how perhaps the objectives for this board and key performance, key performance indicators could be published more regularly.
In terms of that, also, the 9th of July 2025 is when we last saw the annual report and accounts for 2024. So I wonder if the minister could explain or say when she expects the report and accounts to be laid for 2025 and, um, as I say, I think this is there is a lot of value in these two in the body to which we refer today, as well as its sister body. But I the other thing I'd just and I don't expect the minister to have this answer today, but this body is also a charity, and I'm unclear about why that's needed anymore.
And is that limiting what can happen in terms of trying to make this more effective?As I say, only it's a good number. 65% of, uh, of. People interviewed, uh, businesses interviewed said that all this training stuff probably wouldn't happen without this board. Um, but again, some of the link up with some of the other organisations involved in this, I think would be including the, um, the government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions. As I said at the start, I think this is a better home for it than its current DfE.
Its DfE, but I'd be interested to get some further understanding about the needs of it being a charity. Um, according to the Charity Commission accounts, it's not eligible for gift aid. Um it gets be a lot of complexity about why something's a trustee when actually they're all appointed, I think by the Secretary of State. And I'd be grateful. I say may not have the answer today, but perhaps have a follow up more broadly.
11:38
Speaker 8
-
Speaker 8
Uh, my Lords, um, first of all, thank you very much to the noble lady, the Minister, for producing this order and giving us such welcome information, my Lords, it's a key job of any government to grow the economy, and productivity is central to that. This levy is a proven way to fund skills in the construction sector, because the market alone has not invested enough in training. The 2023 review confirmed this problem still exists, so the case for keeping the levy is strong. Turning to detail, the order keeps the current rates in place.
That is 0.35% on directors pay and 1.25% on payments to subcontractors. These rates have not changed since the pandemic era. Reductions ended. The extra help for small firms, the exemption threshold is rising from £135,000 to £150,000, which means that 69% of employers will now pay nothing at all. There's also a 50% reduction for firms with wage bills between 150,000 and £500,000, helping, I believe, around 10,000 small businesses. This strikes a reasonable balance. It protects small firms, while larger employers continue to pay their fair share with with no cap on their contributions.
There are noble. Baron Smith has given lots of statistics and. And there's so many statistics going around, some of them sometimes contradictory, um, as liberal Democrats, we believe in partnership between employers and educators. And it's exactly how this proposal was developed. Citb ran a formal consultation last year, as we've been told, called consensus. And over 67% of levy payers backed the plans. Those firms represent almost 72% of the total levy value. This is a general genuine mandate from industry itself, not something imposed from above.
And it's the right way to build support for a levy like this. The sums involved are substantial. The levy is expected to raise, I believe, around £243 million a year between 2026 and 2028. Last year, the Citb raised £228.1 million and used it to fund 128 $129.8 million in grants and 53 4.4 million in other schemes. This supported around 30,000 apprentices and, I believe, nearly 2000 people gaining a qualification. This is a serious investment in skills and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
Since the city receives no grant from government, the Baroness Coffey mentioned charities. I think I should say charities are exempt from this levy, but anything that the minister can answer to the questions raised on charities would be welcome to hear. I do have one question for the minister. How will the government check this money is actually working. We need to see real gains in skills and in productivity. Productivity, especially given the scale of the construction skills gap across England, Scotland and Wales.
I welcome the Minister's thoughts on this. We as a nation or as the Minister said, nations need to up our game in providing training and to address skills shortages. We must reduce our reliance on imports. I. But on the whole, my Lords, we are supportive of this order. It keeps a levee system that the industry itself backs. It protects small businesses through a fairer approach, and it funds rural training for a skilled workforce. We on these benches support this order.
That is 0.35% on directors pay and 1.25% on payments to subcontractors. These rates have not changed since the pandemic era. Reductions ended. The extra help for small firms, the exemption threshold is rising from £135,000 to £150,000, which means that 69% of employers will now pay nothing at all. There's also a 50% reduction for firms with wage bills between 150,000 and £500,000, helping, I believe, around 10,000 small businesses. This strikes a reasonable balance. It protects small firms, while larger employers continue to pay their fair share with with no cap on their contributions.
There are noble. Baron Smith has given lots of statistics and. And there's so many statistics going around, some of them sometimes contradictory, um, as liberal Democrats, we believe in partnership between employers and educators. And it's exactly how this proposal was developed. Citb ran a formal consultation last year, as we've been told, called consensus. And over 67% of levy payers backed the plans. Those firms represent almost 72% of the total levy value. This is a general genuine mandate from industry itself, not something imposed from above.
And it's the right way to build support for a levy like this. The sums involved are substantial. The levy is expected to raise, I believe, around £243 million a year between 2026 and 2028. Last year, the Citb raised £228.1 million and used it to fund 128 $129.8 million in grants and 53 4.4 million in other schemes. This supported around 30,000 apprentices and, I believe, nearly 2000 people gaining a qualification. This is a serious investment in skills and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
Since the city receives no grant from government, the Baroness Coffey mentioned charities. I think I should say charities are exempt from this levy, but anything that the minister can answer to the questions raised on charities would be welcome to hear. I do have one question for the minister. How will the government check this money is actually working. We need to see real gains in skills and in productivity. Productivity, especially given the scale of the construction skills gap across England, Scotland and Wales.
I welcome the Minister's thoughts on this. We as a nation or as the Minister said, nations need to up our game in providing training and to address skills shortages. We must reduce our reliance on imports. I. But on the whole, my Lords, we are supportive of this order. It keeps a levee system that the industry itself backs. It protects small businesses through a fairer approach, and it funds rural training for a skilled workforce. We on these benches support this order.
11:43
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for introducing this order. We support the continuation of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board levy for the 2026, 27 and 28 levy periods. This provides continuity for the industry without imposing additional costs and as others have said, the levy system clearly commands the support of the vast majority of those who pay for it. It works precisely because it's driven by industry need. Companies understand their workforce requirements far better than Whitehall ever can.
The role of government should be to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, recruit and train, rather than control industries with centrally designed employment schemes. But it's important to look at the levy in the context of both current and likely future pressures. The scale of the challenge is considerable. The noble lady, the minister, has quoted estimates of a need for another 4000 workers by 2030, demands rising in nuclear construction, decommissioning, offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, industrial decarbonisation, as well as maintenance of existing energy infrastructure.
And the industry is competing for workers with other infrastructure sectors which need the same skilled trades and technical professions. So the central challenge is how to make sure the country has the capacity and skills to deliver projects already planned. And of course, employers are facing considerable difficulties in recruiting and training. The workforce is aging. Few new entrants are coming through to replace retiring workers in key occupations. We need more and better technical education, undervaluing technical and vocational education is a perennial British problem that stretches back for well over a century, and good technical education is not cheap.
Successive governments have wrestled with this for decades, and I can say with confidence that the problem won't be solved with a few soundbites about parity of esteem, or by an education policy that's driven by social justice ambitions and treats, educational excellence and national prosperity and growth as afterthoughts. Government should be taking a hard look at its equivalence performance tables policy, which over 20 years has done so much to push young people at school away from technical subjects at GCSE and into non-technical classroom BTECs. Engineering construction is also project based and cyclical.
A business may have a substantial future pipeline, but be justifiably reluctant to take on permanent workers or apprenticeships when projects are repeatedly delayed or paused, or rephased, and businesses are just less able to make long term workforce investments when they have little certainty about their order, books. And the sector is contending with tight margins, high borrowing costs, wage pressures and material inflation. Many specialist contractors and subcontractors simply don't have the financial headroom to recruit and train workers significantly in advance of confirmed work, and the pressures have, of course, been made worse by the government's increase in employer national Insurance contributions and the substantial additional burdens imposed by the Employment Rights Act.
It's disingenuous for ministers to express concerns about skills shortages while simultaneously making it riskier and more expensive to employ workers, so I'd be grateful if the noble lady, the minister, could address several questions in addition to those already put by my noble friend Baroness Coffey. First, what assessment has government made of the effect of the policies it's implemented so far on recruitment, apprenticeships and permanent employment in the engineering construction industry?And second, how is it working with the Citb and employers to align skills provision with the actual timetable for major nuclear energy, carbon capture, hydrogen and infrastructure projects?And in particular, how will ministers ensure that delays and uncertainty in government backed projects don't discourage employers from investing in training?Training and recruitment third, what.
Outcomes will government use to judge whether the levy is delivering value for money?Can the Minister provide figures showing how many apprenticeships, qualifications and training places have been supported by the levy and grant system and. These interventions have addressed shortages in the occupations where demand is greatest. And finally, what steps are being made to make sure that the levy system remains responsive to employers. Administratively proportionate and focused on training that leads to genuine employment opportunities and to. My Lords, as I've explained, we support the levy order, but the levy cannot succeed in isolation.
Its effectiveness will depend on a stable infrastructure pipeline, a strong vocational education system and a wider economic environment in which businesses are encouraged, rather than to to hire and retain, rather than being penalised for it. The government must now ensure that its wider policies properly support employers to recruit, train and retain their workforces.
The role of government should be to create the conditions in which businesses can invest, recruit and train, rather than control industries with centrally designed employment schemes. But it's important to look at the levy in the context of both current and likely future pressures. The scale of the challenge is considerable. The noble lady, the minister, has quoted estimates of a need for another 4000 workers by 2030, demands rising in nuclear construction, decommissioning, offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, industrial decarbonisation, as well as maintenance of existing energy infrastructure.
And the industry is competing for workers with other infrastructure sectors which need the same skilled trades and technical professions. So the central challenge is how to make sure the country has the capacity and skills to deliver projects already planned. And of course, employers are facing considerable difficulties in recruiting and training. The workforce is aging. Few new entrants are coming through to replace retiring workers in key occupations. We need more and better technical education, undervaluing technical and vocational education is a perennial British problem that stretches back for well over a century, and good technical education is not cheap.
Successive governments have wrestled with this for decades, and I can say with confidence that the problem won't be solved with a few soundbites about parity of esteem, or by an education policy that's driven by social justice ambitions and treats, educational excellence and national prosperity and growth as afterthoughts. Government should be taking a hard look at its equivalence performance tables policy, which over 20 years has done so much to push young people at school away from technical subjects at GCSE and into non-technical classroom BTECs. Engineering construction is also project based and cyclical.
A business may have a substantial future pipeline, but be justifiably reluctant to take on permanent workers or apprenticeships when projects are repeatedly delayed or paused, or rephased, and businesses are just less able to make long term workforce investments when they have little certainty about their order, books. And the sector is contending with tight margins, high borrowing costs, wage pressures and material inflation. Many specialist contractors and subcontractors simply don't have the financial headroom to recruit and train workers significantly in advance of confirmed work, and the pressures have, of course, been made worse by the government's increase in employer national Insurance contributions and the substantial additional burdens imposed by the Employment Rights Act.
It's disingenuous for ministers to express concerns about skills shortages while simultaneously making it riskier and more expensive to employ workers, so I'd be grateful if the noble lady, the minister, could address several questions in addition to those already put by my noble friend Baroness Coffey. First, what assessment has government made of the effect of the policies it's implemented so far on recruitment, apprenticeships and permanent employment in the engineering construction industry?And second, how is it working with the Citb and employers to align skills provision with the actual timetable for major nuclear energy, carbon capture, hydrogen and infrastructure projects?And in particular, how will ministers ensure that delays and uncertainty in government backed projects don't discourage employers from investing in training?Training and recruitment third, what.
Outcomes will government use to judge whether the levy is delivering value for money?Can the Minister provide figures showing how many apprenticeships, qualifications and training places have been supported by the levy and grant system and. These interventions have addressed shortages in the occupations where demand is greatest. And finally, what steps are being made to make sure that the levy system remains responsive to employers. Administratively proportionate and focused on training that leads to genuine employment opportunities and to. My Lords, as I've explained, we support the levy order, but the levy cannot succeed in isolation.
Its effectiveness will depend on a stable infrastructure pipeline, a strong vocational education system and a wider economic environment in which businesses are encouraged, rather than to to hire and retain, rather than being penalised for it. The government must now ensure that its wider policies properly support employers to recruit, train and retain their workforces.
11:48
11:48
11:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Faced each other in in her new role. And congratulations on, on that. Um this debate has outlined has underlined not only the importance of the TBS, uh, work, but also the scale of the challenge facing one of our most economically vital industries with a core workforce of 90, 000 people and responsible for £33 billion of output as as noble lords have recognised, the industry plays a vital role in supporting our energy security, manufacturing capability and critical infrastructure. Uh. What has come through clearly today is that the engineering construction industry cannot meet its skills demands of the coming decade without a stable collective system of investment in training alongside government support that I will return to in a moment, the evidence is consistent that market forces alone will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers.
The industry urgently needs to meet the demand for new major infrastructure projects. The ECI TBS levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefits of a focused skills strategy for the engineering construction industry. It ensures that employers can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. And it also opens opportunity helping apprentices and other new entrants to complete high quality training and existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers, to rise to, um, respond to some of the specific points raised by, uh, noble Lord, the noble lady, Baroness Coffey, rightly emphasised the need, uh, for, uh, success in the spending of the levy and the successful completion of training courses and, uh, apprenticeships and the Citb has confirmed that it currently tracks apprentices and graduates while they are on programme and receiving grant support.
The data that the Citb collects indicates a positive impact of its grant support, for example, on apprenticeship completion rates. Based on the latest available data for England, Scotland and Wales. Of the apprentices who started an apprenticeship in 2020 and were supported by Citb, 78% of successfully completed their apprenticeship as of December 2025 and that is whilst we have seen improvements in the completion rates of apprenticeships over recent years that I think is above the average for um, the completion rate of um. Apprenticeships. The noble lady also raised the question about when the annual reports and accounts will be published for 2025.
They will be laid in the autumn. Um, on the point about the charitable status, the charitable status is not um determined by. The government it's determined by whether an organisation's purposes are exclusively charitable and legally deemed to provide a clear public benefit. And it was therefore a decision for the um training bodies themselves. And citb equally is a is a charity to take on that charitable status. Uh, the noble Lord, Lord um Palmer, uh, raised, uh, the, the success of the levy consultation.
I think it would be fair to say to the noble Lord that, uh. There are a lot of statistics around some of the statistics that the noble Lord quoted related to the Construction Industry Training Board, rather than the engineering Construction Industry Training Board. Uh, perhaps it would be easier were the government to decide to go ahead with the with the um, merger of the two. But nevertheless, they, they are different sizes and they do and they do different jobs. But I think the point that he was making is, uh, is right that there is, if anything, for the citb and even, um, greater level of approval, approval of the, as a result of the levy consultation than the figures that he, uh, that he, um, quoted and several noble, uh, lords have rightly, um, uh, cut, if you like, to the chase of what the citb is responsible for.
In other words, what does it actually do?Uh, and how in the broader context, is the government supporting the need for skills in the engineering construction industry on, on the former, um, the Citb continues to invest in skills hubs in training standards and competence assurance across key sectors including energy, nuclear and renewables. It's supported more than 6900 new entrants since 2022, and invested 32.6 million in 2025 in training, grants and new entrant programmes during 2024, the Citb funding supported over 2000 new entrant starts, including over 1000 apprentices and 500 graduates.
Almost 64,000 learners were trained or assessed using Citb approved products, including more than 31000 learners achieving industry recognised safety passports and 2763 learners supported through competence related programmes. And of course, whilst the um Citb and the levy that we're discussing today is important for addressing some of the market failure in delivering skills in the engineering and, uh, industry, it is just part of the broader work that the government is doing to support the engineering construction industry and wider skills. And this relates to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman.
The government is delivering significant investment to strengthen engineering construction skills as part of wider reforms, um, helping employers respond to current and future workforce needs. This includes an additional um. £1 billion of investment to help to deliver around 5000 more apprenticeship opportunities for young people over the coming years. Particularly important given the um, 40% fall in young people's apprenticeships that we've seen over the last years of the last government, Are over the last years of the last government, uh, alongside increased flexibility through the new growth and skills levy and specific sector skills packages in engineering and construction that are worth over 800 million, um, pounds.
Additionally, we are providing targeted incentives for employers, including payments of up to £2,000 for taking on foundation apprentices. And of course, we've developed a new foundation apprenticeship, um, in, in engineering, helping more young people to enter skilled careers as well as other, um in. Lives, particularly for taking on young people who may have been out of work are onto these apprenticeships. We have continued investment, in fact, increased investment in skills bootcamps and increased devolved approaches through mayoral strategic authorities, enabling local areas to respond to local employer demand and skills shortages.
The noble lady specifically raises the issue of technical and vocational education. Uh, and, uh, I mean, let me, um, reassure the noble lady that this government's action, even in the two years that we've been in, uh, in, uh, government, uh, goes far beyond the soundbites that she characterized. There is, of course, in progress at the moment, a major reform of post 16 education and the development of stronger, uh, vocational. Routes through vocational through the new V levels, a expansion of the possibility for, uh, young people to gain an in-depth technical education through T levels.
Improved level two qualifications, uh, to get young people onto those vocational routes. And of course, the investment I've already outlined, uh, into, uh, turning around the fall in the numbers of young people who've actually been able to start on apprenticeships and to ensure that those opportunities are available for young people in the future, together with the Citb support, these measures will strengthen the pipeline of skills available to the engineering, construction workforce and support the delivery of major infrastructure projects across, uh, Great Britain. I hope, um, in responding, uh, then I have reassured noble lords, uh, about the role of this levy order, its importance in supporting the needs of small and larger businesses and ensuring maximum impact and value for money from employers, levy contributions, and the important role that the Citb plays in ensuring that this key industry for growth, the development of infrastructure and an energy secure.
The industry urgently needs to meet the demand for new major infrastructure projects. The ECI TBS levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefits of a focused skills strategy for the engineering construction industry. It ensures that employers can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. And it also opens opportunity helping apprentices and other new entrants to complete high quality training and existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers, to rise to, um, respond to some of the specific points raised by, uh, noble Lord, the noble lady, Baroness Coffey, rightly emphasised the need, uh, for, uh, success in the spending of the levy and the successful completion of training courses and, uh, apprenticeships and the Citb has confirmed that it currently tracks apprentices and graduates while they are on programme and receiving grant support.
The data that the Citb collects indicates a positive impact of its grant support, for example, on apprenticeship completion rates. Based on the latest available data for England, Scotland and Wales. Of the apprentices who started an apprenticeship in 2020 and were supported by Citb, 78% of successfully completed their apprenticeship as of December 2025 and that is whilst we have seen improvements in the completion rates of apprenticeships over recent years that I think is above the average for um, the completion rate of um. Apprenticeships. The noble lady also raised the question about when the annual reports and accounts will be published for 2025.
They will be laid in the autumn. Um, on the point about the charitable status, the charitable status is not um determined by. The government it's determined by whether an organisation's purposes are exclusively charitable and legally deemed to provide a clear public benefit. And it was therefore a decision for the um training bodies themselves. And citb equally is a is a charity to take on that charitable status. Uh, the noble Lord, Lord um Palmer, uh, raised, uh, the, the success of the levy consultation.
I think it would be fair to say to the noble Lord that, uh. There are a lot of statistics around some of the statistics that the noble Lord quoted related to the Construction Industry Training Board, rather than the engineering Construction Industry Training Board. Uh, perhaps it would be easier were the government to decide to go ahead with the with the um, merger of the two. But nevertheless, they, they are different sizes and they do and they do different jobs. But I think the point that he was making is, uh, is right that there is, if anything, for the citb and even, um, greater level of approval, approval of the, as a result of the levy consultation than the figures that he, uh, that he, um, quoted and several noble, uh, lords have rightly, um, uh, cut, if you like, to the chase of what the citb is responsible for.
In other words, what does it actually do?Uh, and how in the broader context, is the government supporting the need for skills in the engineering construction industry on, on the former, um, the Citb continues to invest in skills hubs in training standards and competence assurance across key sectors including energy, nuclear and renewables. It's supported more than 6900 new entrants since 2022, and invested 32.6 million in 2025 in training, grants and new entrant programmes during 2024, the Citb funding supported over 2000 new entrant starts, including over 1000 apprentices and 500 graduates.
Almost 64,000 learners were trained or assessed using Citb approved products, including more than 31000 learners achieving industry recognised safety passports and 2763 learners supported through competence related programmes. And of course, whilst the um Citb and the levy that we're discussing today is important for addressing some of the market failure in delivering skills in the engineering and, uh, industry, it is just part of the broader work that the government is doing to support the engineering construction industry and wider skills. And this relates to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman.
The government is delivering significant investment to strengthen engineering construction skills as part of wider reforms, um, helping employers respond to current and future workforce needs. This includes an additional um. £1 billion of investment to help to deliver around 5000 more apprenticeship opportunities for young people over the coming years. Particularly important given the um, 40% fall in young people's apprenticeships that we've seen over the last years of the last government, Are over the last years of the last government, uh, alongside increased flexibility through the new growth and skills levy and specific sector skills packages in engineering and construction that are worth over 800 million, um, pounds.
Additionally, we are providing targeted incentives for employers, including payments of up to £2,000 for taking on foundation apprentices. And of course, we've developed a new foundation apprenticeship, um, in, in engineering, helping more young people to enter skilled careers as well as other, um in. Lives, particularly for taking on young people who may have been out of work are onto these apprenticeships. We have continued investment, in fact, increased investment in skills bootcamps and increased devolved approaches through mayoral strategic authorities, enabling local areas to respond to local employer demand and skills shortages.
The noble lady specifically raises the issue of technical and vocational education. Uh, and, uh, I mean, let me, um, reassure the noble lady that this government's action, even in the two years that we've been in, uh, in, uh, government, uh, goes far beyond the soundbites that she characterized. There is, of course, in progress at the moment, a major reform of post 16 education and the development of stronger, uh, vocational. Routes through vocational through the new V levels, a expansion of the possibility for, uh, young people to gain an in-depth technical education through T levels.
Improved level two qualifications, uh, to get young people onto those vocational routes. And of course, the investment I've already outlined, uh, into, uh, turning around the fall in the numbers of young people who've actually been able to start on apprenticeships and to ensure that those opportunities are available for young people in the future, together with the Citb support, these measures will strengthen the pipeline of skills available to the engineering, construction workforce and support the delivery of major infrastructure projects across, uh, Great Britain. I hope, um, in responding, uh, then I have reassured noble lords, uh, about the role of this levy order, its importance in supporting the needs of small and larger businesses and ensuring maximum impact and value for money from employers, levy contributions, and the important role that the Citb plays in ensuring that this key industry for growth, the development of infrastructure and an energy secure.
11:58
11:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, as I spelt out, I think some of the impacts of what the government's policy was in terms of the numbers of apprenticeships, the shift, uh, to vocational and technical education, the support this government is providing to turn around the decline that we have, uh, seen, uh, the support that we are providing through £800 million worth of sector skills, support for the, um. For the industry and the noble lady really does, I think, need to answer if she's, if she's really genuinely arguing that this government should now reverse the national insurance increases where the investment in the National Health Service, which is also of considerable importance to employers, will come from, uh, if she got her way and we, uh, reversed that.
And I think engineering employers, along with others, uh, don't want their employers to be sitting on the waiting lists that we inherited from the last government.
And I think engineering employers, along with others, uh, don't want their employers to be sitting on the waiting lists that we inherited from the last government.
11:59
11:59
12:00
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
I beg to move that the Committee considers the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, temporary Class Drug Order 2026, which was laid before Parliament on the 10th of June. Uh, my Lords, this instrument takes urgent action to control a new, very dangerous class of synthetic opioid in the space of little over a year, orphans have been involved in at least 22 deaths in the United Kingdom, and 14 of those deaths, sadly, have been between December and March. The UK is not alone in this respect. Between 2024 and April this year, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime received 206 reports from numerous countries of drug samples, which contained orphine compounds.
Um, I'm particularly grateful, if I may say so, to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for prioritising and. Assessment of these deeply harmful substances. They produced a report on the 30th of April and the dangers we face here are encapsulated in the following line from that report, and I quote the risk to the population from these recently emerging compounds is sufficiently great that urgent steps are required to protect public health. The government has heard that message loud and clear, and we are acting at pace.
We've enacted a temporary class, drug order, or tcdo, to control these drugs. Less than six weeks after the council has produced its report, the temporary class Drug order covers seven orphans, three of which have tragically been involved in those deaths here in the UK and four of which the EU Drugs Agency has notified as being present in EU drug markets. Uh, this is the first tcdo in ten years. So I'll just take a moment to remind noble lords about what these orders do. Uh, a temporary class drug order makes it a specific offence to produce supply or offer to supply these seven orphans to export or import them or to possess them, where there's also an intention to supply.
And doing any of these things can result in up to 14 years in prison, the same as for a class B drug. The Tcdo also provides that the substances should be treated as if they were in schedule one to the misuse of drugs Regulations 2001, and scheduling here covers the circumstances in which a controlled substance can be used legitimately, legitimately, and the procedures which must be followed. In doing so, schedule one covers substances which are known to have no known medical uses, which is the case with these seven drugs.
Anyone who does need to make a legitimate use for them, for example in research, would need to apply to the Home Office to obtain a licence. This instrument uses the made affirmative procedure. It reflects a balance between the requirement to put in place urgent measures to safeguard public health, and the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Of these measures, which do expand the scope of criminal law. Under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Tcdo must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 days of it being made.
And I know noble Lords would be pleased to know that the other place, the House of Commons approved it last night, and I'm hopeful that this House will do so by Friday's deadline. Uh, my colleague Sarah Jones MP, the Minister for Policing and Crime, also accepted a further recommendation from the advisory Council that the tcdo be followed by a permanent control, which would make all things class A drugs. This would not only cover the seven substances, but also two generic definitions of orphans. And the purpose of those is to make it harder for criminals to circumvent the controls by making slight tweaks to the chemical composition of what they sell.
Uh. Noble lords will doubtless agree with colleagues on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the class A control should come into force swiftly. So whilst I'm not able to give a precise timetable today, I can confirm that we will act as soon as possible. Um, self-evidently, my Lords, the devastation that harmful drugs inflict on our society is intolerable and it demands a response. Consummate with the scale of the threat. The order before the committee today stands as further evidence of the government to commit to mounting such a response, and I beg to move the order before the committee today.
Um, I'm particularly grateful, if I may say so, to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for prioritising and. Assessment of these deeply harmful substances. They produced a report on the 30th of April and the dangers we face here are encapsulated in the following line from that report, and I quote the risk to the population from these recently emerging compounds is sufficiently great that urgent steps are required to protect public health. The government has heard that message loud and clear, and we are acting at pace.
We've enacted a temporary class, drug order, or tcdo, to control these drugs. Less than six weeks after the council has produced its report, the temporary class Drug order covers seven orphans, three of which have tragically been involved in those deaths here in the UK and four of which the EU Drugs Agency has notified as being present in EU drug markets. Uh, this is the first tcdo in ten years. So I'll just take a moment to remind noble lords about what these orders do. Uh, a temporary class drug order makes it a specific offence to produce supply or offer to supply these seven orphans to export or import them or to possess them, where there's also an intention to supply.
And doing any of these things can result in up to 14 years in prison, the same as for a class B drug. The Tcdo also provides that the substances should be treated as if they were in schedule one to the misuse of drugs Regulations 2001, and scheduling here covers the circumstances in which a controlled substance can be used legitimately, legitimately, and the procedures which must be followed. In doing so, schedule one covers substances which are known to have no known medical uses, which is the case with these seven drugs.
Anyone who does need to make a legitimate use for them, for example in research, would need to apply to the Home Office to obtain a licence. This instrument uses the made affirmative procedure. It reflects a balance between the requirement to put in place urgent measures to safeguard public health, and the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Of these measures, which do expand the scope of criminal law. Under the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Tcdo must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 days of it being made.
And I know noble Lords would be pleased to know that the other place, the House of Commons approved it last night, and I'm hopeful that this House will do so by Friday's deadline. Uh, my colleague Sarah Jones MP, the Minister for Policing and Crime, also accepted a further recommendation from the advisory Council that the tcdo be followed by a permanent control, which would make all things class A drugs. This would not only cover the seven substances, but also two generic definitions of orphans. And the purpose of those is to make it harder for criminals to circumvent the controls by making slight tweaks to the chemical composition of what they sell.
Uh. Noble lords will doubtless agree with colleagues on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that the class A control should come into force swiftly. So whilst I'm not able to give a precise timetable today, I can confirm that we will act as soon as possible. Um, self-evidently, my Lords, the devastation that harmful drugs inflict on our society is intolerable and it demands a response. Consummate with the scale of the threat. The order before the committee today stands as further evidence of the government to commit to mounting such a response, and I beg to move the order before the committee today.
12:05
12:05
Speaker 11
-
Speaker 11
My Lords, can I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the Committee today?This is a simple and uncontroversial order and I am pleased to support it. As a noble order. Minister has established already the purpose of this piece of legislation is to make a temporary class drug order under section two A of the 1971 act in respect of seven substances, substances which fall under the category of orphans, which are a class of synthetic opioids and have been recommended for control by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Um, given the reports that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have received regarding the presence of orphan compounds in drug samples and their links to deaths, I believe the government are absolutely right to seek to control these substances. I would like to seek a couple of clarifications. However, as its title suggests, this order makes a temporary class drug order for the listed substances, and I note that, um. Section two A of the 71 act states that txdot's expire within one year of the order being made, which means the government will need to come forward with a new order in council under section two of the act, the list of substances as controlled within one year.
If the government doesn't do that, then these substances would cease to be controlled. So can the Noble Order Minister confirm that the government will bring forward a new order within that time frame?And as a linked query?Um it is it is interesting that the government has sought to make a tcdo now, rather than simply bring in an order in council, why make a temporary order and then make a permanent or later?There would be an argument, I believe, um, for the government just to have added these substances to schedule two of the 1971 act straight away.
Because if, of course, we accept that they cause enough harm to justify a temporary order, surely they should be controlled. Uh, in the first. I wonder if and would be grateful if the noble Lord, the minister could explain the rationale for their approach. But other than that, as I said at the start, I'm more than happy to support the government in their endeavours in respect of this order.
Um, given the reports that the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have received regarding the presence of orphan compounds in drug samples and their links to deaths, I believe the government are absolutely right to seek to control these substances. I would like to seek a couple of clarifications. However, as its title suggests, this order makes a temporary class drug order for the listed substances, and I note that, um. Section two A of the 71 act states that txdot's expire within one year of the order being made, which means the government will need to come forward with a new order in council under section two of the act, the list of substances as controlled within one year.
If the government doesn't do that, then these substances would cease to be controlled. So can the Noble Order Minister confirm that the government will bring forward a new order within that time frame?And as a linked query?Um it is it is interesting that the government has sought to make a tcdo now, rather than simply bring in an order in council, why make a temporary order and then make a permanent or later?There would be an argument, I believe, um, for the government just to have added these substances to schedule two of the 1971 act straight away.
Because if, of course, we accept that they cause enough harm to justify a temporary order, surely they should be controlled. Uh, in the first. I wonder if and would be grateful if the noble Lord, the minister could explain the rationale for their approach. But other than that, as I said at the start, I'm more than happy to support the government in their endeavours in respect of this order.
12:07
Speaker 10
-
Speaker 10
Uh, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel for his broad support for the order. And as he says, it's quite sensible that we do that. Uh, he has asked legitimate questions. And I will say to him in answer to the first question, uh, we are obviously mindful that the tcdo lasts for just one year. We will lay before Parliament as soon as possible as the Secondary Legislation scrutiny committee has indeed urged us to do so. I can't give him a particular timescale for that, but, uh, self-evidently, with the Priory of the order, we want to get that done and make sure that, uh, is covered as a whole.
Um, we could have potentially, as he says, brought in urgent, permanent Class-A control. Um, which the advisory council has suggested is preferable. Um, I just say to him that controlling new substances in class A, B, or C drugs does take some time, and rightly so. Uh, such controls do expand the scope of criminal law. They amend primary legislation. And I think it's right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them. But that is precisely why the legislation also allows for these temporary drug class orders.
They do everything that a class A, B or C controls do, except the maximum sentences are not as long as for class A drugs. Um. The need for the relevant order to be made at the Privy Council adds um, with due respect to my colleagues in the Privy Council, of which I am a member myself, it does add some weeks to the process, so there's no real need for that at the moment. Um, in the last session of Parliament, the government supported a bill sponsored by the honourable member for Gloucester, which would have removed this requirement.
But for the moment, we think that we can put the controls in place, mindful of the year expiry. Um, revisit that in due course and we will look at the um the longer term procedure in slower time. But the purpose of this order is to make sure that we put some, uh, definitive controls in place on those new seven opioids that have caused, sadly, those deaths in the past year. I hope that answers the noble Lords points.
Um, we could have potentially, as he says, brought in urgent, permanent Class-A control. Um, which the advisory council has suggested is preferable. Um, I just say to him that controlling new substances in class A, B, or C drugs does take some time, and rightly so. Uh, such controls do expand the scope of criminal law. They amend primary legislation. And I think it's right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise them. But that is precisely why the legislation also allows for these temporary drug class orders.
They do everything that a class A, B or C controls do, except the maximum sentences are not as long as for class A drugs. Um. The need for the relevant order to be made at the Privy Council adds um, with due respect to my colleagues in the Privy Council, of which I am a member myself, it does add some weeks to the process, so there's no real need for that at the moment. Um, in the last session of Parliament, the government supported a bill sponsored by the honourable member for Gloucester, which would have removed this requirement.
But for the moment, we think that we can put the controls in place, mindful of the year expiry. Um, revisit that in due course and we will look at the um the longer term procedure in slower time. But the purpose of this order is to make sure that we put some, uh, definitive controls in place on those new seven opioids that have caused, sadly, those deaths in the past year. I hope that answers the noble Lords points.