Draft Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is always a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I wish you and all Members and officials present a happy new year. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 19 November. As I am sure Members will have noticed, there is a lot of detail to them; the Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to go through the statutory instrument line by line, but I shall try to cover the most significant elements.
Building on the work introduced by the previous Government, we are implementing a global risk-based import model for sanitary and phytosanitary goods known as the border target operating model. That aims to deliver a streamlined approach to imports that protects public plant and animal health, and minimises friction at the border. The draft instrument uses powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, known as the REUL Act.
The changes implemented by the draft instrument fall into three main categories. The first category of measures provides a long-term legislative framework for sanitary and phytosanitary controls already introduced, but beyond the reliance on temporary powers, such as the transitional staging period—for example, by amending the definition of “official certificate” to include digital documents, facilitating fully electronic and digital import documentation, and by expanding the definition of “documentary check” to include remote examination or examination by automated means.
We are therefore making it possible to remove the requirement to carry out documentary checks on all imports, allowing the frequency of checks to be based on risk and providing the power to allow for inland border control posts for reasons other than geographical constraints, in addition to giving Government the power to determine whether to designate allowing greater control to align border control facilities and resources with biosecurity, trade and food security priorities.
The second category of measures allows for conditions governing the import of animals and animal products to be updated administratively in response to risk, to uphold our obligations to protect biosecurity and public health while facilitating trade. Competent authorities, devolved Governments, the Food Standards Authority and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs together will be able to amend and manage biosecurity controls in response to changing risks. Additionally, animals and animal products can be categorised based on risk, with the ability to exempt low-risk categories from unnecessary checks, aligning our animal control measures with those for plants and plant products.
The third category of measures allows policies that reduce burdens to be delivered in future, and allows extension of policies to non-EU goods. Those future policies would require further legislative change to implement, but we propose to have the powers in place now to provide for flexibility in the future and to ensure that the border can be adapted over time in response to risk.
Two policies, however, have impact from the date when the draft instrument comes into force. First, diagnostic testing of plants and plant products can be undertaken at a border control post, instead of such tests needing to take place at official laboratories. That is a positive development, which will significantly reduce the release time of certain perishable goods. The second policy is the use of enhanced enforcement powers to require and pursue full cost recovery of the common user charge for goods entering through Government-run border control posts. That is vital to ensure full cost recovery of the operating costs and to ensure that businesses pay charges for their import activity. The changes will have no impact on the Windsor framework and do not bring in additional checks on the west coast of Great Britain. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have consented to the amendments.
Upon laying the draft instrument, we received a submission from Friends of the Earth, which expressed concerns about checks being made away from border control points, the frequency of checks being based on risk, how misdeclaration would be handled and performance monitoring. It also queried whether we were acting within our powers under the REUL Act. We responded by explaining that the instrument allows provision to be made only for documentary, identity and physical controls to be undertaken at places other than border control posts or control points, and that we have robust, evidence-based risk-modelling measures to categorise SPS into categories based on the inherent risk that the product poses to animals, food, biosecurity and public health.
For animals and animal products, the default documentary rate remains at 100%, and while low-risk goods do not require certification or routine checks under the new approach, we are able to detain such goods for checks, based on intelligence. By next year we will have review cycles of risk categorisation in place and we have existing surveillance programmes to ensure that emerging risks are detected and dealt with in a timely manner. Finally, the REUL Act is being used, under its powers, to replace provisions under assimilated law inherited from the European Union to create new provisions that achieve the same or similar objectives.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked about the use of administrative, rather than legislative, powers in other areas of import controls. We explained that while powers exist to control imports through statutory instruments, administrative powers are required to ensure that changes to import conditions can be made rapidly in response to emerging biosecurity and food safety risks in trading partners approved to export to Great Britain. That is a really important point.
The amendments reflect and build on changes already made since the United Kingdom left the European Union, to refine our listing procedures for imports of animals and animal products in ways that provide the flexibility and responsiveness needed to protect biosecurity, but also to facilitate trade. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted DEFRA’s explanation and was reassured about the use of administrative, rather than legislative, powers in that specific policy area.
The Government are committed to removing trade barriers, including through seeking to negotiate an SPS agreement with the EU, but that will take time. The draft instrument is a necessary step to implement the policy that the industry has been preparing for, and to ensure that biosecurity is maintained between now and any new agreement’s taking effect. The draft regulations will ensure that controls already in place endure, implement a responsive, risk-based approach to the border, and protect the United Kingdom from emerging pests and disease, while supporting businesses with processes that are as simple and effective as possible.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
The Minister made reference to the fact that this delegated legislation follows on from the work of the previous Conservative Administration, which is why the official Opposition will support the regulatory changes proposed by the Government today. It is right that we continue to review and update the regulations surrounding our customs and border enforcement, and I welcome some of the reductions in the red tape that this legislation represents.
This legislation protects biosecurity and trade between Great Britain and third countries by making sure that SPS controls can be applied to goods entering Great Britain. The control gained from our withdrawal from the European Union gives us a powerful tool, and it is right that we utilise it in full. We must be careful to ensure in future that it is used for the benefit of British farmers, horticulturalists and the wider public. This delegated legislation will do that significantly, while reducing the risks to do with plant health and biosecurity. That is why I and other colleagues in the official Opposition will continue to hold the Government to account on delivering on our food-security targets and our biosecurity obligations. We support the draft regulations.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Regulation 2017/625 goes to the very heart of the territorial integrity of this United Kingdom. Under the protocol and the Windsor framework, Northern Ireland is subject to all that regulation’s controls. Our High Court in Belfast, as endorsed by the Court of Appeal, has said that the effect of the regulation is to make Northern Ireland the entry point to the EU.
The constitutional significance of that is immense, because it means that when you leave Great Britain and go to the other part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—you are in effect entering the EU, when it comes to all the laws pertaining to goods. You are entering the single market—the EU’s regime and customs code—hence the EU’s insistence on the Irish sea border to distinguish and to give effect to the fact that, under this regulation, when you move from GB to Northern Ireland, you are entering EU territory.
Regulation 2017/625 is fundamental to the people who I represent in Northern Ireland, because it puts in lights the fact that we are no longer a full, proper part of the United Kingdom. What the Minister outlined today partly illustrates that. If Committee members look at regulation 14(b), which we are considering today, they will see that it expressly talks about consignments entering not the United Kingdom, but Great Britain. Why is that? It is because, as I have said, Northern Ireland is now deemed to be EU territory in those terms.
Under the Windsor framework, therefore, this Government and their predecessor, having surrendered those powers to the EU under regulation 2017/625, cannot provide for the entry of consignments of goods to the United Kingdom; they can provide for the entry of consignments of goods only to Great Britain. Where are those entry points? One of them, of course, is that which divides—the crossing of the Irish sea from Northern Ireland.
Regulation 14(b) underscores the fact that we have partitioned our United Kingdom with a foreign regulatory border. It reflects the fact that all this Parliament can now do, under the Windsor framework, is make regulations for consignments of goods entering GB. Consignments of goods entering GB, because they are coming from EU territory, have to be subject to documentary checks or an inspection.
When the Windsor framework was first sold to the people of Northern Ireland, it was presented as affecting the flow of goods only from GB to Northern Ireland. Now we see that, in effect, it will equally apply to the flow of goods from Northern Ireland to GB. I would like to hear from the Minister where those checks are going to be on consignments coming from a part of the United Kingdom to the mainland of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell us that? That comes on top of the quite audacious suggestion that there should be checks at all on goods being brought from one part of the United Kingdom to another.
Once again, this is a regulation that puts the spotlight on how far my part of the United Kingdom has been pushed out of the United Kingdom and into and under EU control. In consequence, the Parliament of the United Kingdom is now unable or unwilling to legislate for the passage of goods from one part of the United Kingdom to another. That is what you are being asked to do here today. I, for one, do not think that that is in any sense constitutionally, politically or economically acceptable.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the contributions made by Members and for the support of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, whose positive response I welcome. This is important work, and a sensible approach is being taken.
I also hear the points made by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim. I reassure him that essentially what we propose in the draft regulations is absolutely consistent with all the commitments already set out in the Windsor framework, including continuing to guarantee that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will have unfettered access to the Great British market.
Jim Allister
How can there be unfettered access from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, as is assured in the words of the Windsor framework, if, at the same time, regulation 14 provides for checks on goods coming into Great Britain, which must include goods coming from Northern Ireland? How can there be unfettered access if goods are subject to checks?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the points made by the hon. and learned Member. He will appreciate that we are trying to resolve a complicated set of circumstances and make them work. These measures are a genuine attempt to make the system work for everybody’s benefit. I appreciate the complex issues that he raises, but I do not believe that these measures make any substantial difference to them.
The draft regulations remove the reliance on temporary measures, implementing a responsive, risk-based imports approach to protect the United Kingdom from emerging pests and diseases while supporting businesses with processes that are as simple and effective as possible. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Borrowing) and East Midlands Combined County Authority (Borrowing and Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 19 November 2024. They have three elements: first, the conferral of borrowing powers on the York and North Yorkshire combined authority, the North East mayoral combined authority and the East Midlands combined county authority; secondly, the conferral of the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration on the East Midlands combined county authority; and thirdly, the amending of certain parts of the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.
I will come to each of those elements in turn, but, put simply, the regulations will extend the borrowing powers of the York and North Yorkshire and North East combined authorities to apply to all their functions, and enable the East Midlands combined county authority to borrow against its functions; confer on the East Midlands combined county authority its constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration; and make amendments to the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024 to address typographical errors and additional operational requirements that were identified after those regulations were made.
If approved by the House, the draft regulations will implement a commitment made to the three authorities in their original respective devolution deals. The regulations will match the Government’s ambition for English devolution by moving power out of Westminster and back to those who know their areas best. The extension and conferral of borrowing powers via the regulations is an important step towards empowering the authorities to invest in their local areas, giving mayors and local leaders the tools needed to stimulate their local economies and drive growth.
Currently, in line with primary legislation, the York and North Yorkshire combined authority can borrow in relation to its transport, police and fire functions, and the North East mayoral combined authority can borrow against its transport functions. As a combined county authority, the East Midlands is unable to borrow against any of its functions. The regulations will allow all three authorities to borrow against any of their functions, thereby delivering on commitments made in their respective devolution deals. The three authorities and their respective constituent councils—13 in total—have consented to the regulations.
The conferral of borrowing powers will bring the York and North Yorkshire combined authority, the East Midlands combined county authority and the North East mayoral combined authority in line with their existing combined authority peers, which have followed the same process for the conferral of borrowing functions. Additionally, it will bring the three authorities in line with local authorities, which are empowered to borrow for all their functions.
As combined authorities and combined county authorities, the York and North Yorkshire, East Midlands and North East authorities are subject to requirements for borrowing provided for in the Local Government Act 2003. The prudential borrowing regime provides that an authority can borrow lawfully only if it can demonstrate that the servicing and repayment of its debts is affordable. This ensures that the three authorities’ proposed borrowing powers will be used appropriately.
Like other areas, York and North Yorkshire, the East Midlands and the North East, as combined and combined county authorities, have a further check on their ability to borrow. Such authorities are subject to a debt cap, which must be agreed with His Majesty’s Treasury. Each agreed debt cap specifies the ceiling of the authority’s debt. I can confirm that all three authorities have successfully agreed their respective debt caps for the 2024-25 financial year, and negotiations on debt caps for the 2025-26 financial year are due to start shortly.
The regulations also confer on the East Midlands combined county authority its constituent councils’ general power of competence. This power will be used only in relation to economic development and regeneration. The conferral of the power fulfils commitments that were made as part of the original east midlands devolution deal, which was agreed with all the constituent councils, and will enable the East Midlands combined county authority to support local businesses and grow the visitor economy. This was a fundamental element of the proposal submitted by the constituent councils—Derby city council, Derbyshire county council, Nottingham city council and Nottinghamshire county council—to establish the East Midlands combined county authority.
The councils’ proposal makes reference to how the combined county authority will ensure that workers, businesses and local areas are supported, where possible, by schemes such as the east midlands investment fund in the delivery of key aspirations in net zero and skills. The conferral of the east midlands constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration will ensure that the combined authority is able to achieve its aims and deliver for the people of the east midlands.
The limited conferral of the general power of competence is a new power for the East Midlands combined county authority, so the Deputy Prime Minister, in her capacity as Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, must be satisfied that the statutory requirements outlined in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been met. I can report that the necessary statutory requirements have been considered, and the Deputy Prime Minister is content that they have been met. The Deputy Prime Minister is satisfied that the conferral of the power will improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of those who live and work in the east midlands, is in keeping with the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and reflects the interests of local communities. An appropriate consultation on the conferral of this power has also been undertaken in the east midlands.
Economic development and regeneration featured as a core element of the devolution deal that was signed on 30 August 2022, and was consulted on during the statutory consultation with residents, businesses and stakeholders on the establishment of a mayoral combined county authority in the east midlands. The consultation ran from 14 November 2022 to 9 January 2023, with the public and local stakeholders expressing support for the economic development activities that the combined authority intends to undertake. When asked about policies relating to economic regeneration and development, 48% of responses were supportive, with 36% unsupportive and 16% having no opinion.
The use of the function, if conferred, will be subject to the provisions of the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024, which have already been determined as securing effective and convenient local government. The combined county authority has a directly elected mayor and two members from each of its constituent councils. In the East Midlands combined county authority, decisions, including those relating to the use of the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration, are passed by a simple majority, but any such majority must include the mayor. There is an agreed mechanism for district councils to input into the combined county authority through four non-constituent members representing the views of district councils from across both two-tier areas. Other local interests are also represented through either non-constituent or associate membership of the combined county authority.
There is precedent for the conferral of a combined authority’s constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration. Existing combined authorities, such as the West Midlands and the Liverpool city region, already have this power, which they have utilised for the purpose of economic development in supporting businesses and tourism in their areas. The East Midlands authority will similarly make use of the power for the benefit of those who live and work in its geography.
The regulations will also make amendments to the East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024, which were made at pace to ensure that the East Midlands authority was established in time to hold its inaugural mayoral election on 2 May 2024. This was successfully achieved, not only ensuring that the mayoral election could take place but creating the first ever combined county authority. With the East Midlands combined county authority established, it has been possible to see how the legislation works in practice and, in discussion with the East Midlands authority, certain amendments to the 2024 regulations have been identified that are necessary to enable the authority to operate effectively and in line with its devolution deal, as originally intended.
The amendments to the 2024 regulations will, first, enable non-constituent members to have voting rights in East Midlands combined county authority committees, provided that those non-constituent members have been granted voting rights by the East Midlands authority’s constituent members. Secondly, they will allow the Mayor of the East Midlands combined county authority to arrange for functions to be exercised by a committee of the combined county authority. Thirdly, they will clarify voting arrangements by specifically outlining that the mayoral budget requires a two-thirds majority. This is in line with other existing combined authorities and has been included to resolve any ambiguity, as has reference to the unanimous vote required for use of transport functions.
The amendments in the regulations will also resolve a typographical error in the 2024 regulations in relation to the housing, planning and regeneration functions of the East Midlands authority. As the Committee has heard, the amendments to the 2024 regulations are of an operational nature, and will benefit the smooth running of the combined county authority by ensuring that it can function effectively and providing clarification and certainty on the use of its functions and powers. The amendments have been discussed with the East Midlands authority and its constituent councils, and both the councils and the combined authority have consented to the amendments being made.
In conclusion, the regulations, which are supported locally, will continue the Government’s mission to shift powers and money from central Government to those in our regions with skin in the game. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I wish the Minister and all Members a happy new year.
Considering the bulging numbers on the Opposition Benches, the Minister will be pleased to know that we will not challenge the regulations. But we do have some general questions. He gave a detailed explanation of the business before us but there are, as he would expect, a number of questions that the Opposition want to flag and that I would appreciate an answer to.
The Opposition completely understand the reason for the measures and for the need to enhance devolution in the existing combined authorities. We must also stress the impact of excessive borrowing on taxpayers and council tax payers. It is important that—as the Minister would expect me to note—Conservative mayors have never raised the mayoral precept that they can impose. They have either cut it or not put it in place at all, while Labour mayors such as Sadiq Khan have increased it. However, we welcome the introduction of the debt caps agreed with the Treasury.
Given his announcement on devolution plans a couple of weeks ago, the Minister would expect me to ask about the Government’s plans and mechanisms to legislate with the new authorities. Will they have to legislate en masse, or does the Minister expect to come to the House with other statutory instruments like this one, following consultations and the establishment of new mayoral combined authorities? What debt caps will feature in the future? Will there be central Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government guidance on acceptable debt caps and borrowing levels for combined authorities?
What will the Government do to keep council tax down and ensure that the temptation to borrow more—particularly in the financial situation that we find ourselves in—does not lead to increased council tax or taxes on residents? Will the Minister not only urge the East Midlands authority, and other authorities going forward, to behave responsibly, but urge caution on borrowing with the powers that will be given to new combined authorities? As we move forward, will the Minister legislate to allow borrowing against all functions, as in the changes and adaptations he has outlined today, or will he look at it on a case-by-case basis, as local authorities come forward under his devolution plans?
As we move towards devolution, another concern is about what will happen to the debt incurred by councils that choose to undergo restructuring. That is slightly outside the scope of the SI, but it is in the policy that we would have to see statutory instruments such as this one. Where will councils’ debt go when they merge into a new devolution settlement? Will councils have to have the difficult conversations on their own, and organise their own affairs, or will central Government support them as they go forward locally?
Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council has a debt of £500 million. I do not think it will surprise the Committee that other councils do not want that council to merge into their functions under future devolution plans. [Interruption.] It comes as a surprise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth, but it should not. I wonder whether the Minister will facilitate plans going forward and what Government support will be given to local authorities as they go through the mergers.
I note that for the general power of competence for economic development and regeneration to be conferred on the East Midlands combined authority, a public consultation was required by law, as the Minister outlined. That is perfectly acceptable and right, and he gave a detailed review of the responses from the local public. I think it is safe to say that the feedback indicated general but not overwhelming support. What lessons will the Minister and the Government draw from the consultation mechanisms that were outlined? On reflection, how will he adapt transfers of the devolution of powers? What shape will future consultations take to encourage greater co-operation and participation by local residents when they face changes in their local authorities?
Lastly, as we enter this phase of quite disruptive top-down restructuring, I hope the Minister will outline some detail on the policy going forward, and particularly on my specific questions this morning, beyond its current embryonic nature. Overall, we support the mechanism. We believe in devolution as an Opposition and as a party—it was set up by this party originally—and we look forward to seeing locally elected mayors deliver the powers and functions that this Government want them to.
Jim McMahon
I thank the shadow Minister and wish him a happy new year in return. His were generally positive comments, with the exception of the standard view of the Mayor of London, who is obviously doing a fantastic job of delivering the Government’s missions—and long may that continue.
Let me answer the shadow Minister’s questions, all of which were completely legitimate. We expect all public bodies, whether they are councils or mayoral combined authorities, to exercise their borrowing powers with the restraint that the public would expect. We expect them to borrow for a purpose and honour their borrowing commitments through the repayment schedule. That is why there is a clear mechanism in place for HMT to assess borrowing caps on an individual basis, reliant on the financial status of the local or combined authority in question. The checks and balances are robust and in place, and it may well be that the powers are not used in some places.
The point is that as we move towards a new phase of devolution there has to be an assumption of trust and autonomy for local authorities to do what is right for their local communities, without them always coming cap in hand to the Government or waiting for a new Government grant scheme that they can bid into. In the end, areas will be expected to self-organise, to work with their local business community and investors, and to marshal projects for the economic wellbeing of the country. This devolution mechanism is very much about bringing the relevant areas in line with other authorities that already have those powers.
We have seen mayoral combined authorities in particular making a difference to economic growth. Greater Manchester is significantly outperforming large parts of the economy elsewhere in England. That has been in large part because of the mayor’s convening role and the activity and energy of the local authorities, but also, importantly, because they have been able to team up and label different elements of funding to make schemes stack up and bring them to market so that they can be achieved. Having that role in place, with the legal powers required, is entirely what this mechanism is all about.
I have a different view from the Opposition on the use of a mayoral precept. The reason for that is that every mayoral operation has a cost to it. We can all agree that we want them to be slim, efficient and nimble, but the idea that some mayors have a cost to them and some do not is frankly ridiculous. Every mayoral combined authority has an operating cost. The more that authority does, the higher that cost will be, reflecting the activity that has been undertaken. There are two ways to meet that cost. We can have a levy or a charge on the local authority, which is not particularly transparent and cannot be seen by the public. The public do not even get to see on their council tax bills how much has been spent on that function, so where is the democratic accountability? Alternatively, we can shine a light on it and say that the public have a right to know how much mayoral combined authorities cost. That should be transparent on the council tax bill, and the public, through the democratic voting process, will have the right to say whether they believe that money is being used to the best effect.
Paul Holmes
I do not want to break the spirit of consensus, but although the Minister is quite right that transparency is crucial to all local mayors and that the public must know how much the authorities cost, why is it that Labour mayors seem to be raising their precept much more than any Conversative mayor? Is he saying to the Committee that Labour mayors are inefficient and their operations cost more than those of Tory mayors?
Jim McMahon
I do not want to say who has the largest number of mayors, but I do not think the shadow Minister needs me to remind him that there is only one Conservative mayor in the whole country, and in the smallest combined authority, as he knows. This is not particularly about rights and wrongs, and I suggest that it would be best not to stray towards the finances in the Tees valley.
As a point of principle in terms of democratic accountability, taxpayers have a right to know which elected official is spending money on their behalf and to be able to make a judgment about whether that money is used to best effect. Having that transparency is an important part of this democratic devolution project. I understand why the Opposition would want to make hay out of a precept and refer to it as a new tax; I would say the public are paying one way or the other and it is far better that it is transparent. I will leave that there.
This may be straying a bit too far from the SI, but we reject entirely any suggestion that devolution or reorganisation is top-down. Today, councils across England will meet to discuss whether they want to make their own submission ahead of the deadline this Friday for local government reorganisation and/or devolution. They will decide whether it is right for them. They will decide who they want to work with and whether they want reorganisation in some places, potentially with devolution with a mayoral combined authority. Some might decide that they are not in a position to join a mayoral combined authority but want to take the first step to a foundational agreement that begins that journey. That is not top-down; that is local areas working together to self-organise, and a Government who are facilitating that devolution. In the end, if we do not get power away from this place, we will not allow every part of our country to realise its full potential. Areas will always be at the behest of the Government, and that cannot stand.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I declare an interest as a Leicestershire MP. Leicestershire looked at joining the East Midlands combined county authority but decided not to. Given what the Minister said about this Friday, if Leicestershire decided that it wanted to go into D2N2, would we need further legislation to change the borrowing that is set again, and a further SI to add that in, or is there a mechanism lined up so that county authorities can join mayoralties without the matter having to come back to Parliament?
Jim McMahon
I am not sure that I entirely understood the question, but this SI is about new member councils joining an existing combined authority. Any member council can join, but its membership would need to be confirmed by secondary legislation, not least because in some places functions are exercised by the local authority as a member of a combined authority, rather than by the combined authority directly. The whole thing needs to be reconciled taking into account its new membership. Leicestershire has huge economic and social potential, but without devolution it will not realise its full potential and will get left behind. I do not know whether Leicestershire is making a submission on Friday, but I sincerely hope that it will. I encourage the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members present to speak to their local authorities and encourage submissions.
The regulations confirm the commitment made in devolution agreements with the York and North Yorkshire combined authority, the East Midlands combined county authority and the North East mayoral combined authority to provide them with borrowing powers against their functions. Providing borrowing powers will provide all three authorities with the opportunity to invest in their services and functions to the benefit of those who live and work in their geographies.
The regulations will also ensure that the East Midlands combined county authority can operate as its devolution deal intended, by conferring the east midlands constituent councils’ general power of competence for economic development and regeneration on the combined county authority, and by ensuring that amendments are made to allow the combined county authority to operate robustly and effectively. I am confident that the regulations will give the authorities the tools to shape their futures, driving growth and higher living standards across their geographies. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025
Draft Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Police Act 1997 (Authorisations to Interfere with Property: Relevant Offence) Regulations 2025.
Dan Jarvis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell.
Both the draft statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 29 October 2024, relate to the National Security Act 2023. That Act, which received Royal Assent in July 2023, includes a number of measures to protect the public, to disrupt the full range of modern-day state threats and to modernise our counter-espionage laws. Among the measures is a prohibited places regime, which includes a suite of tools and offences to protect against and capture harmful activity in and around some of the UK’s most sensitive sites, including from modern threats such as unmanned aircraft—more commonly known as drones. It is essential to make the amendments in the two draft instruments to ensure consistency of approach in consequential amendments in both English and Welsh versions of related legislation, and to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the right tools to do their critical work.
The draft Police Act 1997 regulations add drone-specific offences under the National Security Act 2023 to the list of relevant offences in the Police Act 1997. The 1997 Act provides police and other authorised officials with the legal authority to employ counter-drone equipment, to detect and prevent the use of drones in the commission of relevant offences. That amendment is essential to enforce the National Security Act, as it ensures that police and other authorised officials can authorise the appropriate technical tools to tackle and combat drone misuse. If we do not proceed with the draft legislation, there may be instances in which an offence under the National Security Act 2023 is committed but the police are unable to authorise the use of their equipment.
The other instrument, the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025, amends the Welsh-language version of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019. In December 2023, when changing the English-language version of the 2023 Act through the National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2023, the corresponding change was not made to the Welsh-language version, due to an oversight. The draft instrument will correct that oversight, ensuring that there is no misunderstanding when consulting the Welsh-language version of the Act regarding the ability to disclose information obtained in the course of an investigation by the Public Services Ombudsman, if required in relation to a prosecution for offences under the National Security Act.
I hope that I have made it clear in my remarks that the draft regulations are simply to ensure the correct application and enforcement of primary legislation that has already been agreed by Parliament. Passing the two draft statutory instruments is an important step to correcting an inaccuracy and enforcing primary legislation.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I welcome serving under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, the draft regulations make a simple but necessary change to ensure that the legislation works effectively across the UK. The National Security Act was an appropriate response to the threat of hostile activity from states targeting the UK’s democracy. Correcting the error of not having altered the Welsh version is a necessary change to ensure that information is disclosed, so we fully support the change and I will not take up any further Committee time on those regulations.
With regard to the draft Police Act regulations, the comments made by the Minister recognise the importance of upholding our national security and taking steps to mitigate the risk posed by new technologies. Around the world, including recently on the east coast of America, we have seen how drones can cause confusion and undermine people’s confidence in security. Therefore, we must take all necessary steps to uphold our national security and provide the police with the powers to act where drone activity could pose a threat. For that reason, we support the regulation.
Our position is consistent. Where new technology poses a clear threat, the police should have the powers to act. Although we support the regulatory changes, I will ask the Minister to elaborate on a couple of matters, which I am sure would provide reassurance to drone hobbyists. I am confident that the vast majority of people will not have any issue with these regulations and will seek to avoid creating any inconvenience. However, what action will be taken to clarify how authorities will notify hobbyists about prohibited areas? While many sites may rely on signage or calls to the police, will the Minister consider how to effectively communicate which sites are designated as no-fly zones? Furthermore, will the Minister ensure that the drone hobbyist community is informed that security personnel will have the authority to ask individuals to move on, and that such authority will not be misused in respect of non-prohibited buildings? I raise that point because I believe it is in all our interests to ensure that police and court time is not wasted on cases that could have been resolved with clearer communication.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the constructive tone of his response. I think this is the third statutory instrument that we have done together, and he has always asked entirely sensible and reasonable questions; I am grateful for his approach.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the police need to have the technological capabilities to address a developing technological threat. Concerns have been expressed around drone activity in recent times; that has been very much in the public domain. He is absolutely right to say that we must take every step to ensure that drone hobbyists, who rightly use drones in an entirely responsible and reasonable way—there are a number, both nationally and in my own constituency—do not fall foul of the legislation. The last thing that we want is unnecessary pressures on the police and the courts. I will take away the shadow Minister’s point and reflect on it further. I will satisfy myself that work is under way, locally, regionally and nationally, to address the points he raised. If I think I need to come back to him on those points, then I will, but I am grateful to him for raising them today.
In closing, I reiterate that these instruments provide essential updates to allow the correct application and enforcement of the National Security Act 2023. The amendment to the Police Act 1997 is essential to ensure that police and authorised officials have the right tools to tackle drone misuse. The consequential amendment will ensure that existing primary legislation will continue to function properly. The amendment to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019 is essential to ensure correct application of the rules of disclosure in relation to offences contained in the National Security Act of 2023. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.
DRAFT POLICE ACT 1997 (AUTHORISATIONS TO INTERFERE WITH PROPERTY: RELEVANT OFFENCE) REGULATIONS 2025
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Security Act 2023 (Consequential Amendment of Primary Legislation) Regulations 2025.—(Dan Jarvis.)