Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 62 stand part.
Clause 80 stand part.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I made my substantive points in the previous sitting, so I just want to summarise my position and conclude. Clauses 15, 62 and 80 concern the free distribution and discount of products. I support the Government wholeheartedly on tobacco products, but I tried to make the point that I believed there was a legitimate and responsible avenue for vaping and nicotine products to offer such discounts, particularly in the example that I gave, where a responsible vaping company was in partnership with the NHS to help to achieve the aim of the Bill of a smoke-free generation. I cannot support clauses 15, 62 and 80 in their current form and intend to vote against their standing part of the Bill.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Clause 15 makes it an offence to give away or discount any vape product. That is important because discounts encourage us to buy more things. That is what they are there for; it is what promotions are for. They encourage us to buy things that we did not want or need. We do not want people to consume excessive quantities of vapes that they do not want to have, but that does happen. A cursory glance on the internet shows that numerous websites are advertising vape discount codes and vouchers offering 10% or 15% discounts on vapes, as well as giftcards that are readily available for online purchase. The clause therefore replaces section 9 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002 and extends its scope, as there are currently no restrictions on businesses freely distributing nicotine and non-nicotine vaping products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products.
In 2023 the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), created an illicit vapes enforcement squad, backed by £3 million. It was designed to close the legal loophole that allowed the vaping industry to provide free samples of vapes to be distributed regardless of consumer age. That was patently unacceptable, and I welcome the action that the previous Government took on the issue. I point out that giving away vapes was pretty common. In fact, my own parliamentary staffer went to a promotional event on vaping held in Parliament itself, in this very House, and was given free samples of Vuse vapes. I have been made aware by staffers that similar events take place outside Parliament, so I think that this is a useful clause and I will support it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. May I start by not only thanking the shadow Minister for her support, but congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford on his birthday? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is a real pleasure that we are able to provide him with a full day’s entertainment—better than Netflix.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister very much for his birthday felicitations. There is nowhere I would rather be than here.
Andrew Gwynne
I was just about to say, Sir Roger, that might be one thing that we have to divide on later. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford all the best for today and hope that he gets home in reasonable time to enjoy with friends and family what is left of his birthday.
I thank hon. Members for their speeches on these clauses today and earlier this week. The Government have two objectives on vaping. The first is to tackle youth vaping. Too many children are vaping and vapes are attractive and accessible to them. The Bill will bring about definitive and positive change to prevent future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine. The second objective is to support adult smokers to access vapes to help them to quit smoking. As the chief medical officer says:
“If you smoke, vaping is safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape; and the marketing of vapes to children is utterly abhorrent.”––[Official Report, Tobacco and Vapes Public Bill Committee, 7 January 2025; c. 11, Q8.]
I concur with that entirely.
In support of those aims, the clauses do not apply to licensed medicines and there is a defence available when any free vaping or nicotine product is given out in accordance with arrangements made by a public health authority or a public authority. That means that smoking cessation services will be able to continue to support adult smokers to quit smoking, for example by providing free smoking cessation quit aids where appropriate. That includes our national swap to stop programme that continues to help smokers move from cigarettes to vapes.
I also stress that we will continue to work with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to support applications from industry for vapes as a licensed medicine. As Dr Laura Squire, the MHRA chief healthcare quality and access officer, stated in the evidence session, there may be progress in this area. I hope that that assures hon. Members that we continue to take a balanced approach to vaping, both through the measures in the Bill and our wider work on tobacco control.
More generally, the clauses make it an offence to give away any tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine product as well as cigarette papers if the purpose or effect is to promote any tobacco, herbal smoking, smoking-related, vaping or nicotine product to a member of the public of any age—for England and Wales, in clause 15, for Scotland, in clause 62, and for Northern Ireland, in clause 80. The maximum penalty for the offence will be imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.
The clause also extends to coupons and vouchers and to selling a product at a substantial discount. These measures mean that disreputable actors cannot bypass the restriction by offering a free voucher for a product instead of a free product. The clause also covers products that promote any of the aforementioned products—for example, t-shirts with vape company branding to promote vapes cannot be freely given away. On discounts, we are only prohibiting substantial discounts, so we can make sure that businesses cannot heavily discount products to the point at which the price is no longer relevant. Businesses can still discount products if they choose to. Clause 62 also includes a power for Scottish Ministers to create additional defences.
It should never have been the case that addictive nicotine and vaping products could be legally handed out for free. This is one of the many avenues by which industry is addicting our children. It is for these reasons I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Prohibition of retail sales of tobacco products etc in England without a licence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clauses 17 and 18 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Clause 19 stand part.
Schedule 3.
Clauses 20 and 21 stand part.
Schedule 4.
Clause 22 stand part.
Clause 85 stand part.
Schedules 11 to 13.
Dr Johnson
I put on the record my good wishes for a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Dartford. He shares a birthday with both my daughter and my son’s science teacher, and I wish them all a happy birthday. While fully enjoying and engaging with this very important piece of legislation, I understand his urge to celebrate his birthday later, and I hope he will be able to do so.
This is quite a big group of clauses. They provide for the licensing regime for retail sales of various products, tobacco products and others in England and are quite complex.
Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations on the granting of personal and premises licences. It establishes a licensing system for the sale, storage, exposure and supply of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products in England and outlines the requirement for individuals and businesses involved in the retail of those products to hold specific licences.
The clause can essentially be broken down as follows. Subsection (1) establishes that individuals in England are prohibited from selling, displaying for sale or possessing certain relevant products, such as tobacco, vaping and nicotine products, unless they have a valid personal licence. That ensures that all transactions are regulated and aims to control access, ensure compliance with legal standards and promote accountability among retailers in handling those products.
Clause 16 also effectively creates a licensing framework to monitor and enforce sale practices. That is important, because we have heard evidence—and seen for ourselves when we walk down the street—that virtually every shop, whatever it sells otherwise, sells vapes. The clause will help to reduce the number of outlets selling those products and ensure that they are being sold responsibly and only to those above the age of sale.
Subsection (2) mandates that premises cannot be used for certain activities involving the relevant products, including storing, displaying or supplying them without a valid premises licence. Again, that ensures that the locations themselves are regulated by requiring a licence, which allows for oversight of operations, ensures compliance with health and safety and legal standards and prevents and reduces unauthorised and illicit sales. That will help to enforce accountability and the responsible handling of regulated goods.
Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to create by regulations exemptions to subsections (1) and (2) if he or she wishes to do so. Subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State to create regulations governing the granting of both personal and premises licences. That provision is essential to establish clear criteria and procedures for individuals and businesses seeking licences to sell, store or display relevant products. Subsection (4) will ensure that those activities are conducted responsibly and legally, aligning public safety standards and allowing for consistent oversight, as I said. It ensures that there is a thorough process in considering input from those who are directly affected by or have expertise in the matter.
Subsection (7) specifies that regulations under the clause are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which we have talked about before. Subsection (8) defines key terms, such as “personal licence”, “premises licence” and “relevant products”, ensuring that there is clarity in the interpretation and application of the provisions so that individuals subject to them understand what their duties involve.
Schedule 1 concerns the retail licensing scheme for England only. To tackle the illicit market and protect legitimate businesses, the Bill provides powers to introduce a new retail licensing scheme in England for tobacco, vapes and nicotine products. The schedule details the regulations for a retail licensing scheme and explains the regulations that the Secretary of State can implement under the powers granted in clause 16, which mandate that retail sales of those products in England must be licensed.
There clearly needs to be a licensing authority, and the regulations will designate a local authority as the responsible body for granting licences to retailers that wish to sell tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. With regard to yesterday’s statement on the changes to some local authorities, it is important that the provisions in the schedule work, even in the event that the local authorities change as part of that process.
The regulations on licensing conditions can prevent the granting of licences in certain areas—for example, near schools—limit the number of licences in specific areas and require premises to be inspected before a licence is granted. The licensing authority can charge a fee to cover the cost of administering and enforcing a licensing scheme, and a portion of those fees may be allocated to other bodies involved in the enforcement process, especially if licensing and enforcement are handled by different authorities. The regulations will also do other sensible things; they mention the licence duration, public disclosure and how to renew and appeal any licence that has been either granted or refused. The Secretary of State will be able to provide guidance to the local authorities providing the licensing duty on how to carry out their duties in that respect.
The impact assessment on the Bill, which was published by the Department for Health and Social Care in November 2024, notes:
“A retail licensing scheme for the sale of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products would support enforcement (and in turn, public health) by:
a) strengthening retailers’ adherence to existing regulations”
and by
“b) providing the opportunity to introduce further restrictions…in the interest of public health, for example conditions relating to retail density.”
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
For clarity, does that notice give notice of the amount of the penalty or just that a penalty will be imposed? Can the retailer appeal to the weights and measures authority about whether they will get a fine, or are they simply told the amount of the fine that they are likely to get? If my hon. Friend does not know, perhaps the Minister might.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I do not think the schedule says that, so I do not know the answer. Presumably, the Minister will know the answer—or his civil servants will—and will be able to provide it in his summing up, so I shall move on.
Before the notice of intent is given, the final notice can be withdrawn or amended to reduce the penalty amount at any time by written notice. The person has a right to appeal to the magistrates court against the decision to impose a financial penalty or against the amount of the penalty. To go back to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, there is an opportunity to appeal the amount if one wishes to do so.
The schedule will enable an independent decision and establishes the appeals procedure to be followed. If a person fails to pay either the whole or a part of the financial penalty within the given period, the unpaid amount may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order—so there is pretty stiff insurance that it will get paid. Any proceeds received from financial penalties must be returned to the Consolidated Fund once enforcement costs to investigate an issued penalty have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority.
Clause 19 relates to the retail licensing for Wales. As in clause 16, subsection (1) establishes that individuals must hold a personal licence to engage in activities such as selling relevant products. Subsection (2) extends those licensing requirements to ensure that the premises is licensed for activities involving relevant products. In line with clause 16, subsection (3) gives Welsh Ministers, in this case, the authority to create exceptions to the licensing regulations and requirements set out in subsections (1) and (2). Subsection (4) mandates that Welsh Ministers develop the regulations for establishment and operation of personal and premises licences.
Gregory Stafford
I am not clear what sort of exceptions we might be talking about in clauses 16 and 19 being made by Westminster Ministers or Welsh Government Ministers—and I assume there will be a corollary in the other devolved nations when we get to them.
Dr Johnson
I am not clear about that either, but I am sure the Minister will elucidate what exceptions he sees and when someone or somewhere would be used for selling such products without a licence.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
When it comes to alcohol licensing, exceptions for members’ clubs are, of course, already in statute, so we do have exceptions in other licensing regimes. Does the hon. Lady agree that the online sale of vapes, which constitutes a significant market, might also be an exception with regard to brick and mortar premises? The exceptions covered by the Bill might relate to the type of sale and the area of sale.
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is important, however, that those who are selling online and those who are selling in shops have to have a licence to do so. I hope that the Minister does not intend to exempt online retailers from the need to have a licence to sell such products—he is shaking his head, so I suggest that is not the case, which is good.
One reason for tabling new clause 10 was to highlight the importance of ensuring that online retailers are held to the same standards as those real-world retailers. We have talked previously about ensuring that online apps and online sales cannot be used as a get-around—similar to vending machines, for example. It is important to ensure that the online world is not used to get around the Government’s intention to prevent smoking and the purchase of smoking, vaping and nicotine products by under-age individuals.
To return to clause 19, subsection (5) requires Welsh Ministers to consult with relevant stakeholders before making regulations, which is sensible. Subsection (7) specifies that the regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which for Wales means that the proposed regulations must be formally approved by the Senedd before becoming law, increasing democratic accountability and providing an extra layer of scrutiny. Respect for Welsh devolution, as we talked about in the last session, is therefore included within the Bill.
Schedule 3 provides for retail licensing schemes in Wales, making provision regarding the granting of a licence in Wales, including provisions meaning that a licensing authority cannot grant a licence to premises in a particular area, for example, in proximity to a school, and limiting the number of licences within a particular area. We heard previously that specifying that licensed premises should not be near a school could cause difficulties in some rural areas where there may be only one shop in that village and no shops for many miles around it. That is one of the reasons decisions are made locally, because the local individuals providing those licences know the local circumstances, and that would need to be done cautiously. The regulations will also specify the duration of the licence, how it is enforced and the appeals process.
Clause 20 relates to offences in connection with licences in Wales and sets out how offences are committed, along with the penalties that may be put in place. I will not go through that in any more detail.
Clause 21 talks about the financial penalties in Wales. We have talked previously about how it is a matter for the devolved nations to decide how high those penalties should be. Subsection (1) grants the local weights and measures authorities in Wales the powers to impose those financial penalties relating to a breach of conditions attached to a personal or premises licence.
Schedule 4 outlines the procedure for local authorities in Wales, such as trading standards, to impose financial penalties for breaching licence conditions. Again, before imposing a penalty, authorities must issue a notice of intent and allow time for it to be challenged. If a penalty is imposed, a final notice is issued, which can be withdrawn or reduced, and the person can appeal the decision or the penalty amount to the magistrates court. Unpaid penalties can be recovered as if they were payable under an order of the county court and proceeds, after enforcement costs, are returned to the Welsh Consolidated Fund.
Clause 22 is the repeal of register of retailers of tobacco and nicotine products in Wales. It proposes to repeal chapter 2 in part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which established a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. Clearly, if this Bill passes, that provision will no longer be required because the clauses in the Bill provide for new provisions. Clause 22 repeals that chapter of the 2017 Act so that it can be replaced, which is sensible.
Gregory Stafford
I completely understand the practical need to repeal a piece of legislation that is no longer workable under the new Bill, but can my hon. Friend assure me that everything in the previous legislation that is appropriate has been transferred into the current legislation, so that nothing has fallen through the cracks? If she is not an expert in Welsh legislation, perhaps the Minister could help when he responds.
Dr Johnson
Chapter 2 of part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which is being repealed by the Bill, establishes a regulatory framework for retailers of tobacco and nicotine products through a centralised registration system. That Act requires the creation and maintenance of a register for all retailers of tobacco, cigarette papers and nicotine products. That register has to include detailed information about each registrant, such as their name, residential or business address, and the location of the premises. It also specifies whether the retailer sells tobacco, nicotine products or both. For mobile and temporary premises, such as stalls, tents or vehicles, the register must record the relevant local authorities where the business operates, if there is more than one.
Welsh Ministers may be designated as the authority responsible for overseeing the register, with additional details about registration requirements subject to regulations. To register, businesses must apply to the registration authority and provide comprehensive details about their operations, including the type of products sold and the methods of sale, such as online transactions or delivery services. Applications must comply with a prescribed format and a fee may be required. The authority must grant registration unless legal restrictions, such as restricted premises or sale orders, apply. Approved applications result in updates to the register.
Registered retailers are obligated to notify the authority of significant changes, such as modifications to business details, the cessation of operations at specific locations or the discontinuation of mobile operations in a local authority area. Notifications must be submitted within 28 days and the registration authority is responsible for revising the register to reflect the changes or correct any inaccuracies. Before amending or removing a registrant’s entry, the authority must provide notice to explain the reasons and allow time for the registrant to respond.
The chapter of the Act that is being repealed includes provisions to enhance the regulation of tobacco and nicotine businesses by ensuring access to the retailers register and enforcing compliance. The registration authority is required to publish a list identifying registered businesses and their premises. For businesses operating from moveable structures, such as stalls or vehicles, the list must specify the local authorities where operations occur, instead of physical addresses.
Local authorities are granted full access to information on the register relevant to the premises within their jurisdiction to enable effective monitoring. Certain premises may be exempt from the Act’s provisions, as specified in regulations. The application of the provisions to moveable premises may be modified if deemed necessary by Welsh Ministers.
Conducting a tobacco or nicotine business without registration is an offence, as is operating at locations not listed in the register. Exceptions apply to moveable premises, but failing to notify the authority of a change in business operations without reasonable cause also constitutes an offence. Offenders face fines proportional to the severity of the breach.
To enforce compliance, local authorities may appoint authorised officers and grant them powers to investigate potential offences. Officers may enter premises at reasonable times, provided that they suspect violations and need access for verification. Entry into dwellings for such a purpose requires a warrant issued by a justice of the peace, which remains valid for 28 days. Warrants may also be granted for other premises under specific conditions, such as denial of access or risk of compromising an investigation.
Authorised officers have extensive inspection powers, including examining premises, taking samples and copying documents. They may also secure properties for analysis where necessary. Obstructing officers or failing to co-operate with a reasonable requirement is an offence. Fixed-penalty notices can be issued for minor breaches, offering offenders an opportunity to avoid prosecution through prompt payment. Those measures, in the chapter of the Act that is being repealed, collectively aim to uphold public health standards and ensure the responsible sale of tobacco and nicotine products.
Dr Johnson
Given that is what the Act does, it will be important for the Minister to consider the timing of the repeal. There are comprehensive powers under those provisions, and it will be important to ensure that Welsh Ministers are given ample opportunity and time to put in place new provisions to replace them, before the measures in this Bill come into force.
Could the Minister explain when the changeover date is, and whether he has spoken to Welsh Ministers to ensure that there is adequate time for those provisions to be put in place? He might also respond to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon about whether there is any restriction on replacing any aspects of the current Welsh legislation with the new legislation that we are discussing.
Clause 85 prohibits retail sales of tobacco products without a licence in Northern Ireland. To apply the measures that we have previously discussed to Northern Ireland, it inserts new measures after section 4 of the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 that will prohibit the sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without a licence. That brings Northern Ireland legislation in line with the proposed UK legislation that we have just been discussing.
Proposed new section 4A of the 2014 Act introduces a clear prohibition on the retail sale of tobacco and nicotine-related products without appropriate licences. Under this section, individuals are not permitted to engage in the sale, exposure for sale or possession of relevant products unless they hold a personal licence. That licence is required for anyone involved in retail activities such as selling, displaying or possessing tobacco, vaping products, herbal smoking products or nicotine products. The personal licence must be granted by the licensing authority and the individual must comply with the conditions outlined in the licence.
The use of premises for activities such as storing relevant products, exposing them for sale or supplying them to customers is prohibited unless a premises licence is obtained. That ensures that the location used for the sale of these products is also licensed and adheres to the prescribed standards. The premises licence is granted by the licensing authority and outlines the specific conditions under which the premises can operate.
There is provision for regulations to create exceptions to those prohibitions in certain circumstances. The Department responsible for legislation is required to consult relevant stakeholders before making regulations relating to the granting of personal premises licences, which is of course sensible. Those regulations would ensure that the licensing system remains flexible and adaptable to the needs of businesses and public health objectives.
Proposed new section 4B of the 2014 Act establishes the penalties for breaching the new licensing requirements. If a business or individual operates without the necessary personal or premises licence, they commit an offence under that section. In line with England and Wales, providing false and misleading information in an application for a licence is also an offence. If someone knowingly submits incorrect information, they can face legal consequences, with a fine on summary conviction of up to level 5 on the standard scale. The section aims to ensure the integrity of the licensing process by holding individuals and businesses accountable for providing truthful information.
The court has the power to order the forfeiture and destruction of relevant products involved in an offence and of any containers used to store them. That gives the court authority to remove illegal products from circulation and deal with them in a manner it deems appropriate, thereby enforcing compliance with the new regulations.
Proposed new section 4C of the 2014 Act allows local councils to impose financial penalties on individuals or businesses that breach conditions attached to the personal or premises licences. Those breaches must not constitute a criminal offence under proposed new section 4B, which provides for an offence for lying. If a breach occurs, the council can impose a penalty, with the amount of the fine not exceeding £2,500. That serves as an alternative to criminal prosecution for more minor violations, allowing for a more flexible approach to enforcement. The section also allows for adjustments to the penalty amount to reflect inflation, ensuring that fines remain relevant over time.
Schedule 2 to the 2014 Act provides further details on the implementation of those financial penalties and outlines how the penalties will be enforced and collected. That mechanism enables councils to take swift action against minor breaches without resorting to criminal prosecution. Schedule 11 on the retail licensing scheme in Northern Ireland specifies the procedures for granting personal licences, including who may apply and the conditions that must be met for approval.
Schedule 12 provides for the financial penalties for breach of retail licence conditions in Northern Ireland. It outlines the process for granting premises licences, with particular attention paid to ensuring that premises used for sale and storage of tobacco products meet the necessary standards for health, safety and law compliance. Any proceeds received from financial penalties in Northern Ireland must be used by the council for the purpose of its functions under the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 or for other functions that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland may specify by regulation. That is a little different from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Schedule 13 sets out consequential amendments to the existing legislation to support the introduction of a new licensing framework. I will not go through those in detail.
Jack Rankin
In my remarks to date, I have tried to support responsible vaping businesses, which I think are legitimate, and to champion vaping as a smoking cessation tool. These clauses are not in contradiction of that principle. We should support better efforts to regulate the vape market and in particular to stop youth access. Introducing the licensing concept for vapes is consistent with the Government’s intent and the principles that I wish to support.
I wish to make some suggestions as to how the licensing regime should best be set up, and I hope that the Minister will talk about his intent in advancing the regulations. The UK responsible vape sector has talked sensibly about licensing. We have the existing framework of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the sale of alcohol; that is the kind of approach we should take to minimise excessive regulation and make it easy for people to comply. The licensing fee should be set at a rate that is at least cost-neutral to local authorities—I think everyone across the Committee realises how stretched those local authorities are—and it should cover both administrative and enforcement costs. I hope the Minister will comment on that point.
On the proximity of licensed premises to certain other locations, I encourage the Minister to try to mirror the alcohol regulations in order to provide a measure of consistency, so that legitimate premises with experience of selling age-related products can do so in the least bureaucratically complicated way. I invite the Minister to consider those points.
Sarah Bool
I want to build further on the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for Windsor.
The licensing scheme has been welcomed across the board, which is interesting. One vaping company, Evapo, had some suggestions. I thought it was interesting for it to put those out at this point, because some of the detail is still yet to be decided and it will be done through regulations. It mentions in written evidence that
“The licensing scheme should charge retailers £750 per store per year: Licences for over 55,000 convenience and vaping stores could raise upwards of £50 million, more than enough to fund Trading Standards’ enforcement of these new laws. A manageable fee for retailers would incentivise good actor participation, while disincentivising bad actor behaviour. It would also make it more cost effective to follow the law, stymieing rogue traders from shrugging off rare fines to sell illegal, dangerous products to underage people.”
I would be interested to hear more from the Minister about what those fines may be.
Dr Johnson
It is important that retailers who persistently flout the law are appropriately punished and that this acts as a deterrent for others. In his regulations, the Minister may want to consider whether the failure to obey one particular part of the age-restricted product legislation, such as the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, could lead to a loss of licensing for other age-restricted products, whether that be alcohol, fireworks or otherwise.
Sarah Bool
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments and I agree. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.
Evapo also says that
“the scheme should mandate at least two annual independent mystery shops, paid for out of the licensing scheme.”
That would be a good way of ensuring that the legislation is working in practice.
I hope that, before the roll-out of the various regulations, there will be a series of detailed consultations on how they are granted, the licence fee, the conditions, the duration, the publication, and the reviews and appeals. That would give us certainty that we are ensuring this legislation works in practice.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. What does she think about the idea of having a single licence? If a shop—for example, a small convenience store—is selling alcohol, tobacco, where it is still permitted under the regulation, and vapes for those over 18, would a single regulatory process and licensing scheme be more efficient and more beneficial both to the customer and the retailer?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We do not want the introduction of this legislation to lead to any overburdening. We do not want the smaller convenience stores that are trying to operate to be challenged and put out of business. We want this to be a very practical measure so I agree that would be something to look into. I wonder whether the Minister might offer any further thoughts on that.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank Members for their contributions.
Clauses 16 to 22, clause 85, and schedules 1 to 4 and 11 to 13 establish powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vaping products, nicotine products, cigarette papers and herbal smoking products. There is currently no requirement for a business to obtain a licence to sell these products, which is a major gap in enforcement. This gap is hard to defend since the sale of products such as alcohol does require a licence, while tobacco—the single biggest preventable cause of death, disability and ill health—does not. Vaping and nicotine products also carry, as we have heard, a significant risk of harm and addiction.
Introducing a licensing scheme will strengthen enforcement of the law, acting as a deterrent to rogue retailers who breach sales regulations, supporting legitimate businesses and ultimately supporting public health outcomes. Retail licensing is a highly popular intervention, as the shadow Minister helpfully pointed out, because the polling shows that 81% of retailers and 83% of the public are supportive of tobacco retail licensing, and it is one of the most popular tobacco interventions surveyed.
Clause 16 establishes that an individual in England is required to hold a personal licence in order to sell tobacco, vaping products or nicotine products, expose those products for sale, and possess products for sale. The clause also establishes that a person must have a premises licence for any premises in England used for the storage, exposure or supply of a relevant product to a retail customer.
The clause provides for a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make exceptions by regulations to the requirements for a personal or premises licence. This will enable regulations to appropriately account for all possible types of retail. The Secretary of State in England must, by regulations, make provisions for how licences are to be granted and must conduct a consultation before regulations are introduced. The scheme will be commenced by regulations.
I hope that in part answers the question posed by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, because we want to ensure that the licensing regime is fit for purpose not just for bricks and mortar businesses, but for online business.
Dr Caroline Johnson
Will the Minister address under which part of the legislation regulations will be made in Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
I will come to Scotland in due course.
Schedule 1 establishes the framework for the regulations. It establishes that the licensing authority will be the local authority, and defines the relevant types of local authority that regulations could establish as the licensing authority. In answer to the shadow Minister’s question, given that there is likely to be local government reorganisation in the future, it will be, and will remain, the responsibility of the outgoing local authority that is the licensing authority to continue the licensing function up to the date that the new local authority comes in, out of a shadow form.
The usual practice in local government reorganisation is that a shadow local authority is in place for a year in advance. It sorts out restructuring and necessary background work, with local members who were elected to the shadow authority becoming the members of the new local authority on the commencement date. That was true of the Local Government Acts in 1972 and 1996, and it has been true of local government reorganisations since. I have no reason to believe it will not be true of the next set of local government reorganisations. For a period of time, the outgoing local authority will be the licensing authority because it is the local authority until the date that it moves to new arrangements. From day one of the new arrangements, the new authority will be the licensing authority.
Dr Johnson
Some areas have a unitary authority, some have a unitary authority and a mayor, and some have restricted county councils. As local reorganisation occurs, how will the tier of local authority that has the competency and duties under this legislation be defined?
Andrew Gwynne
Where we know an area is moving from a two-tier to a unitary authority, the clue is in the name: the unitary authority will be the licensing authority because there will be only one local authority covering that area.
Gregory Stafford
I am sure the Minister has much greater understanding of his own Government’s policy, but my understanding is that there will be some devolution of powers to parish and town councils. Will they potentially become the licensing authority when there is a downward devolution of power?
Andrew Gwynne
No. The local authority, not the parish council, would be and will remain the licensing authority, as is the case at the present time. Notwithstanding that there may be a quasi-additional tier in the form of a mayor and a combined authority, where areas move from a two-tier to a unitary authority, it will be the local authority that is the licensing authority. That is what happens in my constituency in Greater Manchester, where we have effectively had unitary authorities since the metropolitan county council was abolished in 1986. Tameside metropolitan borough council and Manchester city council are both unitary authorities. They are both the licensing authorities for their respective parts of my constituency, even though we have a Greater Manchester combined authority and a Great Manchester metro mayor. I hope that clarifies the issue.
Schedule 1 also establishes that regulations may make provisions regarding the granting, duration, renewal and revocation of licences, and enables the licensing authority to charge a fee for the granting of a licence. In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Windsor, the fee structure may be set at a level that takes into account administration and enforcement costs. The local authority will be able to use the fee to help cover the cost of granting licences and enforcing the scheme. That is the closest I can get: we intend it to be cost-neutral for the purpose of operating the scheme.
Schedule 1 establishes that regulations can place conditions on the licence. Retailers that breach those conditions will be subject to civil financial penalties. Regulations may make provision for licensing authorities to publish information about licences, such as the addresses of licensed retailers, and, to maintain fairness, regulations must include an appeals route, so that retailers can, for example, appeal decisions on the granting of a licence. Finally, regulations may require that a licensing authority must consider guidance published by the Secretary of State to support the smooth implementation of the scheme.
Clause 19 and schedule 3 establish the same power to introduce a licensing scheme in Wales, with the same framework for the regulations. The schedule establishes the licensing authority in Wales to be the council of the county or county borough. Clause 85 achieves the same in Northern Ireland by inserting a new clause into the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, while schedule 11 establishes the same framework. In Northern Ireland, a council will be the licensing authority.
Clause 17 creates offences in relation to the licensing scheme in England. It makes it an offence to sell, expose for sale, or possess for the purpose of sale any relevant products without, or not in accordance with, a personal licence. The clause also makes it an offence to use a premises in England for the storage of relevant product for the purpose of retail sale, the exposure for sale, or the supply of any relevant product to a retail customer without, or not in accordance with, a premises licence, and knowingly to provide materially false or misleading information in a licence application.
Anyone found to be committing a licensing offence may be issued with an unlimited fine on conviction. As an alternative to prosecution, trading standards may issue a £2,500 fixed penalty notice, which is an on-the-spot fine. Regulations can confer on courts a discretionary power to suspend or revoke a licence on conviction. The court may order relevant product to be forfeited and destroyed, to prevent a business from continuing to sell or unlawfully selling product.
Clause 20 establishes the same licensing offences in Wales, and clause 85 establishes the same licensing offences in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, district councils will enforce the licensing scheme. People convicted of a licensing offence face a fine of up to £5,000. As an alternative to prosecution, councils in Northern Ireland can issue a fixed penalty notice, the value for which will be determined in regulations.
Clause 18 creates civil financial penalties for breaches of licence conditions in England, to ensure that licensed retailers continue to follow the rules. Breaching conditions is a civil matter, not dealt with by the courts. The value of the civil financial penalty cannot exceed £2,500. The clause also provides a limited and specific power to update that value to account for inflation, to ensure that the value remains relevant. A civil penalty cannot be issued if the breach of the licence condition already constitutes a licensing offence. That is to ensure that someone cannot be subject to double punishment for the same licence breach.
Dr Johnson
The power to increase the fine is in line with inflation, but if evidence over time showed the Minister that the fine was not adequate to deter the offence from taking place, the Government might wish to raise it by more than inflation, to provide a greater deterrent. Would it be wise to make the power more flexible?
Andrew Gwynne
As I have said during previous outings in the course of this Committee, the Bill merely rolls over the existing fines. We would need to do a much more complex piece of work to uprate the fines beyond the current values, plus inflation. That is not what the Bill seeks to do; we do not want to overcomplicate it.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 24 to 27 stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
No, it is too late; I am sorry. Members have to understand that if they wish to make a contribution, they must make that clear by standing up; otherwise, I push forward. It is too late. The clause is debated.
The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Taiwo Owatemi)
Sorry, Sir Roger. We had wanted to adjourn at clause 22.
The Chair
But we have just agreed clause 23. It is done. Whether you like it or not, the Committee has said yes to clause 23, so it stands part of the Bill. We cannot go back; there is no retrospective route in Committee. If Members wish to debate clauses 24 to 27, which technically have not been moved, they may do so, but they cannot debate clause 23.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Hang on, not now! This is like trying to herd kittens. When you come back this afternoon, you may, if the Chairman chooses to allow you—you will be pleased to know it will not be me—speak to clauses 24 to 27, before you vote on those. But you cannot go back over clause 23.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Water (Special Measures) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members that they should send their speaking notes by email to Hansard and that electronic devices should be switched to silent mode. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings but, appropriately for this Bill, there is water.
New Clause 27
Environmental duties with respect to national parks
“After section 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—
‘4A Environmental duties with respect to national parks
(1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect, on land within national parks or the Broads, that undertaker must—
(a) Secure and maintain “high ecological status” in the water in these areas by 2028;
(b) further the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and natural beauty;
(c) improve every storm overflow that discharges within these areas by 2028;
(d) reduce the load of total phosphorus discharged into freshwaters within these areas from relevant discharges by 2028 to at least 90% lower than the baseline as defined in Regulation 13(1) of the Waste Water Targets set under the Environment Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2023.
(2) A relevant undertaker must be put into special administration, and not be eligible for a further licence, if it fails to—
(a) demonstrate adequate progress each year;
(b) meet the targets in subsection (1).
(3) Within one year of the day on which the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report on the undertakers’ implementation of the environmental duties in subsections (1) and (2) before Parliament.
(4) Following the first report being published under subsection (3), a progress report on implementation must be included in the annual environment improvement plan, issued under section 8 of the Environment Act 2021.
(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring an undertaker to achieve bespoke objectives for specific iconic and the most culturally and ecologically significant waterways, including, where appropriate, complete removal of sewage discharge from the undertaker’s infrastructure.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section—
“the Broads” has the same meaning as in the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988;
“land” includes rivers, lakes, streams, estuarine and other waterways;
“High Ecological Status” means the classification of water bodies defined in Regulation 6 of The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.’”—(Tim Farron.)
This new clause would require water companies to adhere to and deliver stronger environmental objectives and duties within National Parks and the Broads, so as to protect waters across National Parks from sewage. The new clause would give the Secretary of State regulation-making power to extend protections to specific bodies of water, such as Lake Windermere.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, everyone. I will highlight two key points about new clause 28, which concerns what happens when companies that have gone into special administration come out of it. Subsection (1) refers to considering
“the merits of changing the law to provide that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.”
Subsection (2) states that that would involving considering
“the general merits of mutual ownership of water companies in such circumstances, and…what model of mutual ownership would be most suitable.”
We are not saying that companies have to be this or that; we are just advocating considering this possibility. Private companies have made an absolute mess of our water sector, have added no value over the past 36 years and have ramped up nearly £70 billion of debt. When the companies come out of special administration, we have an opportunity to do something different and not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I want the Committee to take that on board. We are not asking for a commitment; we are just asking for consideration. Hon. Members all know how badly the private companies have treated us, our rivers and our communities.
These companies are monopolies, so they have absolute power. Unfortunately, our regulators have completely failed in their task. If they have failed in the task, and if we do not have absolute confidence in the regulators—I do not think that anybody who will be voting today does—we must not give water back to the private sector.
Globally, this is standard. It is what the rest of the world does with its water sector. Even in the US, the vast majority of the water sector is mutually or municipally held. Chile may be the one shining example of private capitalism that we can point to in this regard, but there are almost no other countries in the world that do as we do. We are asking the Committee to do what is standard, rather than what is unusual.
The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), has written about the benefits of the mutual ownership model, which he states forces water companies
“to operate in the interests of consumers; where environmental considerations such as disposal of sewage would take precedence over profit.”
That is our request. I rest my case.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
For several decades, the water companies have been able to profit from failure. There is a strong groundswell of opinion among the public, across political persuasions, that real action must be taken and that if there has been real failure, water companies must not just be allowed to carry on operating in the private sector. I welcome the hon. Member’s amendment; mutual ownership is clearly one alternative model. Does he agree that full public ownership is another option that should be investigated in these circumstances?
Charlie Maynard
What I really like about our proposal is that the companies are coming out of special administration, so it does not cost anybody anything: the equity of the shareholders has been written off. We often hear that it would not be a good idea, because it would cost too much to buy the companies out. Under our proposal, we would not need to buy them out, because we are advocating this only where companies are going into special administration. We are advocating a mutual model and—I say respectfully to the hon. Member—only that. That is what is on the table today, and that is what we are after.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is lucky that within six months we will have the Cunliffe review, which will look in great depth at ownership, regulation and everything to do with the water industry? Maybe this is something that we could take further at that stage.
Charlie Maynard
That may be a chink of light, because all I have heard from the Government so far is “Only private companies welcome here.” My understanding is that the Cunliffe review’s remit purposely excludes ownership. If that is now on the table, it is great news, because it is one of the fundamental problems in the water sector. If the commission’s remit now includes ownership structures, I am delighted. I would love the Minister to clarify the point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship once again, Dr Huq. As promised, I have provided a fact sheet on the use of special administration. All Committee members should have received it by email, but hard copies are available on the table for their convenience.
Welcome to the last day of Committee.
Charlie Maynard
We all welcome one another, but I meant the fact sheet. I really appreciate your going to the trouble of putting it together; I thank your team as well. I have read it diligently and done my best, but I have a quiz question for you. The first bullet point refers to giving
“the power to recover HMG funding should there not be sufficient funds to pay HMG back at the end of a SAR.”
Then, under the heading “Context”, the penultimate bullet point states:
“If this shortfall occurred, and Ministers decided to use this new power, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must launch a consultation prior to this power being used. This will ensure that those affected (e.g. water billpayers) are able to provide their views. It will also ensure that the shortfall recovery mechanism is implemented in a way that means costs are recovered fairly.”
To me, that completely confirms paragraph 69 of the explanatory notes published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which says that the Government will make the bill payers, as opposed to the creditors, pay for the costs. Please confirm, if you could.
Emma Hardy
At the risk of having the same debate over and over, I refer the hon. Member to the last page of our fact sheet. I am not sure how much clearer we can make it:
“Would the shortfall recovery mechanism be used to compensate financial creditors or shareholders following a SAR?
No. The shortfall recovery mechanism could only ever be used to recover a Government shortfall in the unlikely event of a SAR.”
Once again, I welcome everybody to the last day of this Committee. As I may not have the opportunity to do so later, may I thank all Members for their contributions and for taking part? I especially thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling another new clause.
As I have said, a special administration regime enables a company that provides vital public services, such as water, energy or rail, to be put into administration in certain circumstances. During a SAR, a special administrator appointed by and answerable to the court takes over the affairs of the business.
The court-appointed special administrator’s statutory objectives, which are set out in legislation, are twofold: to continue the running of the company to meet its statutory functions until it is possible to rescue the company, for example via a debt restructure, or to transfer the company to new owners, for example by selling it. There is nothing to prevent the company, or parts of it, from being transferred as a going concern to mutual ownership by a company’s customers, should the special administrator deem that appropriate. Although in an insolvency scenario the special administrator’s primary purpose is to rescue the company as a going concern, mutual ownership could be an option following a SAR, provided that the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue properly to carry out its activities relating to water.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
We pushed the Minister earlier on the Cunliffe review. I thought it had been explicitly stated that ownership was off the table for that review. By talking about mutuals being a potential outcome, is the Minister saying that what is actually off the table is full-scale nationalisation, but that mutualisation, public benefit companies and not-for-profit companies could be a serious option in the Cunliffe review and in whatever legislation might follow?
Emma Hardy
Yes. We have ruled out nationalisation, but all other forms of ownership are in the scope of the Cunliffe review. I stress, however, that in a scenario in which a company was exiting special administration, it could go into mutual ownership if the organisation in question had sufficient funds and could ensure that the company, or parts of it, could continue to properly carry out its activities related to water. Of course, no one would want, in any situation, to transfer to a company incapable of operating and providing water.
It is important to emphasise that it would not be appropriate for the Government to dictate the terms of exit from a SAR, as that would interfere with the conduct of the court-appointed administrator and their statutory objectives.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the Minister for the helpful clarification that the Cunliffe review will consider ownership models, including those that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has advocated. Will the Minister clarify why the Government are not permitting the Cunliffe review to consider full public ownership as one of the options? Why would they not allow an open assessment of all the potential options, especially given that, as we have heard, public ownership is so common in countries around the world for what is a natural monopoly?
Emma Hardy
The commission will focus on reforms that improve the privatised regulatory model. We have already been quite clear that nationalisation of the water sector is not in scope because of the high costs associated with that option, the lack of evidence that it would lead to improvements, and the delays that it would cause in achieving better outcomes for consumers and the environment.
The commission covers Wales and will review the model in Wales, where the largest water company operates a not-for-profit dividend model with no shareholders. In addition, as I have previously noted, the scope of the independent commission will include the governance of companies and the operation of existing tools such as the special administration regime. In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Witney can see why the Government will not accept his new clause.
Charlie Maynard
I am happy to hear that mutual ownership is being considered. I am very grateful for that.
I will take my chances and try to clear up one point. I completely agree with what the Minister read out from the last page of the fact sheet:
“Would the shortfall recovery mechanism be used to compensate financial creditors or shareholders following a SAR?
No.”
Absolutely, but my point is not remotely about that. I am not asking about compensating creditors.
Let me take the Committee back to the first paragraph on page 1. Where there is a recovery to be made, who pays for it? We are not talking about compensating creditors; we are talking about taking money off them. Rather than the money being taken from the customers, which is exactly what the bullet point that I read out three minutes ago states, we believe that it should be taken from the creditors.
It is not about compensation. I am surprised that there is confusion on the point, because that is not where I am coming from. It is about the shortfall and who pays for it. It is clearly stated twice—both in DEFRA’s explanatory notes and in the bullet point, which I can read out again as desired—that the bill payers will pay for it.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In my first speech of what I suspect will be our last sitting—we will see—let me thank you, Dr Huq, and every member of the Committee. It is no fault of anyone here, but I think these Committees are something of a charade. There was a brief time under the Theresa May Government when Committees were genuinely balanced, but I have never known a Committee to accept any Opposition amendment. I am sure it is not always because the Opposition’s ideas are bad—that is just how it works. We know that it is a bit of a charade. Having said that, 16 or 17 of us have been through the process of looking at the Bill in some detail, and that in itself has value.
Despite that frustration, which I have had for nearly 20 years, I am grateful to have been in the good company of courteous, decent people and to have had a robust but polite debate over the past few days. I am especially grateful to the Minister and her team for their engagement, which is genuinely appreciated; to the Conservative Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Broadland and Fakenham; and to my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley. They have all been very courteous and constructive.
I will seek to be brief, which does not always happen—whether I merely seek it, or whether it happens, let’s find out. We think that new clause 30 is very important. As we said in the previous sitting, the Government have chosen to underpin an awful lot of the scrutiny of the water industry on volunteers, citizen scientists and the like, which we strongly approve of. Groups such as Clean River Kent, and the Rivers Trust in Eden, south lakes and Windermere are great examples in my own communities, and around Staveley and Burneside, Staveley parish council has done a great job holding United Utilities to account. What they do is of immense value.
Underpinning the ability of those groups to scrutinise in the future is this interesting live database, which will demonstrate the performance of various water company assets around the country. We want to clarify in the Bill that the database will be publicly and freely accessible and updated in live time, but critically, that it will contain not just current but historical data—that is probably the key bit of the new clause. If we are going to depend on volunteers, we cannot assume that they are going to be on it 24/7; they have lives to lead. We must clarify in the Bill that historical data will be available and searchable, so that if we blink, we do not miss it.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and I thank you, Dr Huq, for your excellent chairmanship; it is a pleasure to serve under you today. The Bill already introduces a duty on water companies to produce and publish pollution targets and a reduction plan. We can also get data fairly straightforwardly on how water companies are performing overall. However, what my residents in North West Leicestershire want to know is how their water company is performing week in, week out on the sewage outlets that they are interested in. I believe we already have plenty of ways to monitor performance, and this addition is unnecessary.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. What we are talking about, though, is a toolkit that is being provided for the voluntary sector and for activists up and down the country, including ourselves. It is a great addition—this is a good new thing that the Government are proposing.
I have some examples of why this toolkit is necessary. About 10 months ago, at the Glebe Road pumping station water treatment works at Windermere, we had a significant deluge of untreated sewage going into the lake, and we found out only because a whistleblower told us. The Environment Agency was notified 13 hours after the incident took place. The good thing about what the Government are proposing is that there will be a live database so that we can see what is happening there and then, and we can be on it.
However, unless we include the new clause—I would be happy to accept clarification from the Minister if something similar is going to happen anyway—the assumption will be that there is someone on it. Matt Staniek, who leads Save Windermere, works every hour God sends, but he is allowed to sleep sometimes, and what if something happens at 3 o’clock in the morning and he is tucked up? Do we miss it? I am simply saying that we should put in the Bill that this very good toolkit, which I commend the Government for, should be historically searchable, so that we can really hold the water companies to account.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am sympathetic to quite a lot of the intention behind the new clause, but as ever, the devil is in the detail. Proposed new section 272B(2)(d)(ii)(a) contains a duty to publish the start time, end time and duration of all sewage spill events. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has already been a duty to publish that information for some time? All undertakers have a duty to publish information from event duration monitors within—from memory—60 minutes of an event being triggered. Will the hon. Gentleman give a bit more detail on what he has in mind for the authority to publish? Proposed new subsection (2)(c) says that the database must
“contain such data or information as the Authority thinks is necessary”.
Such a bland statement will be open to challenge and interpretation, with all sorts of committed parties deciding that their “independently collected and analysed information” should be in the database, and other people saying it should not. Is this not just a charter for judicial review of the authority?
Tim Farron
I will not rehash the debates we have had in Committee already, but we are talking about more than just event duration monitoring, as set out in proposed new section 27ZB(2)(d)(ii)(a); we are talking about flow and volume, and it is right to specify those things.
Jerome Mayhew
That may be the hon. Member’s intention, but the drafting does not say that. Part of the problem is that (ii)(a) deals the with start time, end time and duration, not flow. Does that particular sub-paragraph not duplicate the existing legal requirements for publication within 60 minutes?
Tim Farron
We dealt with that with other amendments; even though they are not part of the Bill, that would be covered by the suite of things we have proposed. Fundamentally, all we are asking for is that the information and the evidence that is put out there will be searchable historically. That cannot be beyond the wit and capability of the very clever IT specialists who I am sure are already working for the water companies. This is important, and it is part of what those of us in this corner of the Committee Room are trying to do, which is to take the Government at their word when it comes to the elevation—and we support that elevation—of the role of volunteers and citizen scientists, equipping them to do their job properly and not expecting them to be at their computers 24/7 without sleep.
Emma Hardy
Very briefly, to return to the SAR—our favourite subject—it might be best if we take the conversation out of Committee and sit down with officials to make sure we are both having the same conversation about the same thing and we can clarify that. We will follow up on that, and of course I extend that offer to the shadow Minister.
New clause 30 would require Ofwat to establish a public database on the performance of sewerage undertakers. I understand and acknowledge the intent behind the new clause, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to all the environmental campaign groups that have been working in this area to make information available. It is vital that the public are able to access and scrutinise information on the performance of water companies.
To support this, the Government are focusing our efforts on ensuring that the most salient information is published in a transparent way and is publicly accessible. That is why clause 3 already requires water companies to publish information on discharges from emergency overflows in a way that is readily accessible and understandable to the public. As mentioned, this matches the pre-existing duty for storm overflows. To support the storm overflow duty, Water UK has published a centralised map of discharge data from all storm overflows operated by English water companies on one website. A similar approach is intended for emergency overflows.
We have also requested that water companies begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows in the 2024 price review. This will provide useful information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality, and we will be working with water companies to consider how best to publish the information in near-real time. That is in addition to the duty to publish information on pollution incidents in clause 2, as well as existing regulatory requirements for the Environment Agency to publish water company environmental performance data. This data includes the annual environmental performance assessment of the water sector, which provides information on the performance of waste water treatment works.
Information from flow monitors, as we have discussed previously, is very technical and does not relate to the impact of the discharge, unlike continuous water quality monitoring data. Therefore, we do not think there is sufficient additional value in requiring this data to be published. As the industry is already centralising data on sewage discharges from storm overflows on one website, and given the existing environmental performance reporting, the Government do not believe that an amendment to require further publications by Ofwet—Ofwat—to do the same thing is necessary. I therefore hope that the hon. Member feels able to withdraw his new clause.
Tim Farron
We are not going to push this to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 32 is about procurement. I will read out the key point:
“The Authority must issue rules requiring relevant undertakers to use competitive procurement processes in respect of procurement relating to water infrastructure.”
What are we getting at here? There is an unholy trinity that is causing trouble inside our water sector: too much debt, regulatory capital value—a concept that is misfiring big time—and the ownership model. I hope that the Government will take on that unholy trinity and find a stake.
The new clause addresses RCV, because it is not working in the water sector. I touched on that in our last sittings, so I will not drag the Committee through it again. Regulatory capital value encourages as big an asset base as possible, which gives water companies an incentive to source product as expensively as possible—to pour really expensive concrete. It has been going on over the last few decades, so I am not pinning the blame on this Government, but I am asking for their help to stop it.
It is not in the customers’ interests for us to continue to have faulty procurement processes that encourage water companies to buy things expensively. With new clause 32 the Liberal Democrats are trying to highlight that problem and address it. I suspect that the provision will not be passed, but I am going to be talking about it. RCV is the issue, and I am interested to see if the Government will recognise it as such and look to address it.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for the intention behind new clause 32. On a personal level, I welcome the scrutiny and the level of detail that we have gone into. As the Bill started in the other place, there was a lot of cross-party work and the Government have taken onboard some of the recommendations. I gently push back on the idea that this is not a necessary or valid way to examine legislation.
The Government agree that competitive procurement can be a successful way to provide better value for money for consumers, and greater innovation within major infrastructure projects. In the 2019 price review, Ofwat developed the direct procurement for customers approach, or DPC, building on the success of the Thames tideway tunnel. The DPC allows the water company to competitively tender for services in relation to the delivery of major infrastructure projects. At price review 2024, Ofwat noted that, by default, all projects with a total life cost of over £200 million should be delivered through a DPC. Following final determinations in December 2024, Ofwat announced that 26 major water company projects would be delivered by competitive tendering processes, including a DPC, with a total whole-life cost of almost £50 billion.
Charlie Maynard
Two-hundred million is a really big number. In my patch in Witney, we have sewage treatment works as far as the eye can see that are undercapacity and are leaking sewage all over the place—at Bampton, Cassington, Carterton, Witney, Milton; you name it. It is awful, and I am sure that is the case in other constituencies, too. Two-hundred million pounds is miles higher than any of their spend, so—correct me if I am wrong—all those sewage treatment works are going to carry on without the new procurement processes because they are below the £200 million threshold.
Emma Hardy
The point is that competitive tendering processes were introduced back in 2019, including looking at where money is being used and how that money can be used most effectively. As I have just mentioned, we have £50 billion-worth of competitive processes in the next price review determination. Water companies are already actively using competitive procurement processes. This is something that Ofwat already encourages through the price review process. I therefore hope that the hon. Member is content that this amendment is unnecessary.
Charlie Maynard
We will not put this to a vote, but I will continue to highlight the point that £200 million is too high a benchmark and we should drop it, because that would serve us all, and our customers, better. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 33
Responsibility in relation to planning issues
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 37 (General duty to maintain water supply system etc), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide—
(a) full and accurate information, and
(b) an honest assessment,
in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsection (1).
(1B) An undertaker which fails to provide information required under subsection (1A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose.
(1C) Where, in providing information required under subsection (1A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsection (1), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.
(3) In section 94, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide—
(a) full and accurate information, and
(b) an honest assessment,
in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2).
(2B) An undertaker which fails to provide information required under subsection (2A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose.
(2C) Where, in providing information required under subsection (2A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.
(2D) An undertaker which fails to carry out a plan established under subsection (2A) will be subject to such penalties as the Authority may impose.””—(Charlie Maynard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Charlie Maynard
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There are only three new clauses to go; I will highlight the key parts of new clause 33. Subsection (2)(1A) states:
“When participating in a planning consultation, or when otherwise providing advice in relation to a planning matter, a water undertaker must provide full and accurate information, and an honest assessment, in relation to its current and future ability to fulfil its duties under subsection (1)”
Subsection (3)(2C) states:
“Where, in providing information required under subsection (2A), an undertaker expects not to be able to fulfil its duties under subsections (1) and (2), the undertaker must establish a plan to meet its requirements by a relevant time.”
What does that mean? It means that if an undertaker does not have sewage treatment work capacity, they must commit to draw up a plan to install it by a relevant time. The “relevant time” means that if 200 or 2,000 houses are being added and the sewage treatment works do not have sufficient capacity, then the undertaker will be saying, “By the time those houses are occupied, we will have increased capacity by the amount required.”
This is all very common-sense, but many hon. Members will have been district councillors in their time—I currently am one—and I am sure they will have seen it happen time and time again in planning committees where, guess what, the response from the water utility is: “Fine, no problem. Hook ’em up.”
Jayne Kirkham
Is it not the case that the water companies used to have more power to object? Did they have a veto which the previous Government removed? Do they now have to cope with whatever the planning authority decides?
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I do not know when that changed. [Interruption] In 2015, was it? There we are: maybe it was changed in 2015. Perhaps all of us, or most of us, recognise that is not a good situation. Time and again—I have seen this in Witney, Ducklington, Bampton, Aston and Carterton—this is just waved through. When I quiz people from Thames Water about why they have waved it through, they say, “We have a duty to connect.” They do have a legal duty to connect, which they take seriously, but they take their duty to add capacity to match that increase much less seriously.
Jerome Mayhew
This is a request for information on my part. In my conversations with Anglian Water, one of its key asks relates to the imbalance in which the company has a legal duty to connect any planning application that is passed, yet it is not a statutory consultee. It is therefore not required—not able, in fact—to take part in the planning process. Until the companies are made statutory consultees, all this is irrelevant, so should not the new clause focus on their becoming statutory consultees?
While I am on my feet, I have a query about the drafting. The hon. Gentleman defined a “relevant time”, but I do not see that definition in the new clause. Is it contained somewhere in the draft legislation? If it is not, what might the effective definition be?
Charlie Maynard
The point about “relevant time” is fair and deserves to be clarified. I completely agree on the issue of statutory consultees and have no issue with that either—that would make much more sense, because there is a real failure in that regard.
I will go a step further—I have lived experience in this regard—and give a special shout-out to Thames Water employee Richard Aylard, who for two years dutifully showed up every six weeks with West Oxfordshire district council to hash through these issues. I learned a lot from him and am grateful to him, as well as to Jake Morley, Lidia Arciszewska, Phil Martin, Laurence King, Alaric Smith and Alistair Wray. They sat through all that, and we all learned together. It is important that everybody knows what came out of those meetings. When sewage treatment works’ capacity is calculated—they are very much under-capacity in my patch and, I am sure, in those of other hon. Members—there are four criteria. The first is the population or population equivalent, which is normally optimistically understated. The second is per capita consumption. Thames Water has a high per capita consumption when it suits the company and a low per capita consumption when it suits the company, so again that is understated.
The third is the Environment Agency multiplier, which is typically 3.0, and is discounted far too often. When there is a known record of spills, Thames Water is still allowed to discount the EA multiplier, often from 3.0 down to 2.4; that is a 20% cut, which means that the capacity can be 20% less. That is a real problem, and it is being done repeatedly on sewage treatment works that have dumped sewage left, right and centre for years.
The fourth criterion is infiltration. Some 47% of the capacity of west Oxfordshire’s big nine sewage treatment works comes from infiltration. That means that our pipes are leaking. There is not enough science on this matter. If we were to put in flow meters, we would have the information, but it seems that we Lib Dems are the only team in the room, alongside the hon. Member for Waveney Valley, that advocates flow meters. If we want to solve these problems, we have to get serious about the information.
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. We all recognise the situation he describes. In East Anglia, planned housing growth over the coming decades outpaces available water resources. In my constituency, we already have a water resource zone in Hartismere where business operations and planned business growth are being restricted by the water available. He is addressing some of the important points about water companies’ being able to take responsibility, but do we not also need a joined-up approach? The planning system must be used to address the issues by means of stricter water efficiency requirements, sustainable drainage systems and housing plans that are realistic given the available natural resources. Is there not a problem with just putting the ball in the water companies’ court, rather than taking a more joined-up approach?
Charlie Maynard
I completely agree with the hon. Member. Using West Oxfordshire as an example again, we have installed Grampian conditions, which I encourage other Members to look into, where we have said, “You may not occupy this house.” We could not stop the houses being built by arguing that there was insufficient capacity, but we could put a Grampian condition in force that says, “Those houses may not be occupied. Any buyer knows this, so they will not buy them.” It is flagged to any buyer so that they do not buy a house they cannot occupy, which will continue until the capacity has been added. That puts some heat underneath the water companies to get on and increase their sewage treatment works capacity. I really encourage the Government to look into those. We have vast amounts of housing that will be built, and under the current law, they will be steamrolled through and the capacities will not keep up. That is a real problem for everybody, and it puts more pressure on our rivers.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, and I have a lot of respect for the new clauses that he has tabled to put pressure on water companies to provide more information at critical stages. The Opposition have tabled amendments requiring water companies to publish data on their websites to enable citizen science, so I respect what he is saying. I guess some of the issue is in the detail of the wording of the new clause. I am sure we are all in agreement about water companies providing information, but proposed new section 37(1A) says that we want them to be “full and accurate” and “honest”. I guess the devil is in the detail. How will that be judged? If this new clause were to come into play, how will people judge that? Is an “honest assessment” whether something is not false, or whether something is complete or incomplete? There is an element of challenge that could be put in. I understand the sentiment, but the devil is in the detail of the wording as to how this could actually work.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for his kind words, and I look forward to his support in some of the votes at some point. In the meantime, if he has recommendations on the wording that he would like to put forward, I ask that he please do so. These new clauses are already in place, so maybe that is impossible, but let us by all means try to improve them.
Tim Farron
I will say a brief word on the new clause. This is important, and I would like to add to the detail that my hon. Friend the Member for Witney has set out. Essentially, we have two problems here, one of which is that water companies are not statutory consultees, and they should be. I take the point that it could be more clearly stated, but the new clause does say “When participating” more than once, not “If participating”.
Without pointing fingers—well, maybe a bit at water companies in certain parts of the country, including mine—the key thing is that there is an incentive for a water company, when giving its advice to a planning committee, whether it be in the national parks, the dales, the lakes or a local council, basically to say that everything is fine, and why would it not? If a water company says, “We have no capacity issues. You can build those 200 houses on the edge of Kendal and it won’t cause any problems for our sewer capacity,” two things happen, do they not? First, the water company is not conceding the need to spend any money on upgrading the sewerage network. Secondly, it is guaranteeing itself 200 households that pay water bills, in addition to the ones it already has, so it has a built-in incentive—maybe not to be dishonest, but to not really give the fullest and broadest assessment of the situation.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I would like to give the hon. Member a practical example of where the absolute opposite has happened in Wales. In my constituency of Monmouthshire, Welsh Water was very clear that, because of the phosphate levels in the River Wye, there could be no development whatsoever in my area of the constituency—Monmouth—for several years. It absolutely stopped all development and seemed to be very honest in doing so. Now the problems have cleared up somewhat, and Monmouthshire county council has put forward a proposal in the local development plan to build houses. We also have a sustainable drainage systems regime, which means that absolutely nothing will be built without those systems. By the way, 50% of the homes will be affordable and they will be 100% net zero, so I commend Monmouthshire county council for putting that forward. I just wanted to say that there are examples where the opposite has happened to what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is saying.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention; I am sure that is the case, and the two are not mutually exclusive. I want to see houses built. The great frustration in our communities in the lakes and dales and just outside is that we desperately need homes that are affordable, and we want homes to be zero carbon. We want to be in a situation where the local community is able to hold developers to account. The danger is that developers who are going to build stuff on the cheap that is not affordable to potential buyers or renters are able to get themselves off the hook because the water companies will not really test the resilience of the existing infrastructure.
It is true that both things can happen. We feel that this is about giving planning authorities the power to say, “The developer is seeking to do this, but the community as a whole does not have the resilience or the capacity to cope with 200 extra bathrooms; so what resources will the developer or the water company put in to ensure that the facilities are upgraded to make that possible?” This is about ensuring that planning does its job.
Charlie Maynard
I thank the hon. Member for Monmouthshire for her excellent point. It is very interesting that a mutually owned water company is taking that very sensible decision and approach. It highlights that that is a benefit. They are not trying to make money hand over fist. They are trying to do the right thing.
Emma Hardy
With your indulgence, Dr Huq, I will clarify something that I should have mentioned in the previous debate. Ofwat reserves the right to explore the use of DPC for major projects below the £200 million threshold where it offers value for money for customers. I just wanted to put that on record.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling new clause 33, which would increase the responsibilities of water companies where they participate in the planning process. As we all do, I genuinely recognise the intent behind the clause and where the hon. Member is trying to get to. We absolutely recognise concerns surrounding water and sewage companies’ ability to keep pace with the needs arising from new property developments.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
This is an active issue across many of our constituencies, and we have heard many personal stories. In my constituency of Exmouth and Exeter East, we have had a new town built called Cranbrook. A sewage treatment works was promised but has not been delivered. That has put pressure on systems elsewhere, and we have seen big sewage outflows in other parts of the constituency. We know that in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government there are big reforms coming for the national planning policy framework. Will the Minister please confirm whether her Department is having active conversations about what we are speaking about, and whether or not there will be changes in this space?
Emma Hardy
Conversations are ongoing, but I would not want to pre-empt their results. I recognise from previous conversations that this is a concern for the hon. Gentleman.
The Government consider that the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle to resolve this issue. It should be addressed through measures such as the water resources management plans or draining and waste water management planning. As was mentioned earlier, it is our job as legislators to ensure that we draft the right amendments to the right Bills in order to achieve the aims we are seeking.
Water companies already account for local plan growth forecasts in their water resource management plans. These plans for water provision over a five-year period with a forward look over 25 years provide for a development outline. We recognise the need for stronger and earlier join-up between local planning authorities, regulators and water companies. As I mentioned, work is under way to consider such questions and to ensure timely and mutual understanding of water resource requirements at a local scale to support sustainable development. That work includes the independent commission on the water sector regulatory system, which will provide recommendations for the roles and responsibilities of the water industry regulators that govern the water industry model and strategic planning.
As such, it would be premature to legislate in this area or to impose any additional responsibilities for regulators until the commission has concluded its review, but I reassure hon. Members that the Government recognise the need for water companies and local planning authorities to co-operate effectively in considering the water infrastructure requirements that will underpin development plans, housing growth and sustainable development. The proposed new clause is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Witney to withdraw it.
Charlie Maynard
We wish to press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tim Farron
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have conferred, and hon. Members will be delighted to hear that we have two proposed new clauses to go and we will not press either to a vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney and I may disagree, but I think we have confirmed that that is our view.
I have little to say on new clause 34. We had the substance of this debate on amendment 19, but the new clause is significant all the same. The point is simply that among the things that deeply undermine the public’s confidence in the water companies, and in the industry in general, is the very obvious revolving door between the regulator and the water companies themselves.
I will reiterate some points and add to some things that were said the other day. In its analysis in 2023, The Observer found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the water industry that they had previously regulated.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The hon. Member mentioned directors. I think we all agree that the strength of this Bill is its clarity, but in his new clause, he has chosen to write “any individual”. Does he agree that it is the directors, not the catering team, the cleaning staff, the admin people, the accountants and so on, who have sought to swindle customers or flim-flam the taxpayer? That is where we should focus the attention, and that vagueness does not add to the Bill.
Tim Farron
That is an excellent point, and if I was pushing the new clause to a vote, that might make me think twice. I am not the only person who has done this, but I have spoken at length on this issue, not just during this Committee, to make the point that we understand that this is a heated debate, which at times has become quite fiery out there in communities and in this place. But the people who work for the water companies, the regulators and so on are human beings doing a job, and we need to value them. That even includes the directors.
Having said all that, it is clearly wrong that directors are switching from one to the other. I add that our research found that the director for regulatory strategy at Thames Water had previously been a senior Ofwat employee. We had a senior principal at Ofwat moving directly from Thames, where they had worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors and those who work on regulation.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
There is a serious point about regulatory capture, which we should talk about cross-industry, cross-sector. There is something that we could do constructively across the House on regulatory capture. We talk a lot at the moment about artificial intelligence and the growth of the tech industry, and we need to implement stuff on regulatory capture now. Any lessons that we learn about regulatory capture in the water industry should be implemented across other industries. I hope that the whole House can come together on that.
Tim Farron
I am grateful for that well-informed and thoughtful intervention. The hon. Member is absolutely right: that is what we should do. To be reasonable, we want people who understand the industry working for the regulators. We understand why there could be a benign reason for what is happening, but nevertheless, we trace it to some of the reluctance in the culture of Ofwat towards taking action. I talked about the £168 million-worth of fines still not collected by Ofwat from three transgressing water companies. Some of the reluctance comes not from corruption but cosiness, and we need to make sure we address that, as the new clause seeks to do. We dealt with this issue on amendment 19 and it was pushed to a vote. I do not want to trouble the Committee again, so I will be happy to withdraw the new clause.
Emma Hardy
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Again, we recognise the intent behind new clause 34, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. However, it would be disproportionate to prevent all water company employees from being able to accept employment in Ofwat.
Ofwat seriously considers the handling of actual and potential conflicts of interest. Staff in Ofwat are bound by the civil service business appointment rules, which do not apply to every agency, but they do in terms of Ofwat, and by the duty of confidentiality and the Official Secrets Act. Any new employees in Ofwat, regardless of their previous employment, would be bound by those rules. Compliance is mandatory and any breach may result in disciplinary action being taken.
Individuals with experience working in the water sector have a wealth of knowledge—the hon. Gentleman mentioned this—that might be a valuable asset to Ofwat and could support better policymaking. I hope that this reassures him on his concern about the potential conflicts of interest in Ofwat, and that the new clause, as drafted, is therefore unnecessary.
Tim Farron
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets
“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—
‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish—
(a) annual, and
(b) rolling five-year average
pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.
(2DZB) The performance of a water or sewerage undertaker against such targets must be measured through independent analysis of monitoring data.
(2DZC) A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline—
(a) a 25% reduction within five years;
(b) a 60% reduction within ten years;
(c) an 85% reduction within fifteen years; and
(d) a 99% reduction within twenty years.
(2DZD) A water or sewerage undertaker which fails to meet pollution targets set out by the Authority will be subject to such special measures as the Authority deems appropriate, which may include—
(a) being required to work on improvement projects with or take instruction from the Authority, the relevant Government department, or such other bodies or authorities as the Authority deems appropriate; and
(b) financial penalties.’”—(Charlie Maynard.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Charlie Maynard
This is a big one: companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets. I will read out the key bits:
“(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish…annual, and…rolling five-year average pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.”
On the five-year average, obviously we have wet years and dry years. We cannot just have flat numbers. We have to take an average. The new clause also states:
“A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline…a 25% reduction within five years;…a 60% reduction within ten years;…an 85% reduction within fifteen years…and…a 99% reduction within twenty years.”
What are we trying to get at? Clause 2 is about pollution incident reduction plans. That is about specific events, so it is at a micro level. We have a national problem and need to think about things at a national level. We have a lot of data already. I think it was Peter Drucker who said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.” We have been advocating for measuring it; we have had that debate. The good news is that we already have one metric of measurement—event duration monitors—that tells us how many hours of sewage are spilled per year. EDMs are a long way from perfect in two respects. First, we do not know the volumes going out or how much of that is actually sewage, as we have discussed at length. Secondly, a lot of EDMs are sub-par. I will give a shout-out to Professor Peter Hammond, who has highlighted some essential messages about that. However, that is still the best dataset we have, and we should all take the view that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
As soon as we put in flow monitors and quality monitors—I know the Government do not support that—we will advocate using those as a metric, but we do not have those now. However, we do have EDM data, so I am advocating that we use that metric. We already know how many hours are spilled by operator. We can take the five-year average and start setting out targets.
Businesses like knowing where they stand. I am a naive politician who is only six months into the job, so there is an awful lot I do not know. I probably committed a key error here by putting in numbers, so some smart politician could come along and say, “That is an incredibly generous number. We’ll go lower than that.” Fine—I do not really care if someone wants to play that game. I want our rivers fixed, and we get our rivers fixed by setting targets, telling the water companies that we want them to meet those targets and giving them sticks, and possibly carrots, to meet them.
We are missing an opportunity—respectfully, I feel that we have missed a lot of opportunities. We did not have to have this Bill now, but we do have it. We ought to be going for the wins now, but every single amendment has been rejected regardless of which party tabled it. That is a loss for our rivers as much as for hon. Members present. However, this new clause provides an opportunity to set some targets. Whether it is today—although this new clause will almost certainly fail because we will not push it to a vote—or in the future, I encourage the Government to take the metric they have, which is hours of sewage spilled, set benchmarks against which to measure water companies and set out bad news or good news depending on whether they miss or hit them. If we hit those targets, we are seriously getting closer to fixing our rivers. Without them, we are not.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale in saying that I have really enjoyed most of the three days of this Committee. I appreciate the courtesy and generosity in the answers. I thank the Chair, the team of Clerks, who have been so helpful, and the DEFRA team.
Emma Hardy
I would like to thank, as I have before, all the environmental groups and activists up and down the country who do so much to champion cleaner air, rivers, lakes and seas for us all. I look forward to seeing hon. Members on Third Reading and Report.
As I did before, I will gently push back and say that the Government did work collectively and cross-party in the other House and brought in compromise amendments before the Bill came here. It would be slightly disingenuous to imply that the Government have not accepted amendments or worked with other parties on the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling new clause 35. We must ensure that companies accelerate action to reduce pollution to the environment, halting the unacceptable harm they have caused in recent decades. That is why we have introduced a new requirement for water companies to produce annual pollution incident reduction plans and the accompanying implementation reports through the Bill. Again, I gently note that the implementation reports and the strengthening of that provision was done cross-party in the other place.
The plans will need to set out the actions that water companies intend to take to reduce pollution incidents, and an assessment of the impact that those actions will have. Companies must then report on the progress they have made with measures they committed to in the previous year, and must clearly explain the reasons for any failures to implement their plans and set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failures in the future.
In addition to the new requirements that increase accountability for pollution incidents, the Government are committed to acting as fast as possible to reduce sewage pollution in our waterways and upholding stringent performance criteria for water companies, as evidenced by the significant forthcoming programme of investment in price review ’24. A delivery programme of this scale, improving thousands of storm overflows with billions of pounds of investment, requires clear and robust regulation. The new clause as drafted would unfortunately undermine that.
The Government’s storm overflows discharge reduction plan sets stretching timebound targets to eliminate ecological harm from all storm overflows by 2050, and for water companies to significantly reduce harmful pathogens from storm overflows discharging into bathing waters by 2035. This is supported by an ambitious backstop target. By 2050, no storm overflow will be permitted to spill more than 10 times a year on average. Those stretching targets are informed by detailed analysis and extensive engagement. They will drive £60 billion of investment between 2025 and 2050—the largest infrastructure programme in water company history. Almost £12 billion of that investment will begin this year, improving over 2,800 storm overflows by 2029-30.
Those targets bolster underpinning legislative requirements to limit pollution from storm overflows. The Environment Agency monitors and enforces against breaches of environmental requirements, utilising monitoring data to support its investigations. Where breaches are identified, it has significant powers to ensure enforcement orders and financial penalties, and where appropriate, to pursue criminal prosecution. The measures in the Bill will further strengthen its powers, including by introducing automatic penalties.
Charlie Maynard
These timelines are too slow. Setting the date at 2035 for monitor installation will mean that this is done at a much slower rate than the rate over the last seven years. That is disappointing. Targets set for 2045 and 2050 are too far away. We do not need to, and should not, move that slowly. We must do better.
Emma Hardy
I think when we had this debate, it led to the first of the fact sheets that we produced for the Committee. The hon. Member is talking about the speed of installation, and we highlighted that we will double the rate of the previous Government. We also highlighted that some of the improvements involve engineering and work. That is why we think that with £12 billion of investment, we are improving things, and I mention again the 2,800 storm overflows by 2029-30. So in the next few years, there will be billions of pounds-worth of improvements.
We all want opportunities to go quicker—everybody would want everything to be done quickly. As a Government, there is always a balance between making promises we cannot keep—which is never the best way to go—and being stretching and ambitious. I feel that we are being stretching and ambitious while also ensuring that we do not make promises we cannot keep. Obviously, however, if there was a way to go faster, everybody would accept that.
The Environment Agency is currently consulting on proposals to add new spill frequency thresholds to storm overflow permits. That will maintain the performance of storm overflows that have undergone improvements, and make it easier for the Environment Agency to act quickly if storm overflow performance deteriorates. Ofwat sets specific performance targets for water companies in the five-yearly price review. Ofwat is expanding those performance commitments for price review ’24, to include an ambitious storm overflow spill reduction target, which, if achieved, would see average spill per storm overflow reducing by 45% by 2029, compared with the 2021 levels across the industry. Where the commitments are not met, companies must reimburse customers, holding water companies to account to deliver outcomes.
Charlie Maynard
I am sorry, but with spill per overflow, I again think we are drinking the water industry’s Kool-Aid. We are doing its metrics, and that is not doing anybody any favours. We are talking about spill per overflow; what we should be talking about is how many hours. We have that information. Why are we not saying how many hours? Let us think about it. We could have a spill for one hour or a spill for a month. That is just one, in that metric. It is missing a huge amount of what is going on. Please can we move away from these metrics towards spill hours, at a minimum?
Emma Hardy
Again, I recognise the intent behind the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Whichever way we want to address this, talk about it or set targets, ultimately what we want from a Government is less sewage going into our rivers, lakes and seas. If we can find a way to all agree on the best way to move that forward, that is something we can unite behind.
As I mentioned, the Government cannot accept the new clause, but I recognise the intent behind it. It would cut across the existing targets that I have set out, creating confusion and uncertainty about which water targets the companies should meet. That would risk undermining the extensive forward investment programme that is already under way and is essential to delivering the changes that we all want. For those reasons, and for the last time, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Charlie Maynard
We will not press this new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Dr Hudson
It is a great pleasure to again serve under your chairship today, Dr Huq. May I first, on behalf of the Opposition and, I hope, colleagues from across the Committee, give a vote of thanks to everyone involved in this process? I have a list here, and please shout out if I miss anyone out.
First, I thank the Chairs—Dr Huq and Mr Vickers—for guiding us through the process. I thank all the Bill Committee staff—the Clerks and officials—for their assiduous, thorough work, which keeps us on message as Members of Parliament scrutinising this legislation. We thank them for that. Dr Huq, thank you—I will use the word “you” for you. I thank the DEFRA officials for all their hard work on this and for engaging with the Opposition as well. I very much appreciate the Minister allowing the officials to do that.
I thank the Doorkeepers and Hansard. I do not think I have missed anyone in the room except the public. This gives me the chance to thank the members of the public who have come in and watched our proceedings, as well as people who have watched online from afar. There are also, as the Minister said, the stakeholders: the environmental groups, the volunteers and the experts who have fed into this Bill and the water debate that we are having and who are helping legislators across the House to improve and refine legislation. We thank the public very much as well.
We have had a very interesting few days. It has shown us that there is a lot of cross-party consensus on what we are trying to do to improve our water quality. There is some disagreement about how best we do that, but this Committee has shown the House that, actually, there is a lot of agreement about the scale of the problem and the fact that we need to address it.
I respectfully say that I am disappointed with the comments from the third-party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, about the Bill Committee stage being a charade. I do not think that line-by-line scrutiny of Bills is a charade. Yes, there is a process as to how Committees are populated, but that is democracy. I would have thought that that particular party, given its title, would respect election results. That is how democracy works. We have seen that they have had some disagreement among themselves about some of their votes as well, but I will leave that point there.
We have had some interesting discussions, and it would be remiss of me not to talk about teeth. We have had dental analogies aplenty: we are wanting to give more teeth to the various regulators. Finally, I think I did detect—we will have to check Hansard—the Minister using the word “Ofwet”. When this matter goes to the commission, “Ofwet” might be an interesting term for a new body that might be set up, but I will leave that with the Minister.
Tim Farron
Thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Vickers, in his absence, for brilliantly chairing our five Committee sittings. I will not list everyone that the hon. Member for Epping Forest just did, but I endorse what he said. I thank the Clerks, the DEFRA officials, the Minister’s team and colleagues on both sides of the House for their courtesy and the seriousness with which they have engaged with the Opposition, the members of the public who attended the Committee in person and those who have followed it from afar.
There is no doubt that the voluntary sector and the public have been ahead of politicians on this issue for many years. I would argue that the UK leaving the European Union was a key moment, because we had to go back and look under the bonnet to see what was already accepted and already permitted. We could argue about whether the previous Government gave us regulations and standards that were as good as what we had before we left the European Union. That might be an additional issue, but none the less, the likes of Surfers Against Sewage, Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, Save Windermere, the Clean River Kent Campaign and so many others in all our communities have led the debate on this and created great scrutiny. That is why we strongly approve of a significant part of the Government’s ethos in the Bill, which is to put an awful lot of power in the hands of those who care so much in our communities.
I do not mean to offend people by referring to this as a charade, but the reality is that we spent five years in Government, and I am pretty confident that the Government that I was part of never allowed a single Opposition amendment to pass in Committee. There is a little bit of pretence in this. All the same, it is an enjoyable pretence. Having gone through the Bill line by line, we all understand it better, which means that, on Report, a dozen and a half of us can speak about this Bill in the Commons with a greater awareness than beforehand.
We support the Bill. If anybody was to call a Division on it, we would go into the Aye Lobby. Our frustration is that we feel that the Government have missed an opportunity. Their answer is obviously, “Here comes the Cunliffe review, and we will see what happens next.” Are we going to get an undertaking that there will be another Bill in the next King’s Speech? If there is, that is exciting and interesting, and that could answer many of our concerns.
The Bill could have been much clearer about limiting bonuses and about recognising that a fundamental problem with the water industry is the fragmentation and the weakness of regulation. It could have recognised that the financials are clearly all wrong, unfair and wasteful. We are looking at duration, but not volume, content or impact, and we are not supporting the citizens behind the citizen science enough by giving them the information, the resource and the place on the water company boards that they need. There are many areas where we think the Bill could be so much better, and where we do not need to wait for Sir Jon to do those things.
Having said that, what is wrong with this Bill is what is not in it, not what is in it. We are therefore happy to support it and are very grateful for the constructive nature of the debate throughout.
The Chair
Anyone else? In that case, for the last tearful time, I call Minister Emma Hardy to respond.
Emma Hardy
Thank you very much, Dr Huq, for your wonderful chairwomanship. I thank everybody on the Committee. It has been a new experience for so many of us, with Members in new positions and some new Members appearing on a Bill Committee for the first time. It has been really enjoyable, and there has been pleasant camaraderie. Where there have been disagreements, we have had them in a polite and courteous manner. I think we have set a wonderful example for many of the other debates, and long may it continue.
I thank the incredible Bill Committee team, who have done such an amazing job in supporting me in my work. I thank the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington, for making sure that we all voted in the right way at the right time, which definitely prevented me from getting into trouble while leading on my first Bill. And of course, we have had loads of written evidence, and for a small Bill, we have had lots of amendments, which shows the strength of feeling and interest in the Bill from the wider community.
What else can I say other than we’ve only just begun, and you ain’t seen nothing yet? Following this Bill, which is just part of our phased transition to transform the water sector as a whole, we also have the Cunliffe review, and in the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger, “I’ll be back”, with another Bill—similar time, same place. I hope to see many of you there, as we go again to clear up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Clauses 23 to 27 relate to restricted premises orders. Restricted premises orders stop sales on a premises whereon a relevant offence has taken place
“whether made—
(a) by the offender or any other person, or
(b) by means of any machine”,
and the orders prohibit the sale on the relevant premises of
“any one or more of the following—
(a) tobacco products;
(b) herbal smoking products;
(c) cigarette papers;
(d) vaping products;
(e) nicotine products.”
They can apply, as defined in clause 23, for up to a year, and are designed to tackle persistent offenders.
Clause 23(7) defines a persistent offender, stating:
“A person convicted of a relevant offence is a ‘persistent offender’ for the purposes of this section if, on at least two other occasions within the period of two years ending with the date of the offence, the person committed a relevant offence in relation to the relevant premises.”
Clause 23(8) defines a relevant offence. It states:
“In this section ‘relevant offence’ means—
(a) an offence under any of the following provisions of this Part—
(i) section 1 (sale of tobacco etc to people born on or after 1 January 2009);
(ii) section 3 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 10 (sale of vaping or nicotine products to under 18s);
(iv) section 12 (vaping and nicotine product vending machines);
(b) an offence under any of the following (which are repealed by this Act)—
(i) section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (sale of tobacco, etc., to under 18s);
(ii) section 3A of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991 (tobacco vending machines);
(iii) section 92 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (sale of nicotine products to under 18s).”
For a restricted premises order to be applied, the Bill says that the sale has to take place on the premises. How does this apply to online sales that are collected? I would like an assurance that there is not a loophole for sales whereby someone buys the product online and then collects it at a premises. Also, why are offences under the following clauses not included: clause 4, “Sale of unpackaged cigarettes”; clauses 5 and 6 on age of sale notices; clauses 13 and 14, which contain the display regulations; and clause 15 on the distribution of samples and promotions?
I presume that the relevant offence could be any one of the different offences. For example, I presume that an individual could be convicted for illegally selling vapes on one occasion and tobacco products on another—that it would not necessarily need to be the same product on each occasion. Could the Minister could clarify that? Also, how does the landlord-tenant arrangement work? If the tenant behaves badly and is thrown out of the premises as a result, could the landlord rent the premises to another company or allow another person to run a business on the premises instead? Would that remove the restricted premises order? If it did, how does the Bill prevent another company set up by the same people or their relatives from getting around the restricted premises order?
Clause 24 ensures that those subject to a restricted premises order will know about it, which is obviously important. An applicant must make “reasonable enquiries” to determine
“(a) the occupier of the premises, and
(b) any other person who has an interest in the premises.”
Does that include shop employees? Otherwise, how would a shop employee know, unless their boss told them, that a restricted premises order was in place? Is it the intention that a sign be put up in the building that says so, or would we be reliant on the shopkeeper telling his shop workers?
Clause 25 allows for appeals to the Crown court. How much does the Minister believe that that will cost in a typical case?
Clause 26 provides for penalties for breaches of a restricted premises order, which is only a fine. How much will that fine be? Presumably, it will be substantially more than the relevant offence fines, or what would be the point in having it? If the penalty for repeatedly flouting the same law is a fine that is not much more than the original fine, it will not act as any form of deterrent. Will the Minister give some guidance on how much the fines will be? Also, if an employee—in a shop, for example—was not told that there was a restricted premises order in place, and in good faith sold the product because they believed that that was an okay thing to do, would that be counted as a reasonable defence?
Clause 27 is essentially the same provision, but with respect to Wales. It allows the Welsh to extend the list of relevant offences in Wales, but subsection (2) only allows that if the offence
“relates to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products.”
If the Secretary of State used his powers under clause 45, which we have not come to yet, to expand the Bill to include products that are used to consume tobacco—such as the bongs that I know interest the Minister so much—then the Secretary of State must get the consent of the Welsh to add them to clause 45. That is sensible, but clause 27(2) would presumably prevent the Welsh Minister from extending the relevant offences. Therefore, does subsection (2) need to say at the end, “or any product added under the provisions of clause 45”?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The shadow Minister makes an important point on a technicality about who the restricted premises order applies to—if, for example, a tenant is the offender.
Under clause 23(6), a restricted premises order is a local land charge; that comes out of the Local Land Charges Act 1975. Once a property lawyer, always a property lawyer—forgive me. For those who may be interested, a local land charge is a restriction on the property in the order of a planning decision, a tree preservation order or a conservation and listed building notice. That means that it will stay with the freehold title of the property. Therefore, even if a tenant has caused the problem, that order will affect the landlord’s interest, because it can be on the register for up to a year. It is not very clear in these provisions how that order can be taken off the property in the instance that it is the tenant who is the problem offender.
That also plays into clause 24, which deals with ensuring that interested persons are aware. For these purposes, I understand that that would be a bank, for example. If there is a mortgage over the property, banks would become incredibly interested because it goes to the value of their security. When a bank needs to step in if something goes wrong with the financing, it needs to know what is happening in this scenario. I can imagine the severity of this provision; it can go to the fundamental basis on which a bank has lent any money.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making an important point and I am grateful for her legal expertise. The tenant would be responsible for having committed the offence, but the landlord would effectively be punished too. I understand that there is a balance to be struck. We want to ensure that the tenant is not able to reconstitute his or her business under a different name, or perhaps take a new lease under their spouse’s name, in order to get around the restricted premises order, but is there any mechanism that my hon. Friend can see by which a landlord—who has genuinely re-let the property to a completely different, unrelated and unknown party—can get rid of the restricted premises order on it?
Sarah Bool
Based on a quick look at the drafting alone, I do not see an immediate ability to do so. A land charge is a charge on the property title, so it stays there until it can be removed. That is probably where the property lawyers would step in. I agree with my hon. Friend that we could see a situation whereby a landlord who has problem tenants could try to terminate the lease because of the breach of various provisions, but they would none the less still be burdened by a restricted premises order. As I said, I think that will have a bigger impact on financing, and on the terms of the mortgage. I foresee some potential complications.
Dr Johnson
When the interested parties are informed, could the landlord step in at that stage, as an interested party, to appeal the restricted premises order, on the basis that they are in any case ending the tenancy of the individual company or person that caused the offence in the first place?
Sarah Bool
I think that is what they would do. If they did not step in at that point, any financing or any bank that had a mortgage over the property would certainly be looking to do that—to try to clear out the property and make sure that it is free to be used thereafter. It may seem like a technicality, but I can foresee this point as one that will be wrangled over for many years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
This group of clauses relates to restricted premises orders. These are existing measures that local authority trading standards in England and Wales can use when dealing with a retailer that persistently breaches the age of sale and vending machine restrictions for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vapes and nicotine products. The clauses are based on and replace existing legislation.
A restricted premises order is an important enforcement mechanism for tackling persistent offenders. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling from a vending machine, at least twice within the previous two years. The person who brought the proceedings for the sales offence makes a complaint to a magistrates court to apply for a restricted premises order in respect of the premises where the offence was committed.
Clause 24 requires notice to be given to people who might have an interest in a restricted premises order being made in England and Wales, and sets out situations where an interested person might challenge a restricted premises order. An interested person is the occupier of the premises or someone who has an interest in it, such as the manager or owner. The clause sets out the circumstances in which notice should be given to an interested person where a restricted premises order is being applied for. Interested persons are allowed to make representations to the court to try to prevent a restricted premises order from being issued, or at least to try to vary it. This is a safeguard so that suitable steps are taken before a restricted premises order is made, and to maintain fairness so that a relevant person is informed of an impending restricted premises order.
Clause 25 provides those in receipt of a restricted premises order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. This is important to the function of enforcement in the Bill as it enables businesses to appeal against a restricted premises order, such as where they feel they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. This provision maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.
Clause 26 makes it an offence to breach a restricted premises order in England and Wales. The offence is committed when a tobacco, herbal smoking product, cigarette paper, vaping or nicotine product whose sale is prohibited under a restricted premises order is sold on the premises. The offence occurs if a person knew or ought reasonably to have known that the sale was in breach of the order. It also provides a defence for the person charged, where they prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid a committing the offence. Making it an offence to breach a restricted premises order gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.
Finally, Clause 27 provides Welsh Ministers with the power to add to the offences for which restricted premises orders can be issued, in addition to what is already prescribed in the Bill. Offences added must be in relation to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products only. This re-enacts an existing power for Welsh Ministers, who must consult before making regulations under this power. The clause is therefore important as it maintains existing powers that enable legislation in Wales to be kept up to date to ensure that restricted premises orders can continue to be used as an effective enforcement tool.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that if you want to talk about the clauses, this is the point at which you should do so.
Andrew Gwynne
In that case, clauses 28 to 30 relate to restricted sale orders, which are another tool in the arsenal of trading standards that can be used against those who repeatedly commit an offence. Like the clauses related to restricted premises orders, they are based on and replace existing legislation.
Clause 28 provides that a persistent offender in England and Wales can be issued with a restricted sale order. A persistent offender is someone who has committed an under-age sale of cigarette papers, tobacco or herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products or has committed the offence of selling them from a vending machine at least twice in the previous two years. A restricted sale order is similar to a restricted premises order, but it puts a ban on an individual, rather than a premises, selling relevant products. It also prohibits the individual from having management functions related to the sale of relevant products and from keeping machines on any premises that sell relevant products. This is one of several measures in the Bill that will ensure that our enforcement approach to tackling under-age sales is both effective and proportionate. The clause is important for the overall functioning of the Bill, as it provides local authority trading standards with a further tool of enforcement. Restricted sale orders also act as a deterrent to persistent offenders, as they apply to a specific person regardless of where they are employed or whether they change employment.
Clause 29 provides those in receipt of a restricted sale order in England and Wales with the ability to appeal to a Crown court. The clause is important to the functioning of the enforcement regime in the Bill, as it enables individuals to appeal against a restricted sale order, such as where they feel that they have a case that the order has been inappropriately or unfairly issued. That maintains the fairness of the enforcement regime in the Bill.
Clause 30 makes it an offence to breach a restricted sale order issued in England and Wales. The offence is committed when the individual has done something, such as sell a product, that they have been prohibited from doing under the restricted sale order. It provides a defence where a person took all reasonable steps to avoid committing the offence. The clause is based on and replaces existing legislation. As with restricted premises orders, making it an offence to breach restricted sale orders gives local authority trading standards the ability to escalate action to tackle persistent offenders. The severe penalty of an unlimited fine can act as a deterrent.
I commend clauses 28, 29 and 30 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
As the Minister has already described these clauses, I will not repeat that information, but I encourage him to answer my questions on the previous clauses, as they apply similarly to this group. The others were related to restricted premises; these clauses relate to restricted sales applying to people, but the questions are the same.
If one appeals to the Crown court, how much will it cost? The Minister did not answer the question about the phraseology of “on the premises” and how that would relate to the collection of items bought online. In the debate on the previous clauses—the same question applies to these ones—he did not answer why the offences in clauses 4 to 6 and 13 to 15 are not considered relevant. Will he also clarify that a different relevant offence can occur on each of the three occasions within the two years?
With regard to restricted sale orders, paragraphs (c) and (d) of clause 28(2) relate to machines used for the purpose of selling cigarettes and other banned products. It is illegal under previous clauses to sell items from a machine, so why would one need a restricted sale order to ban something that is already illegal?
Sarah Bool
My hon. Friend raises the points that I was going to raise. I did question why clause 28(2)(c) in particular was necessary, because if we ban vending machines there should not be any machines going forward. I want to understand what machines we envisage if they are not going to be vending machines.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Minister for explaining these clauses and I fully support them, but I have two questions pertaining to clause 28.
The first question has already been asked by the hon. Members for Sleaford and North Hykeham and for South Northamptonshire and relates to clause 28(2)(c). Could the Minister explain the interaction between that paragraph and the offences created under clauses 3 and 12? Perhaps this is a catch-all provision, or some hangover from the section that the clause is based on and seeks to replace, which is section 12B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
The other point that I would like the Minister to explain, which has crossover with similar phraseology in earlier clauses, relates to clause 28(4) about a person who is convicted of a relevant offence becoming a persistent offender. In order to determine that they are a persistent offender, it will be important to have accurate record keeping to keep track of any persistent offences. I know this is not a new concept, but I wonder whether he could say more about that in his response. Record keeping will be critical to tackle repeat offenders. Will he ensure, whether by regulations or any other means, that different local authorities share that information? What we do not want is a persistent offender in one local authority moving to another one, setting up shop and repeating those same offences.
Sarah Bool
I want to echo that point. The hon. Gentleman is right: if a tenant is a company and that company changes its name, and then moves around, it may be necessary to go back up the structure to see who the ultimate beneficial owner is and to make sure that people are not just using it as a cover. I heartily agree.
The Chair
I will call the Minister. He may well wish to respond on the points related to clauses 28, 29 and 30 rather than the other points that have been raised, which can be taken up at another place and another time.
Andrew Gwynne
I will follow your guidance, Mr Dowd, because we will debate some of these issues further.
First, I apologise to the shadow Minister on the subject of the questions that she asked, particularly about the fines. The fine for a breach is level 5. That is the maximum and an unlimited fine. When it comes to the breach of a restricted premises order and the other offences we have been discussing, these are all serious offences that take place after someone has committed multiple previous offences and when several enforcement steps have already been taken along the way. It is therefore really important that trading standards has the option—and it is that, an option—to escalate enforcement measures to issue a potentially very high fine. The fine needs to reflect the severity of the offence and the fact that the offender is persistently breaching the regulations.
That follows on to the matter of record keeping raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. We will continue to work with trading standards during the long lead-in time that we anticipate we will have once this Bill hopefully gets Royal Assent. I am sure that trading standards already has good record-keeping that will help it to ascertain persistent offenders for rogue sales but, if it does not, we will work with it to make sure that it does and that it can properly enforce the measures in the Bill.
On the point about the current use of restricted sale orders, the data from the tobacco control survey shows that between April 2013 and March 2020, one council applied to the courts for a restricted sale order that was not approved. There have been no tobacco control survey reports since 2020, so more recent data is not available, but this information is gathered by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, so that answers that point.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire about restricted sale orders and vending machine offences and we are seeking to remove vending machines for tobacco and vape sales. Restricted sale orders specifically prevent the sale of tobacco, vape and nicotine products, and, when offences relating to the sale of these products have been persistently committed by an individual, we think that they are a proportionate enforcement tool that is specific to the nature of the offence committed. I take the hon. Lady’s point that we are seeking to remove vending machines, but we want to make sure that the clauses are as watertight as possible so any sales from vending machines that might happen would still be covered by the scope of the measures for enforcement.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for answering some of my questions. Another question related to clause 29 and appeal to the Crown court. How much does he anticipate that the average cost to interested parties will be? If he does not know, perhaps he could write to us.
On clause 28, the relevant offences do not include offences in other clauses in part 1 of the Bill, including clauses 4, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15. They are not included as relevant offences in clause 28, or indeed clause 23. Given that the Minister wants a robust and watertight approach, why is that not the case? The other question related to online collection.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady has asked a number of technical questions. We will get back to her and the Committee about the interrelationships between different clauses.
On the question that she asks about applications to the Crown court and the fines system in the Crown court, it is of course the Crown court that deals with appeals against penalties issued in respect of criminal offences dealt with in the magistrates courts. These are matters for the courts.
I know she asked about costs, and we believe that it would not be proportionate to prevent a business that has breached tobacco and vape sale restrictions from being able to conduct other types of businesses. For serious cases, where criminal behaviour occurs on a premises, local authorities can apply for a closure order under section 80 of the 2014 Act. Closure orders fully close a business for a maximum of three months and can be extended for a further three months on application to a court. I am not sure that covers her point, but we will get back to the hon. Lady on that.
Dr Johnson
I had another question on restricted sale orders. Why has the Minister chosen to include particular clauses and not others? I believe he will write to the Committee on that question.
Dr Johnson
I asked about online sale and collection versus sale on premises. Finally, if an individual person is a repeat offender under clause 28 because they have sold tobacco three times, that would be fairly clear. If they have sold tobacco on one occasion, vapes on another and cigarette papers on another, does that still count as three relevant offences?
Andrew Gwynne
It is obvious that three separate offences have occurred, so if the hon. Lady is asking whether they count as three offences under the Bill, of course they would. They are each their own separate offence under the Bill. That is absolutely the case. We cannot be any clearer that these are three separate offences; they are in different parts of the Bill, but none the less they are offences under the Bill. I hope that clarifies that point.
In terms of online sales, what we want to ensure is that the measures in the Bill are proportionate. These clearly relate to premises rather than a virtual space. I will certainly write to the Committee to make sure that online is covered in the provisions. Throughout the measures we have discussed to date, we have discussed trying to bring the same regulation to bricks and mortars and to online, so that there is no loophole for the industry to move away from a physical space to online, to try to get around restrictions. How that relates to a particular restricted sale order is technical in detail, so I will write to the Committee at the earliest opportunity to clarify the point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 29 to 31ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Enforcement by local weights and measures authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 33 and 34 stand part.
Clause 81 stand part.
Andrew Gwynne
The clause places the duty to enforce the tobacco and vaping measures in part 1 of the Bill and any display regulations in England and Wales on local weights and measures authorities. It provides local weights and measures authorities—meaning local authority trading standards in England and Wales—with the power to use the investigatory powers under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to conduct their enforcement activity.
Those investigatory powers are comprehensive and include the power to purchase products, observe a business, enter premises with or without a warrant, inspect products, test equipment, require the production of documents, seize goods, seize documents as evidence, break open containers and require assistance from persons on the premises. Trading standards officers are experts in enforcement, and it is vital that we provide them with the appropriate powers to perform their duty. The clause ensures that local authority trading standards can use the same investigatory powers that are used now, and known to be effective, to enable successful enforcement of the new legislation.
Clause 33 provides a requirement for local weights and measures authorities in England, meaning local authority trading standards, to consider a programme of enforcement action and the potential design of such a programme of enforcement for offences under part 1 of the Bill and display regulations, on a yearly basis. The clause is important to the Bill as it reconfirms what local authority trading standards should consider appropriate action to enforce tobacco, vapes and nicotine product regulations in their local area.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Minister is outlining clause 33. Under subsection (2), it is clear what the programme of enforcement action might involve, but what is not clear is what the consideration means in this case. In the local authority, is that decision made by a certain department, by the cabinet or, if a combined authority, by the mayor? What is due consideration under the Bill?
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, because that very much depends on the constitutional make-up of the local authority. The governance of that local authority will determine the way in which that is considered. As licensing functions tend to be quasi-judicial in their nature, enforcement required to ensure that those licensing conditions are met means that, in effect, elected members across the authority have some role in and responsibility for giving consideration to those points. I hope that clarifies the matter for him.
Gregory Stafford
It does in the most general sense, but I am trying to get to the specifics of this, if the Minister does not mind. The clause is very clear. It says in subsection (1) of clause 33,
“Each local weights and measures authority in England must, at least once a year, consider”
and so on. Presumably, the Department has some idea of what that consideration would look like, and it is presumably the Department’s job to enforce that the local authority has made some consideration. It must have some benchmark as to what that consideration would be, otherwise how on earth will it enforce that part of the Act once passed?
Andrew Gwynne
Look, the clause merely reaffirms the current case, which is that local trading standards and weights and measures authorities must consider certain things. The hon. Gentleman is right that on the enforcement regime for tobacco and vaping products, the Bill extends the consideration that local members should give. It is very clear, with the set of measures we are dealing with in this Bill, what those considerations should be and what local councillors and the executive or the mayor should consider on behalf of the local authority. Every local authority trading standards has a programme of enforcement that is approved by that local authority; this Bill will request of them that that is extended, within the scope of the measures in the Bill—hopefully to be an Act—to include what we expect for the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations.
The Bill will also ensure that they continue to review the action they take on a regular basis. It is really important to ensure that the enforcement regime in any particular local authority area is as robust as it can be and that, where there are deficiencies, the local authority and the members constituting it have the opportunity to put things right. Clause 34 makes the same provision for programmes of enforcement action in Wales as is made for England under clause 33, and clause 81 makes similar provision for district councils in Northern Ireland. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for outlining what these clauses do. I will not repeat his summary, but I will ask him one question: could he confirm what provisions are made for Scotland, please?
Andrew Gwynne
Scottish Ministers have advised that they do not wish us to legislate on this. It is my understanding that that is why these measures relate solely to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 33 and 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Power of ministers to take over enforcement functions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 35 and 36 provide ministerial powers. In clause 35, Ministers can decide that they will take over a duty to enforce part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13 in relation to a particular case in England. Subsection (2) of the same clause provides for Welsh Ministers to do the same. Clause 36 gives a similar power to Ministers, only this time it applies to proceedings in respect of an offence, as opposed to a duty to enforce an offence under part 1 of the Bill or regulations under clause 13. Could the Minister give some examples of why Ministers, or the Secretary of State in the case of England, would wish to interfere in either the duty to enforce or the proceedings in respect of an offence? Could he also provide for what provisions are made for Northern Ireland and Scotland?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes an important case for these measures covering England and Wales. There are no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vape regulations in England and Wales. Trading standards operates in all local areas and undertakes enforcement responsibilities, and it will continue to do so. We acknowledge as a Government that it is highly unlikely that these powers will ever need to be used, but it is important to have them to ensure that there is consistency in enforcement, if there is ever an occasion where a local authority is unable to conduct enforcement activity. We believe these powers act as a useful safeguard for very extreme circumstances.
If this power were exercised—as the shadow Minister has rightly put to us, although we do not expect it ever to have to be—how would it work in practice? It is a fair point. Ministers would decide how enforcement functions would be taken over, as well as the suitable organisations or individuals who would be involved in undertaking the enforcement action for a particular case, or cases of a particular description. That is woolly for the simple reason that we do not know what those circumstances would be. Were there circumstances severe enough to warrant Ministers utilising this power, we would want to ensure—
Dr Johnson
Ministers intervening in a particular case is obviously quite a sensitive issue, particularly where that is the prosecution of a single individual or the duty to enforce regarding a single shop. I can understand that there may be a conflict of interest, and the Secretary of State may be asked to choose a different authority to arbitrate to avoid that conflict, but how will the Minister ensure that these measures are not used for political purposes?
Andrew Gwynne
All I can say to the shadow Minister is that we do not intend to use these powers. They would hopefully never see the light of day. However, we have to legislate for—we are keen to legislate for—those exceptional circumstances that will probably never happen. Where there is a real failure on the part of a local trading standards to deliver its core functions, as set out in the Bill, Ministers must reserve the right to intervene.
Dr Johnson
With respect, if the clause said that the Secretary of State reserves the right to take over proceedings or the duty to enforce for more multiple cases in the same area, or take over the whole job of the local authority, that would perhaps make some sense, if the local authority was underperforming in its duties. However, these clauses state that it is for a specific case, not the wider failure to deliver.
Andrew Gwynne
I get that—it is difficult without having a specific example, because there has not ever been one, but we have to assume that at some stage in the future there may be a case, however unlikely that is. We have to ensure that the Secretary of State has the absolute confidence that the trading standards functions of a particular area are able to meet the ambitions of the Bill. If, for whatever highly unlikely reason, there is a conflict of interest or those functions have not been delivered in an appropriate way, Ministers need to have that opportunity to intervene. That is what this power, as unlikely as it may be, seeks to do; it is a backstop in the extreme, unlikely circumstance that local trading standards is not operating in accordance with the measures of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Has the Minister discussed it with his Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, and can he say whether they have a similar provision? If they do not have it, why do they feel that they do not need it?
Andrew Gwynne
Scotland does not have the powers in the Bill, and nor does Northern Ireland. We have discussed all of this in terms of where we are legislating for different parts of the United Kingdom. I would like to reassure the shadow Minister, though, that Scotland does have a similar, separate power from this. It is not true that Scotland does not have this power; it does have it, but does not want it to be part of the framework in the Bill.
This is a measure that we believe is a safeguard. It is unlikely that we will ever seek to use it, but we have to have those safeguards, because were there to be a local authority that is not able to perform the requests that the Bill sets out, and were the Secretary of State or Ministers at some stage in the future of the view that the trading standards functions were not meeting the requirements of the Bill, there has to be some measure to allow Ministers to step in and try to fix that situation so that the measures in the Bill, and the robust enforcement that we expect from those, are applied consistently across the whole country.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that it is similar in Scotland—I would be grateful if he could confirm whether that is related to individual cases or to a wider takeover of a failing Department. The Minister has talked a lot about the proportionality of the offences, fines, and punishments that can be chosen by trading standards, and he says that he trusts trading standards to ensure that that is proportional to the offence on each occasion. The concern is that the clauses would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with that by taking over the proceedings or the decision to enforce in a particular case, which would mean, for example, that if a Secretary of State was concerned that his best friend was running a shop and was about to get into trouble, he could intervene on the basis of this legislation and prevent that person from having proceedings. Likewise, if an Opposition politician was in the same situation, he could intervene to make proceedings much harder and harsher than they would normally have been.
Dr Johnson
I cannot give way, because I am intervening on the Minister. Does the Minister understand that concern?
Andrew Gwynne
I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to get at, but I started by saying, in answering her, that there have been no known cases of Ministers needing to take over the enforcement of tobacco and vapes regulations in England and Wales. These are an important safeguard in a probably never event—[Interruption.] She asks why we are doing it: we are doing it precisely so there is a safeguard and, in an extremely rare occasion that we might need to intervene, we are able to. It is not a power that we are seeking to use, nor do we want to use it, but it is an important safeguard. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 37, page 19, line 25, at end insert—
“(1A) In respect to sections (1) and (2) fixed penalties will not be issued where a person has admitted guilt, and it is a first offence.”
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under sections 1 and 2 will not be issued if it is a first offence in England and Wales.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 55, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, at end insert—
“(5A) In section 27 (Fixed penalties), in paragraph (1) at end insert ‘, save if an offence under section 4, 4A, and 4B is a first offence for which a person has admitted guilt”.
This amendment ensures that fixed penalty notices for an offence under section 50 will not be issued if it is a first offence in Scotland.
Clause stand part.
Dr Johnson
Amendments 54 and 55 are probing amendments, like others we have tabled in a similar vein, to provoke discussion about the proportionality of offences, particularly where an offence has occurred inadvertently because someone has misjudged the age of an individual in front of them in an innocent way.
I will not repeat myself, but we have already talked about the evidence that shows that people have great difficulty in identifying someone’s age, and the Government have not yet provided guidance on how individual shop workers should be trained to identify people’s age, whether they should be trained to always check ID and how they will prove they saw it and what it looked like. Until that guidance is provided, it is quite difficult to see how all offences can necessarily be proportionate for someone, particularly someone committing a first offence.
However, clause 37 offers some opportunity for discretion within that process by providing for the issuing and handling of fixed penalty notices by local weights and measures authorities for certain offences relating to the tobacco and vaping regulations in England and Wales. It stipulates that local authorities can issue FPNs to individuals suspected of committing specific offences, such as selling tobacco or vaping products to minors or breaching the display or sale regulations. These offences are detailed in the sections mentioned in subsection (1), such as selling tobacco to those born on or after 1 January 2009 or selling nicotine products to under-18s.
The notice offers the person an opportunity to avoid being prosecuted by paying a specified fine within a set period of 28 days. The fine is set at level 4 on the standard scale, or £2,500, whereas for some other offences it is set at £200. There is quite a different there, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reason for that variation.
The individual can pay the full fine within 28 days, or a reduced fine—50% of the original amount—if it is paid within the first 14 days. If the fine is paid within the relevant period of 28 days, whether that is the reduced fine within the 14 days or in full later at 28 days, the individual will not be convicted for the offence. If the payment is not made in time, legal proceedings can then begin. However, no legal proceedings can be initiated before the end of the 28-day period. If the person who has received the fixed penalty notice fails to make the payment and the local authority decides to initiate proceedings against them, the time that is calculated for the magistrates court will begin after the payment window of 28 days. The relevant authority can withdraw the fixed penalty notice at any time before the payment is made.
The fixed penalty notice must explain that the local weights and measures authority has reason to believe that the person has committed an offence, why the penalty is that amount, and how and when to pay the system. As I understand it, it is designed to offer a simple and quicker alternative to prosecution, providing an incentive to resolve minor offences through the payment of a fixed fine.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing this discussion before the Committee today. Amendment 54 would provide that someone who commits the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in England and Wales, or the offence of purchasing these products on behalf of someone under age—proxy purchasing—cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
Amendment 55 would achieve a similar effect in Scotland. This amendment would ensure that someone who commits an offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone under age in Scotland, or commits a proxy purchasing offence or the offence of failing to operate an age verification policy, cannot receive a fixed penalty notice when it is their first offence and they admit to committing the offence.
The shadow Minister’s intention may be to establish greater leniency for first-time offenders by removing fixed penalty notices as an enforcement option. Or it may be that she just wishes for first-time offenders to potentially face criminal prosecution and higher fines. Nevertheless, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime or reduce enforcement options available to trading standards by creating exceptions for first-time offenders or anyone else who has committed these offences. We also do not want to risk causing confusion for trading standards officers, when it comes to utilising these fines, by creating different rules for first-time offenders.
The purpose of the fixed penalty notices is to enable trading standards to take enforcement actions against rogue offenders more quickly and easily. These on-the-spot fines avoid the need to take offenders through a time-consuming magistrates court process, and reduce the pressure on courts. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to take to achieve compliance. That typically starts, as we have discussed, with the issuing of warning letters, which is often effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties, such as prosecution and associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. We do not want to remove the ability of trading standards to issue fixed penalty notices, including for first-time offenders, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty for the particular case before them. It is for those reasons that, once more, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendments.
I now move on to clause 37, which amendment 54 seeks to amend. The clause introduces new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales to enable local authority trading standards to take quicker action by issuing on-the-spot fines to retailers in breach of regulations, instead of seeking a court prosecution. The fine will be £200—double the amount proposed in the same Bill when introduced by the previous Government. We will go further by enabling the use of the fixed penalty notice for a wider range of offences.
Trading standards officers will be able to issue a £200 fixed penalty notice for under-age sales, proxy purchases and free distribution of tobacco, vaping and nicotine product offences, as well as breaches of tobacco age of sale notice restrictions and breaches of display of products and price regulations made under this Bill. The value of the fixed penalty notice is reduced by 50% to £100 if paid within 14 days by the individual in question. This amount is proportionate and brings the value of the fixed penalty in England and Wales into closer alignment with the current similar values in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the £200 fixed monetary penalties for breaches of the single-use vapes ban. It was also the most popular value given by respondents to the Government’s public consultation.
A higher fixed penalty amount, set at level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—will be available for licensing offences under clauses 17 and 20, in England and Wales, once respective licensing schemes are established through regulations. This higher value reflects the seriousness of these offences and will help the taking of action against rogue retailers.
Fixed penalty notices offer an individual the opportunity to avoid prosecution for an offence if they make a payment within a specified period. Existing fixed penalty notices already in place for proxy purchases of tobacco and vape products will be replaced by this new regime. A strong and proportionate approach to enforcement is vital to support the implementation of new tobacco and vape measures and put us on track to a smoke-free United Kingdom. Fixed penalty notices will complement our existing sanctions and strengthen the toolkit available to trading standards officers by allowing them to take swifter action to fine rogue retailers that breach certain regulations, including age of sale regulations. I therefore commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
The Minister has reassured me that the trading standards officer fining someone breaching the regulations and the provisions of the Bill that are relevant has the capacity to issue warning letters to someone who they believe has committed such an offence inadvertently—someone who would otherwise wish to adhere to the law, but has made a simple mistake—and there is a range of other options, such as an FPN or prosecution itself, for the more reckless or persistent offender, so I will not press my amendments to a vote.
On clause 37 itself, can the Minister answer this question. People can repeatedly be issued with FPNs; if someone were issued with an FPN rather than being prosecuted, would that be recorded as a “relevant offence” under clause 23 or 28—on restricted premises orders and restricted sale orders—or could someone be recurrently getting an FPN and not be treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
My apologies to the shadow Minister. The simple answer is no; paying a fixed penalty notice is an alternative to criminal prosecution. A person cannot be convicted of the offence if they pay the fixed penalty notice within the specified time.
Dr Johnson
I thank the Minister for that information. Does he therefore envisage situations in which an individual receives an FPN recurrently but is not treated as a recurrent offender?
Andrew Gwynne
That would be a matter for trading standards to judge, but one would expect that if somebody is a recurrent offender in that regard, trading standards may want to use the vast array of enforcement powers, including, ultimately, being taken through the court process, should that be appropriate. But that is entirely a matter for trading standards.
Dr Johnson
I think that could lead to a situation where the first offence is committed and trading standards gives the individual a warning letter because they believe the individual did not intend to commit it, the second offence is committed and an FPN is issued, the individual commits a third offence and gets another FPN, and so on. By the time we get to the fourth offence, the trading standards officers may get fed up with that individual and want to treat them as a recurrent offender but be unable to do so because they have technically never committed a relevant offence. Trading standards would then have to prosecute them for the next three offences over two years before they could treat them as a recurrent offender, which would delay the prosecution under the restricted premises or restricted persons order of an individual deliberately and recklessly selling age-restricted products to under-age people. Can the Minister consider whether someone receiving recurrent FPNs would be considered for the restricted sale order, perhaps at a higher threshold than prosecution?
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister makes a valid point. I remind her, though, that there is an array of tools for trading standards to use. A fixed penalty notice is one; we have discussed and debated other measures to date. There is an entire toolbox of enforcement measures. I am not quite the Stalinist some might think; I trust trading standards to take the appropriate action given the circumstances. The Bill, hopefully soon to be an Act, will provide trading standards with an array of different measures, so that if they decide that someone is a persistent offender, they can go down a variety of different routes.
Dr Johnson
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Fixed penalties: use of proceeds
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 38, page 20, line 18, leave out from “must” to the end of line 19 and insert—
“be allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board to public health projects.”.
This amendment would direct funds from Fixed Penalty Notice fines to public health initiatives, determined by Local Health and Wellbeing Boards.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 38, page 20, line 20, leave out from “before” to the second “the” and insert—
“such sums are allocated by the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”.
This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.
Clause stand part.
Liz Jarvis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to speak to these amendments.
The UK should be one of the healthiest countries in the world, with our long history of grassroots sports, high-quality food production and world-leading medical research. However, under the previous Government the UK only became sicker, and now lags far behind its international peers. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the new Government take urgent action to support people to live healthier lives. The previous Government squandered numerous opportunities to make the UK a healthier place to live and failed to take easy steps to improve the nation’s health. The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the new Government’s early steps to tackle ill health. We believe that supporting people to lead healthier lives should be a priority for the Government.
Gregory Stafford
As all Liberal Democrats do whenever they stand up, the hon. Lady has just castigated the previous Government for everything they did. Did she not welcome the fact that the previous Conservative Administration brought in a Bill very similar to this one to improve the nation’s health? Is there nothing she can find to praise the previous Government for?
Liz Jarvis
That brings me to amendments 2 and 3 to clause 38. As the Bill stands, fines collected for breaches of licensing regulations are directed to the relevant Consolidated Fund after deducting administrative costs. We believe that this misses an opportunity to create tangible benefits by empowering local health and wellbeing boards to increase the health and wellbeing of their local populations. Amendments 2 and 3 propose a constructive change: those fines should be redirected to support public health initiatives, to be determined by local health and wellbeing boards.
Local health and wellbeing boards bring together leaders from across the care and health system to improve the health and wellbeing of their local populations. They are well placed to identify and prioritise local public health challenges. Keeping money from the fines in the community would empower local health and wellbeing boards to determine public health initiatives tailored to their communities’ needs. Our amendments are centred on the need for community-led solutions to public health concerns.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
Would the hon. Lady’s amendments affect the financing of the actions of trading standards, and would more money need to go in to offset that?
Liz Jarvis
I do not know the answer to that, so I will refer that question to the Minister.
Liz Jarvis
I am sorry; I do not know about that.
Our amendments would also promote transparency and accountability by giving those with skin in the game a direct role in deciding how fines are used to address public health priorities in their area. They would strengthen the Bill’s public health focus while retaining the integrity of its enforcement mechanisms.
Liz Jarvis
I have one sentence left.
The amendments would ensure that the penalties imposed for regulatory breaches contribute directly to mitigating the broader harms caused by tobacco and vaping.
Dr Johnson
My understanding—the Minister may correct me if I am wrong—is that the money from FPNs would go into the relevant Consolidated Fund once the enforcement costs of investigating an issue in the FPN have been deducted by the local weights and measures authority. Were these amendments to come into force, the Government would need to provide the extra money to ensure that the enforcement agencies can still function, because at the moment some of their money is recycled from the FPNs, and that would not be the case.
I understand the hon. Lady’s desire to ensure that the money that comes from FPNs for the sale of tobacco and other relevant products to under-age individuals is used to improve public health, but in practice if the money goes into the Consolidated Fund, the Government can use it for whatever purposes they deem useful for public health. There is therefore nothing to stop them using it entirely for public health, and for this House to decide what it should be spent on, because that is how the Consolidated Fund is spent. In my view, having a separate fund administering the FPNs would add an extra layer of bureaucracy, so I do not support the amendments, although I support the principle behind them of trying to ensure that public health is good, because all parties want that.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is perhaps in the invidious position of having to talk about something that is not the amendment she originally authored, but I share the shadow Minister’s concern.
I note that the current drafting of clause 38 has respect for the devolved position. I am the Member for Cardiff West, so I take a particular interest in the Welsh Consolidated Fund. I am concerned that amendment 2 would replace those words with
“the relevant Local Health and Wellbeing Board”,
so it does not take into account the devolved position with respect to Wales. I therefore suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to repeat too many points that other people have made. This a well-meaning, but ill thought-through amendment, as has been highlighted by the two hon. Members who spoke before me.
I was a local government councillor for 17 years, and served on many health and wellbeing boards. I do not recall them ever having a separate fund, so this would be a new innovation. It would not necessarily be an innovation without good intention, but using central Government legislation to enforce a completely new set of financial arrangements on local authorities could have a wider impact than those who have tabled these amendments have anticipated. The Minister, either in his summary or on Report, might find a way of achieving what those hon. Members want via other means, because clearly we would all want the moneys from continued enforcement to be used for things as close to health and public health improvements as possible. Will the Minister address that in his response?
Andrew Gwynne
I will first discuss the clause and then move on to the amendments. Clause 38 sets out how proceeds from the new fixed penalty notices in England and Wales must be used. I will also discuss the amendments that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has tabled on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The clause states that funds received from fixed penalty notices issues in relation to the licensing offences in the Bill must be returned to the relevant Consolidated Fund once the costs of investigating the offences and issuing the notice have been deducted. That will ensure that these fixed penalty notices remain cost-neutral and will not cause local authorities to incur additional cost burdens for enforcing a future licensing scheme. For all other offences, which carry a fixed penalty notice of £200, proceeds will be retained by local authorities and must be used in connection with their functions under this Bill, part 1 of the Health Act 2006, part 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 and the Tobacco and Related Product Regulations 2016. That means that if local authority trading standards issue a fixed penalty notice—for example, to a retailer selling to someone under age—the local authority may retain the funds from the fixed penalty notice, and those funds must be used by the local authority to support the enforcement of tobacco and vape legislation. That will allow local authorities to cover the enforcement costs for issuing fixed penalty notices and to reinvest any remaining funds into their enforcement regimes.
The amendments to the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Eastleigh seek to ringfence the proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notice for licensing offences for public health projects. They would achieve that by making it mandatory for any proceeds received by local authority trading standards from these fixed penalty notices to be allocated by local health and wellbeing boards to public health projects. Although I admire the hon. Lady’s ambition to further support public health—and who would not?—it would not be appropriate to enable local authorities to retain the fixed penalty notice proceeds in that way.
Councils already have a ringfenced budget for public health in England. The proceeds from the £2,500 fixed penalty notices for licensing offences were never intended as a revenue-generation mechanism. The fixed penalty notice is introduced to support the enforcement of the future licensing scheme and tobacco and vape sales regulations. It should continue to be the choice of trading standards officers to determine the appropriate enforcement action to take in a given case to achieve compliance. Enabling retention of fixed penalty notice proceeds for a different purpose risks distorting the operational priorities of the licensing scheme.
The £200 fixed penalty notice introduced by the Bill for offences such as under age sales are an exception. We worked carefully with His Majesty’s Treasury during the development of the Bill to enable trading standards to retain that relatively small value in order to support their procedures. To ensure that the future licensing scheme can be sustainably implemented, we have established that local authorities will be able to use the licensing fee to support them in covering the costs of administering and enforcing the licensing scheme, and that trading standards can deduct the costs of investigation and issuing fines from the FPN proceeds before returning the remainder to the Consolidated Fund.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West also mentioned the fact that the provision is not compliant with the reality of seeking to apply to both England and Wales, in that it makes specific reference to bodies that do not exist in Wales, namely the health and wellbeing boards, which only appertain to local authorities in England. I want to be clear that local authorities are receiving not just their public health grant but, in the financial year 2025-26, an additional £70 million from central Government and the Department of Health and Social Care to support local authority-led stop smoking services in England. We expect that investment will support our aim to help around 360,000 people to make quit attempts, and up to 198,000 successful quits a year.
Decisions for future years are subject to the spending review process, but that money, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, in part comes from the Consolidated Fund. So there is a virtuous circle of the kind that the hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly wants to see, in that there are direct correlations between money that my Department gets from His Majesty’s Treasury and money that the Treasury will get from not just those fixed penalty notices in the future, but other sources of income generation, including fines and penalties.
That money, in one form or another, almost certainly will be recycled into public health measures determined by Ministers and by Parliament and given to local authorities to determine how to spend at their local level. That could be through the public health grants, or through direct grants such as the smoking cessation or the drugs and alcohol grants that we make available to local authorities. But rest assured, there will be investment in public health, and that will come from money that my Department receives from His Majesty’s Treasury through the usual routes. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Eastleigh to withdraw her amendment.
Liz Jarvis
I will not be withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment 2 negatived.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Power to change amount of fixed penalties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 39 provides the power to change the amount of fixed penalties. As the Minister has described, the fixed penalty is set at £200. The clause outlines the powers granted to the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to modify the details of fixed penalty notices, in terms of both the level of fine and any percentage discount granted for early payment. The powers seem sensible, as does having an overall limit. The limit that the Government have chosen to set is that of a level 3 fine on the standard scale, which will rise periodically from time to time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Handing over tobacco etc to underage people in Wales
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 40 seems self-explanatory. It introduces schedule 5, which relates to the illegal act of handing over tobacco and nicotine products to individuals under the age of 18 in Wales. It amends the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 to include vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. This creates a difference between England and Wales. Obviously the Welsh are free to make changes where they wish to, but I am interested in why the Minister has decided that we should not have a corresponding piece of legislation for England.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. Wales is the only devolved Government to have a provision on handing over products to people who are underage. That is why the clause is framed in the way that it is, given the fine balance of reaching consensus across the devolved Administrations and England. Wales is the only devolved Government to have this provision.
Dr Johnson
I may have misheard the Minister, but I am not sure he explain why he does not think it is necessary in England.
Andrew Gwynne
We do not think that this power is necessary, nor did the Northern Ireland Executive or Scotland. Wales wishes to retain a power that it already has, and I think that is fair enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 42
Application of programmes of enforcement to old age of sale offences
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
My understanding is that clauses 42 and 43 provide for enforcement of fixed penalty notices for the old age of sale offences in the intervening time between the Bill being passed and it coming into force. It seems therefore sensible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 43 and 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Power to extend Part 1 to other products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 45 enables the Secretary of State by regulation to extend the provisions of part 1 to cover devices or parts of devices that allow tobacco products to be consumed. Clause 67 amends the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to give the equivalent powers to Scottish Ministers. Clause 86 amends the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 to give the equivalent power to Northern Ireland.
These provisions mean that any newly emerging device or current device, such as heated tobacco devices, could be covered in future. This future-proofs the Bill, will allow us to stay on top of tobacco control and will protect the public from the harms of tobacco. Before making any regulations under the clause, the relevant Ministers or Department will have a duty to consult. For amendments to part 1 of the Bill, the Secretary of State must obtain the consent of Welsh Ministers if those regulations would be within the legislative competence of the Act of the Senedd. I therefore commend these clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
I believe this is the clause the Minister previously mentioned in relation to bongs. It is his desire to ensure that items used for illegal drugs, which are currently legal only on the basis that they are used for tobacco, will not need to be used once tobacco is not as available. I have a question relating to the age of sale, because tobacco has a rolling age of sale. Is he suggesting that, to put these provisions in place and make these items illegal—such as the bongs that he has referred to so forcefully in the past—the smoke free generation will need to reach the point where there are no members of the smoking generation left?
Andrew Gwynne
I am not sure whether anybody is listening in to the proceedings of this Committee—I am sure lots of people are; the hon. Member for Windsor said thousands—but I certainly think that somebody connected with the tobacco and vape shop on Strutton Ground is listening, because the said offending bong, which has been there for the six months that I have been Minister, seems to have disappeared from the shop window. That shows the power of the parliamentary processes—it is not just sad geeks who are listening in to the proceedings of this Bill—[Interruption.] Indeed, it might have been sold—I did start to wonder whether I had inadvertently been advertising said bong.
The supply of controlled drugs and any articles for administering and preparing controlled drugs is regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. However, as I have flagged, some items that might be captured by this legislation are also being displayed and sold. That is how they are getting around the Act—under the premise that they are used for smoking tobacco—and that includes things such as pipes and bongs.
Dr Johnson
My understanding was that the Minister did not wish to restrict the use of tobacco products and other products covered by this Bill by those who are over the age of sale, whether that be the smoke-free generation date or the age of 18. Does he accept that if he brings in regulations under clause 45, it will potentially affect those who are currently buying tobacco legally? How will he ensure a balance between protecting our population from drugs, particularly illegal drugs, and maintaining the availability of tobacco for those to whom the Government have decided it should be available?
Andrew Gwynne
I quite accept the shadow Minister’s point. We are not making the purchase or consumption of tobacco or tobacco products illegal. What we are doing is ensuring that the next generation can never legally be sold tobacco or tobacco products. I do not wish to stray over old arguments, but as I said when the Committee debated clause 1 at length, Parliament is effectively saying to the tobacco industry, “This is it. This is as good as your market share is ever likely to be. We’re going to stop that conveyor belt, so new people don’t come along to replace those who are dropping off the other end as a consequence of your product. We will move hell for leather to shrink what little market base you now have still further through things like the stop smoking programme,” which we discussed under the previous clause.
I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that although we will absolutely allow people who currently smoke to continue smoking or using tobacco products until the day they die if they so wish—we will do all we can to wean them off that addiction, but if they want to, they will be able to—we will be preventing the next generation from ever getting hooked. That is the context for all these clauses.
The power that we are discussing in relation to clause 45 will only mean that the other parts of the Bill can be extended to include these products. That is an important factor. We are not banning these products; we are just covering them in measures such as the display powers that we are discussing. That is important. It will mean that if a bong is put in a shop window like the one on Strutton Ground, action can be taken not on the basis that it is drugs paraphernalia—heaven forbid, because that would be a breach under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—but because the said bong can be used to smoke tobacco. It will give us the powers, should we so wish, to include a variety of other products in the scope of the Bill so that they cannot be displayed. If they are not displayed, the chances are that the said shops will not be selling them.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I agree that clause 45 is really important, for reasons that have been discussed by Members on both sides of the Committee. As has been said throughout, the tobacco industry will find a way if we do not make these measures as watertight as possible. In respect of subsection (3), which relates to the devolved elements, can the Minister reassure me that in his conversations with the Welsh Ministers they have shared his zeal to ensure that these measures are as robust and future-proof as possible?
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely. The working relationship between me and my officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and my ministerial counterparts across the three devolved Administrations and their officials in their respective Health Departments has been textbook. It has been exemplary. Not that I would do so with the Welsh Health Minister, but I could have my ten penn’orth of argument with some of the other devolved Administrations on a whole range of policy areas, yet when it comes to tackling the scourge of tobacco and vapes, the four Health Ministers are as one. That is why this is a landmark Bill.
The SNP Administration in Holyrood, the Northern Ireland Executive, who cover a rainbow of political parties in Northern Ireland, and the Labour Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay have given me the responsibility and power to act on their behalf. That is the Union in action. That is co-operation in action. That shows that devolution need not be a mechanism to pull us apart; where we are at one, it can be a mechanism to draw us together. I reassure my hon. Friend that the powers in the Bill have been shaped by the Welsh Health Minister, to every last full stop, and have the full support of the Government of Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Power to amend lists of identity documents
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 46 provides the legal framework for the power to amend the definition of the identity documents in clauses 1 and 10. There has been some debate about the list of identity documents, which is quite short. I know that the Minister has described the list of identity of documents for voting as too short, for example, but that is a much longer list than this one, with a much broader scope.
I understand the need to provide a legal framework to increase the number of identity documents and amend the list as required, so I support clause 46. I am sure that the Minister will be under pressure from the Chancellor to find efficiencies in his Department. Rather than saying, “We have the power to amend it, so let’s do that later,” and instead of using civil servants’, Members’, Ministers’ and the House’s time to amend it by regulations later, might it not be more efficient to add to this list now? He could add things like veteran cards and other pieces of ID currently available for those wishing to vote. He could do it now with a stroke of his pen.
Gregory Stafford
I have a simple question. Obviously, “amend” can mean either “increase” or “decrease”. The Bill lists the following ID cards:
“(a) a passport,
(b) a UK driving licence,
(c) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man,
(d) a European Union photocard driving licence, or
(e) an identity card issued by the Proof of Age Standards Scheme”.
I assume that a passport, a UK driving licence, or a driving licence issued by the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man is unlikely to disappear. I have no idea, but I suspect that a European Union photocard driving licence is not going to disappear.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to respond. I suppose the only one that the Minister would consider removing would be the proof of age standards scheme card, if it were somehow changed or amended. Will he confirm that he is not looking to reduce the numbers?
Dr Johnson
One point to add is that individuals with certain disabilities may not have a driving licence, because their disability makes them ineligible to drive. The options available to them are quite substantially restricted, because most of the options on the list are forms of driving licence. Has the Minister assessed whether those with disabilities are more or less likely to have the documents listed, and is he happy that those with disabilities who wish to buy age-restricted products can do so?
Andrew Gwynne
We have already discussed at length the Government’s intentions to have a robust but workable system that does not overburden retailers, but enables them to have the confidence that the people to whom they are selling their products meet the required age of sale. I have already discussed and set out the reasons for the list of ID cards.
Of course, most of the forms of ID are things that most people have, or they are able to get a PASS ID card. Those are commonplace for people who are currently under the age of sale for a variety of products, and that is one form of ID that they can purchase if they do not have any other forms of ID. There is also the defence for retailers that they took all reasonable steps, which might involve their looking at a form of ID other than those set out in the legislation, such as veteran cards, which we have already spoken about at length. That remains the case.
I want to give a bit of background on how the list came about. My understanding is that in the previous incarnation of the Bill there was not a list of forms of ID. That came in for criticism by the then Bill Committee, which thought that there ought to be a list. That is how we have ended up with the list that we have now.
Dr Johnson
Is the Minister suggesting that if a shop worker or retailer selling an age-restricted product to an individual saw a form of ID that is not listed in part 3 but which they were convinced was a real and genuine certification of age, they could use that instead?
Andrew Gwynne
That is the reasonable defence that we have already discussed under earlier provisions of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
So why is a list necessary? Why not just say “as long as they have taken reasonable steps to get the ID”?
Andrew Gwynne
If the hon. Lady lets me finish my contribution, she might get an answer that she likes. I have already had discussions with my officials about how we have less ambiguity in relation to the ID. The list was put in for the reasons that I stated. The previous iteration of the Bill did not have a list and was criticised by members of the then Bill Committee because it was too vague. We will perhaps come back at a later stage with an amended proposal.
I hope the hon. Lady recognises that her point has been made very well and that my officials and I are in full listening mode. We hope to reassure members of this Committee, probably on Report, that we can strengthen this element of the Bill—we do not want to weaken it—so that there is no ambiguity over ID. We will have a robust mechanism for retailers so that they have confidence in what is and is not an acceptable form of ID. We will get this right. I am determined that we will get these measures right and that they will be enforceable.
On the ability to add or remove from the list, should that be necessary, it will be future-proofed. However we define the requirements on identification, whether it is as it currently stands or as it changes, the way we do ID will change. In my relatively short lifetime—I am only 50—technology has moved on apace and forms of identification have changed. Who knows how things might change over the next 50 years? We have future-proofed much in the Bill against the tobacco and vaping industry being able to find another route through to sell its goods to the next generation. We are putting roadblocks in place for all those mechanisms. We also need to make sure that the enforcement mechanisms are fit for purpose for the future.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that the intention is not to make it easier to escape the ID requirements or make it harder for people to prove that they are of legal age. Perhaps, at some stage, certain ID mechanisms will become obsolete and we will need to remove them, but this is about adding new ID to the list so that as new forms of identification become available that we have not even thought of, the Bill will be future-proof. We are not restricting ID to passports and drivers’ licences that we might not even have in 50 years’ time. I hope the hon. Member accepts that explanation, and I hope that Members understand that we are in listening mode. We are looking at what constitutes applicable ID, so that clarity will be there for the retail industry on what applies and what does not.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Employment Rights Bill (Twenty First sitting)
Thursday 16th January 2025
(2 days, 5 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 January 2025 - (16 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Good morning, Sir Christopher. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am pleased to move the new clause, which would add special constables to the scope of section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, giving them the right to unpaid leave to perform their duties.
Special constables are volunteers. They give their time, at no cost to the taxpayer, to help our police forces. Specials have existed in some form ever since the Special Constables Act 1831, which allowed justices of the peace to conscript volunteers. The special constabulary as we know it was established by the Police Act 1964, which gave chief constables the authority to appoint and manage special constables. Today’s specials carry all the same legal powers as their full-time counterparts, on and off duty. They put themselves in harm’s way, without payment, to keep our society safe.
I tabled the new clause because my constituent, Ms Emma-Elizabeth Murphy, asked me to do so. She came to see me at one of my first constituency surgeries and asked me to help her and her fellow special constables. Ms Murphy joined up as a special in 2021 and took the oath as a constable. Since then, she has recorded more than 1,300 hours of duties, arrested multiple offenders and dealt with fatal accidents. Last year, she was recognised as student special constable of the year.
Ms Murphy explained that she and many of her colleagues use their weekends and holidays to perform their duties. They may ask their employers for unpaid leave, but 60% of employers who were surveyed do not grant it. Bringing specials within the scope of section 50 would mean that their employer had to consider the request officially and grant a reasonable amount of unpaid leave. That would put them in the same position as councillors and magistrates.
The number of people who volunteer as a special has fallen by two thirds over the past decade. Many forces now face significant gaps in their special constabulary ranks. Applications have slowed significantly, with most special constables joining purely as a stepping stone into the regular force. The two-year attrition rate of the force is 90%. That means that the constabulary does not see a good return on the time and training that it invests in new recruits.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I draw Members’ attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the GMB.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater is making a powerful case. Were the Government to accept his new clause, would he support the Bill as a whole?
Sir Ashley Fox
That would not be quite enough to offset the £5 billion-worth of costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. The advantage of the new clause is that it would not cost either the taxpayer or employers any money. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
The truth is that, currently, many people simply do not have the time to offer to the role without employer support. The measure I propose would make it easier for specials to perform their duties and, I hope, help recruitment. Unlike so many of the proposals in the Bill, it would not cost either employers or the taxpayer any money.
I am pleased that this campaign has the support of the Association of Special Constabulary Officers and more than a dozen MPs from Government and Opposition. We also have the endorsement of 10 police and crime commissioners. Importantly, Assistant Chief Constable Bill Dutton, acting in his capacity as the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the special constabulary, has provided his written support for including special constables under section 50. The Minister has received letters from hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I believe that some of his ministerial colleagues, too, may have received letters or held meetings with Government Back Benchers.
The new clause could help with the recruitment and retention of many new special constables and it would make our streets safer. It would also finally recognise the work of the specials and put them on the same footing as the thousands of other people in this country who are allowed time off work to complete valuable civic duties. I ask the Minister to consider that.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I would like to add my support to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater has proposed. The first duty of Government is to protect citizens from threats abroad and keep them safe at home. Given all the other rights and extensions of rights that the Government are pushing in the Bill, it would seem unusual if support for our special constables, whom I salute for all their hard work day in, day out as part of the mission to keep the British people safe, were not included. I urge the Minister to consider the new clause in a genuine spirit of trying to work together on this issue.
I am tempted to rise to the bait set by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles. We have many differences of opinion about the Bill’s provisions, but, in the spirit of the Bill, surely we can find some cross-party consensus on extending employment rights to special constables going about their duty—the often dangerous duty that they carry out on behalf of us all.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to strongly support the new clause. We have seen throughout our debates in Committee that there are opportunities for changing the weather around our employment world, whether it is around foster carers, adoption or volunteering—the subject of new clause 38, championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster), which we will discuss later.
I hope that this new clause falls on fertile ground because, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater has highlighted, volunteering across the piece has significantly reduced. We need to change the weather around the employment world and make sure that people feel able and confident to volunteer, as we know that policing is a particular challenge.
I welcome the Government’s plans to invest in neighbourhood policing. Special officers are often involved in that. People feel confident when they see a uniformed officer on the street. The public do not care whether it is a paid officer or a special officer; it is a trusted individual. The more we can drive that agenda, as I know from my residents in Torbay, the more it will be welcomed. I look forward to a strong endorsement from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Christopher. I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater on the new clause and join him in paying tribute to his constituent Emma-Elizabeth Murphy and all special constables who perform the vital work that Members have spoken in support of. We recognise and value the vital role that special constables play, which includes supporting neighbourhood policing. We are committed to ensuring that police forces have the support that they need from the Government to tackle important matters of public safety.
Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills that complement the roles that officers and staff play in delivering the best service to the public. We recognise that there has been a fall in the number of special constables over recent years. Further work needs to be done to understand exactly the reasons for that. Initial consideration suggests that a range of factors has led to the reduction in the number of special constables. It is not clear whether the new clause would reverse that trend or what its impact on business would be—the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been a constant critic of the Bill’s impact on businesses—so we need to understand that better.
We are already doing a range of work to support special constables and employment rights more broadly. We are introducing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will put thousands of additional police officers, police community support officers and special constables on our streets and restore patrols in town centres across the country.
Many employers already support their employees to volunteer in a special constabulary. Under the Employer Supported Policing scheme, led by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, a number of organisations across a range of sectors have committed to supporting members of their workforce to serve as special constables, in recognition of the opportunities to build new skills and support local communities. The Home Office is also supporting the NPCC to develop and implement initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention of special constables. That includes developing a refreshed national citizens in policing strategy and a national special constabulary working group.
I will not be able to accept the new clause, but I am sympathetic to the case that has been made. In preparation for dealing with it, I learned that that the initial legislation that introduced time off for certain public duties is now 50 years old, so it seems time to consider this issue in the round, and the role of special constables will no doubt be included in that. The Home Office will clearly have an important say. As I said, a number of factors has led to the decline in the number of special constables in recent years.
Greg Smith
The new clause has been tabled for some weeks now. Has the Minister engaged with the Home Secretary, the Policing Minister or any officials in the Home Office? Have they presented a view on this proposal yet?
Justin Madders
We have had various discussions within the Department. Information has gone over to the Home Office, and we are waiting for a response. Obviously, I cannot speak for the Home Office, so I cannot set out its position. As I say, I think it is time more generally to consider all the legislation relating to the right to time off for public duties. It is too soon to accept this new clause, but I hope the hon. Member for Bridgwater is assured that we are taking this issue seriously and considering it.
Sir Ashley Fox
Although I am disappointed that the Minister has not accepted the new clause, I will withdraw it at this stage. I can count 10 Government Members and only five on the Opposition Benches, so my chances of success in a Division would be limited. I hope the new clause can find its way back into the Bill, perhaps in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Carer’s leave: remuneration
“(1) In section 80K of the Employment Rights Act 1996, omit subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In subsection (1)(a), “terms and conditions of employment”—
(a) includes matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under the contract of employment, and
(b) includes terms and conditions about remuneration.’”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause would make Carer’s Leave a paid entitlement.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is an opportunity to extend carer’s leave across the whole of Great Britain. I hope it falls on more fertile ground than the previous new clause. There are 10.6 million carers across the United Kingdom, yet only 2.5 million are actually in paid employment. That shows that, although some of those carers may be beyond or even below working age, there is still a significant untapped pool of opportunity to drive productivity in our economy.
The economic growth figures released this morning show that the handbrake is sadly still on in our economy due to the appalling state that the Labour party inherited from the previous Government, so we need to think about how to allow people to work in our economy as strongly as possible. Centrica has found that there is an £8 billion cost to our economy for those who choose to leave the workplace due to having caring commitments. This would potentially allow a goodly number of those to remain in the workplace and continue to contribute. Although this is a probing amendment, I hope the Minister will give it some serious consideration and advise the Committee on what exploration the Government may choose to undertake of this golden opportunity for us as a society.
Greg Smith
I commend the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 35. It is not the Opposition’s intention to support it at this stage, but I want to be clear that the principle behind it is fundamentally good: ensuring carers are not left on a financial sticky wicket, which is a very real problem in the country. I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Torbay said that it was a probing amendment, but we believe that it is not currently fully thought through. We can all agree—I would be surprised if we did not—on saluting the incredible work that carers do up and down the land. They are all heroes in their own right and they do incredible work to look after those they care for. Their work merits a genuine use of the word “amazing”. It is a word that has been applied to far too many things in this world that are not amazing, but I think we can all agree that the work carers do genuinely is amazing.
Our rationale for saying that this new clause is not thought through enough is that it does not produce realistic solutions to solving the financial gap for carers, which we acknowledge exists. I would be interested to know the rates of payment the Liberal Democrats think would be appropriate for carer’s leave, how the rates they envisage have been benchmarked, and if they have understood the likelihood of take-up of carer’s leave and therefore the ability of employers to absorb this cost. The hon. Gentleman was very clear about that 10.6 million figure he gave. Any solution that seeks to close the financial gap must accept some of the realities and take on board the costings that will have to come from somewhere to ensure that that financial burden can be met, notwithstanding the acceptance that carers need more support for—I repeat—their amazing work. That is why we believe this new clause just does not work at this time, and I would be surprised if our position were that different from the Government’s.
The Minister for Equalities (Dame Nia Griffith)
I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my membership of the National Education Union and USDAW.
New clause 35 would commit the Government to introducing an entitlement for employees with caring responsibilities, to be paid at their usual wage level, while taking carer’s leave. It would give carers an entitlement of up to a week of paid leave and require employers to cover the cost.
I want to underline that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting employed unpaid carers. In the October 2024 Budget, we increased the earnings disregard for carers from £151 to £196, meaning that they can earn up to £196 without losing any of their carer’s allowance. In effect, that means that they can work 16 hours a week at the national living wage.
We have two concerns about the new clause. First, it would introduce significant new costs for employers without giving consideration to the potential impact on businesses, in particular small ones. Secondly, under the proposed approach, individuals taking carer’s leave would be treated more favourably than employees taking other forms of leave to care for family members, such as maternity or paternity leave, where a flat statutory rate is available. There is no clear rationale for taking a different approach, and it could raise questions about differential treatment of different groups. For those reasons, the Government do not support the new clause.
However, supporting carers who want to work alongside managing their caring responsibilities is an important element of our plans to modernise the world of work, which will ensure that there are good jobs for carers and a skilled workforce for employers. The Carer’s Leave Act 2023 gave employed carers a new right to time off work to care for a dependant with long-term care needs. We will review that measure and consider whether any further support is required. That will include looking at potential options for paid leave. The review will draw on evidence from carers and employers and learn from their experiences, so that we can understand what is working in the current system and identify where improvements may be needed. Through that work, we will also engage closely with smaller employers and sector bodies to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring for them. It is right that we allow the review to run its course to enable an evidence-based decision on whether there is more we can do to support working carers while balancing impacts on businesses.
I heard what the hon. Member for Torbay said about the new clause being a probing amendment, and I hope that what I have said gives him reassurance about our commitment to that review. I therefore invite him to withdraw the new clause.
Steve Darling
I thank the Minister for her encouraging words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 37
Right to be accompanied
“(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a Professional Body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or’
(3) After subsection (7) insert—
‘(8) In this section, “Professional Body” means any organisation, which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (9).
(9) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.’”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would ensure that workers in the early stages of an employment dispute, such as a disciplinary or grievance hearing, can be supported by those who are qualified, rather than just by trade union representatives or similar colleagues. It would allow for matters to be brought to a head much sooner and prevent cases from necessarily going to tribunal, which clogs up the tribunal system. I hope the Government will take the new clause in the positive sprit in which we tabled it.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Torbay said. On one level, I would be interested to know why the Liberal Democrats think the expansion is needed, where the shortfalls are in the current right to be accompanied, and what benefits the new right would bring. I think that what the hon. Gentleman is proposing could be done through existing legislation in many respects.
That said, representatives of the charity and third sector who seek to represent those in the teaching profession have welcomed the new clause, because the teaching unions have a bit of a monopoly at the moment. Although my mother has been retired for many years, she always joined a union through considerably gritted teeth—she may have been the only Conservative in the staff room, but she gritted her teeth. In fact, she may even have taught for many years in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield. The teaching unions have that monopoly because of the insurances and so on that they give to teachers. The new clause would widen things out and allow teachers who do not wish to join a union to get the support they need—accompaniment at a hearing—from a charity or third sector organisation, which may be welcome.
We need more clarity on the impact that would have on the teaching profession, which is why we do not think the new clause should be accepted at this time. However, the hon. Member for Torbay has opened the door on an area that it is important for us to explore as the Bill proceeds, and perhaps in future legislation.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the new clause. I think its origins are in written evidence to the Committee from the edu-legal organisation Edapt, which has been raising this issue with successive Governments for a number of years.
It is important to set out the position under current law. Section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 explains that when a worker is asked to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union, or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at such hearings. Employers are free but not obliged to allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall into those categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed, such as a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative.
As one of the initial steps in resolving tensions when the worker-employer relationship has broken down, the provisions of the 1999 Act seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to a workplace. Expanding the types of organisations that can be involved in representing workers could lead to hearings requiring legal representation for both worker and employer. We certainly do not want to see internal disciplinary or grievance hearings ending up in a legal battle. That would invariably increase the cost of holding a hearing and potentially decrease the chances of an amicable resolution. Equally, introducing increased legal expertise from outside the workplace could increase the likelihood of a tribunal. Workers and employers may judge ACAS conciliation or mediation unlikely to resolve a dispute because legal arguments have been made during an internal disciplinary hearing. We certainly believe that amicable resolutions are the swiftest way for justice to be delivered.
The new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to set out and define in regulations the professional bodies that could represent employees in disciplinary and grievance hearings. Although, as the shadow Minister said, this measure relates specifically to the education sector, one can easily see a whole range of organisations beginning to knock on the door. It would raise all sorts of questions about regulations, standards and enforcement, and it would inevitably expand quite quickly.
As the shadow Minister said, it is not clear beyond the written submission to the Committee where the demand is for the expansion of this right. Employers are of course entitled to nominate individuals or organisations for recognition. The Government are clear that trade unions are best placed to provide workplace representation. The legislation is fit for purpose in terms of ensuring that that is done in a proportionate and balanced way. On that basis, we reject the new clause.
Steve Darling
Although I am disappointed that the new clause has fallen on stony ground, it was only a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Time off for volunteering: consultation
“(1) The Secretary of State must consult on the introduction of a requirement for employers with more than 250 employees to grant employees time off for volunteering.
(2) The consultation must consider, amongst other things, the following matters—
(a) the amount of time off an employer must grant;
(b) when the time off may be taken;
(c) any conditions to which the granting of time off may be subject; and
(d) the definition of ‘volunteering’.
(3) The consultation must be conducted within one year of this Act being passed.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament the Secretary of State’s response to the consultation.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause calls for a consultation on allowing employees at companies of over 250 people the opportunity to take time off in order to undertake voluntary work.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause relates to volunteering and giving leave to volunteers. It would require a consultation, so I hope that the Government will grasp it with both hands. It feels like their modus operandi on the Bill is for a vast majority of it to go out to further consultation, so what harm would there be in another small consultation on volunteering?
Greg Smith
I heard very clearly what the hon. Member for Torbay proposed on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I think we all salute everybody who volunteers. We can all celebrate people who give up their time freely to do something worthy in our constituencies, communities and neighbourhoods—including the Scout and Girlguiding groups that the hon. Gentleman spoke of.
It is clear from the passion with which the hon. Gentleman spoke that the Liberal Democrats are still pining for the coalition days, when the big society was the centrepiece of the vision that the Prime Minister—now my right hon. Friend the noble Lord Cameron—had for this country. On one level, I had thought that one of the greatest successes of the coalition Government was—until the 2024 general election—the electoral annihilation of the Liberal Democrats, but they are still pining for many of the things that my party and theirs did together in that coalition period.
In theory, the new clause is actually very appealing; we all want to support people to do good and give their time freely in their communities, neighbourhoods and areas—in our constituencies. But where I take issue with the hon. Gentleman is that, time and again in this Committee, too much has been left to yet another consultation. While I hear his argument, “What harm would another one do?”, I think we are consultationed out at the moment. I do not think it would be helpful either for the Government, in achieving what they wish to achieve through this very wide-reaching piece of legislation—albeit with disagreement from the Opposition Benches—or for employers to have to take on yet another strand of burden in this regard, so the Opposition will not be supporting new clause 38.
However, we do want to explore ways in which volunteering can be more greatly encouraged in all of our communities. As a starting point, although consideration of the definition of volunteering would be included as part of the hon. Gentleman’s proposed consultation, we need a better definition before we consider any wider consultation on time off and so on. At the moment, it is far too wide-open a goal and too broad a word. If we asked everybody in the country to give their definition of volunteering, we would probably get 70 million different answers. If we had greater clarity about what we are really talking about—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater’s very clear and defined proposal on special constables, which of course is an incredibly worthwhile and nation-enhancing bit of volunteering—then we could potentially get somewhere, but at the moment, volunteering could mean literally anything to anyone. That is not to undermine the good work that people do day in, day out across our country, but we need greater clarity.
Justin Madders
Let us start where we can all agree: volunteering is a very important part of our society and we want to do everything we can to encourage it. It is a central part of civic life and has a positive impact on our society, and we all pay tribute to the volunteers in our communities. There are large employers that have impact days and corporate social responsibility days where they come into the community—there are a number of examples in my constituency where that has happened. Larger employers, in particular, have been able to pool their resources and have a real benefit in their communities.
However, as the shadow Minister outlined, the Government will be undertaking a significant number of consultations, and we do not wish to add to that at this stage. We want to focus on the priorities in our “Make Work Pay” agenda. In particular, we want to see how the enhanced right to flexible working will benefit people’s ability to volunteer. We believe that when we implement the new rights to flexible working in the earlier parts of the Bill, they will enable employees to access flexible working requests in order to fit in their volunteering, and that further legislation is not necessary at this time.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is delivering the Know Your Neighbourhood fund, which has a key focus to ensure that learning is shared
“on how people in disadvantaged areas can be supported to volunteer and improve their social connections”.
So there is work going on in Government, and a recognition that volunteering is an important part of the fabric of our society, but, as has been indicated, we do not wish to undertake additional consultations at this point.
Steve Darling
I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that we are looking at employers that employ over 250 individuals, so the new clause would far from impact smaller businesses. I have grave concerns that the Government believe they have all the time in the world and expect that there will be a second glorious term for the Labour party, come hell or high water. The jury is out on whether a second term for Keir will appear. One is better driving the agenda forward while one has the helm than to hope for the helm when it turns the next headland. I encourage the Government to reflect on their proposals and grasp the opportunity to consult on this volunteering opportunity.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Greg Smith
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Certification Officer to publish a report on the impact on various sectors of the economy of introducing a four-day week. The Certification Officer is responsible for ensuring that trade unions carry out their statutory duties, and it is important that it is aware of the impacts of this policy, which various elements of the labour movement and the trade union movement have supported.
We have seen just how effective the four-day week has been where it has been tried. Let us take the example of South Cambridgeshire district council, which introduced it for its workers in 2023. The Mail reported last week that one in six staff have a second job during their day off. That is despite the council’s website stating that the time off is to allow workers to “recover and re-energise” for the “more intense” four-day week. It is full-time pay for part-time work, and then some.
It would be extremely helpful for all concerned if we had a little more transparent information about the effects the four-day week might have on the economy as a whole if introduced more widely. That is why we have tabled new clause 42, which would require the Certification Officer, within 12 months of Royal Assent, to lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the economic and financial impact of introducing a four-day week.
The report would be required to cover the retail and wholesale industry; the manufacturing industry; the finance and insurance industry; the health and social care industry; the construction industry; the education industry; the public sector and defence industry; the transport and storage industry; the arts and recreation industry; and agriculture, mining and fishing. To ensure that the report is balanced, the Certification Officer must consult business owners, workers and consumers, although that, of course, is not an exhaustive list.
For full transparency, we would like to make sure that any submissions that are received are published, preferably in a way that can be questioned in this House. The new clause aims to introduce a “look before you leap” ethos into the Government’s policymaking. Given the state of the Bill, I would argue that that is very much needed.
Steve Darling
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire has had a road to Damascus moment on the need for further consultation on the Bill. I am delighted that the Conservatives believe that consultation is a good thing, unlike my Conservative council colleagues in Torbay. I look forward to the Minister looking kindly on the new clause, which shows that the Conservatives believe in consultation. I would ask that he please grasp this opportunity.
Justin Madders
It seems the coalition era love-in has started again in earnest. As the shadow Minister outlined, new clause 42 would require the Certification Officer to lay before both Houses, within 12 months of Royal Assent, a report setting out the impact on various sectors of the UK economy of introducing a four-day week. It would require the Certification Officer to consult businesses, workers, consumers and others and to publish consultation responses when laying the report. Just when we thought we had got away from consultation, we have another one.
In considering the new clause, it might be helpful to set out the role of the Certification Officer. It has been the regulator of trade unions and employer associations since 1975. It not only carries out regulatory functions, but has administrative, supervisory and significant quasi-judicial functions. It adjudicates on complaints raised by trade union members and other parties. As part of our repeal of the provisions of the Trade Union Act 2016, we will remove the Certification Officer’s enhanced investigatory and enforcement powers, as well as the levy imposed on trade unions and employer associations. As such, we will return the role of the Certification Officer to what it was before that Act.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the Minister’s response. The four-day week is subject to much media interest at the moment, and it is important that we keep a close eye on moves to shorten the working week, given the impact it would have on productivity and growth in our economy going forward. For the time being, I am happy not to press the new clause, but the Opposition are concerned, and we will keep an incredibly close eye on the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Adoption pay: self-employed persons
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations enable statutory adoption pay to be payable to persons who are—
(a) self-employed, or
(b) contractors.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the meaning of ‘self-employed’ and ‘contractors’ shall be set out in regulations under this section.”—(Steve Darling.)
This new clause extends statutory adoption pay to the self-employed and contractors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Darling
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors. I must declare something of an interest, although I do not formally need to, because I am adopted myself, and this issue is extremely close to my heart. When I was leader of the Torbay unitary council, we went from “failing” to “good” for our children’s services within two years. That is probably the biggest achievement of my life. Again, it was something I was driven on because I am adopted. In the ’70s, I was very fortunate to be adopted by Eric and Penny. Eric was not a toolmaker, but he was a lorry driver, and would potentially have benefited had there been an opportunity such as the one I have outlined in the new clause.
I encourage colleagues to step back slightly and to reflect on the challenges in social care, and particularly children’s social care, and on the heavy costs—I am sure colleagues are only too aware of them—to local authorities, which have a responsibility for children’s services. For those kids who need support, the best people are foster carers or those who adopt. When there is a lack of such people—when there is not that capacity—kids might have to be picked up by the private sector, and hard-pressed local authorities often have to pay through the nose for that. The new clause is about changing the weather again around support for youngsters in need. By extending statutory adoption pay to those who are self-employed or contractors, we would enhance the pool of those who can participate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her help with the new clause. Earlier this week, she led a worthwhile debate on this issue, and I acknowledge the positive feedback the Minister in that debate gave on the proposals. I look forward to hearing from this Minister how the Government could take the proposals in this probing amendment forward.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Torbay. The issues he raises are worthy of debate, but as he said this is a probing amendment, so these are matters for a future occasion.
Dame Nia Griffith
I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 46. I start by expressing my appreciation for all adoptive parents, who offer loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. This Government are committed to ensuring that all working parents receive the best possible support to balance their work and family lives.
New clause 46 calls for eligibility for statutory adoption pay to be extended to individuals who are self-employed or contractors. It would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations within six months of the passage of the Bill to enable self-employed individuals and contractors who adopt to receive statutory adoption pay. The proposed regulations would also define the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to ensure that we have a shared understanding of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.
At present, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. That is because the parental leave system is focused on supporting employed parents, who need specific rights and protections to take time off work. Self-employed people are generally considered to have more flexibility and autonomy, and not to need those same protections. There is, of course, the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers to ensure that they can take time off work following childbirth to recover and establish breastfeeding, if they wish to do so. That is an important health and safety provision.
None the less, the Government are committed to supporting parents to balance their work and family responsibilities and keen to hear how the system can be improved. While adoptive parents who are self-employed or contractors do not qualify for statutory adoption pay, statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance for those parents.
In November 2024, the Government published “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive,” which sets out our vision for children’s social care. As part of that vision, the Government have allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. The fund enables local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies to children who are adopted and their families. These services are available to all adoptive families following a locally conducted assessment of the family’s needs. Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support—for example, universal credit and child benefit—may also be available to contractors or self-employed people who adopt.
We have committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. The review will be conducted separately to the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning its delivery. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Torbay to withdraw his proposed new clause.
Steve Darling
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Access to employment rights: workers on temporary visas
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
(2) In commissioning the report, the Secretary of State must arrange for the report to meet the requirements set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(3) The report must examine the extent to which workers on temporary visas feel unable to assert their employment rights because they are dependent on their employers to sponsor their visas.
(4) The report must make recommendations to the Secretary of State about how the Secretary of State can support workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
(5) The report must be completed within three months of being commissioned.
(6) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is practicable after receipt of the report, publish the report and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must, within three months of receipt of the report—
(a) respond to the recommendations in the report, and
(b) publish the response and lay it before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Chris Law.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I believe this is the last of the new clauses to the Bill.
It is imperative that employment rights are universal. Everyone should have access to them, regardless of their circumstances. That cannot just be theoretical; it needs to be applied in practice too. Although the Bill increases workers’ rights for many people, which I fully support, it will make no difference to their realities if they do not have the ability to access those rights or to seek redress when they are breached. To make the Bill as worth while and effective as it can be, we must take every possible action to strengthen it and to ensure that no one is denied their rights. We must do our utmost to prevent scenarios in which denial of employment rights and exploitation can exist.
I have therefore tabled this new clause on access to employment rights for workers on temporary visas. I know that most of us in this room will have had constituents on those visas who have been exploited. If we accept the new clause, it will compel the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill being passed, to commission an independent report on the extent to which workers on temporary visas are able to assert their rights under employment law.
Workers on temporary visas consistently report that they are unable to assert the basic rights derived from being a worker in the UK. Why is that? Because they are dependent on their employer for not only their job but their ability to live in this country. More often than not, they do not have the same safety nets that others benefit from. For people in that situation, the stakes are simply so much higher.
We know that migrant workers, who often incur large debts to migrate to the UK to work—to address labour shortages—simply cannot afford to report abuse, if doing so risks their jobs and visas. They are justifiably fearful that their employer, who sponsors their visa, will punish them and that they will be left without redress. Time and again, we see cases of workers who face unsafe conditions—including in my constituency and, I am sure, in those of everyone in this room. Whether it is underpayment or sexual harassment, they do not feel able to do anything about it, for fear of deportation. That lets exploitation run rife.
By not addressing this issue, we are allowing a huge blind spot in the UK’s employment rights framework to continue unchecked. Until the Government address temporary and restrictive visas, the gap between workers only widens, entrenching the UK’s tiered workforce and leaving migrant workers behind. That is simply unacceptable. Restrictive visas have created a tiered workforce, where migrant workers face significant barriers to enforcing their rights, driving a race to the bottom in pay and conditions across the UK labour market.
Such visas often limit the sectors in which workers are permitted to work or the employers for which they can work. Workers’ immigration sponsors may also be their employers or responsible for placing them in employment. This results in a vicious cycle, in which migrant workers are doubly punished for speaking out, first by unscrupulous employers and then by immigration enforcement, with a resulting loss of work, income and immigration status. That has allowed a proliferation of abuses, from non-payment of wages to overwork and sexual assault, among a litany of other labour and criminal law violations.
It is important to recognise that workers’ experiences of exploitation can vary, but all these instances need addressed. At one end of the scale, there is decent, well-paid work, with bad practices such as breaches of employment rights culminating, at the opposite end, in severe labour exploitation, such as human trafficking and forced labour. Where minor breaches of rights occur and are not sufficiently addressed, it increases the risk of more severe exploitation further along, as well as driving down workplace standards. Surely the new Labour Government find that totally unacceptable?
In working on the new clause, I engaged with Focus on Labour Exploitation—I have a briefing from it here, which I am happy to share with the Minister. FLEX is a research and policy organisation working towards an end to labour exploitation, and its recent research and policy work has focused on sectors where workers are known to be at higher risk of exploitation.
The new clause, which is intended to be friendly and collaborative, would lead to an investigation into the extent of these issues and how they can be addressed. Any immigration system that does not proactively include mechanisms that enable workers to report exploitation—and ultimately leave an exploitative employer without jeopardising their employment, accommodation and immigration status—inevitably has exploitation baked into its design. To meet its aims, the Employment Rights Bill needs to address that.
It is especially important that the use of restrictive or short-term visas is not allowed to prevent improvements in working conditions and pay in certain work sectors by facilitating access to workers who, due to immigration restrictions, are unable to challenge poor working conditions. One option open to the Government to combat that would be to introduce a UK workplace justice visa, drawing on international best practice. Such a visa would provide 12 months of renewable limited leave for those who have visas dependent on their employment and who have experienced labour exploitation or lost their employment and limited leave through no fault of their own. That would ensure that migrants with work visas who experience such issues have a route to remain and settle in the UK, to enable them to leave abusive work situations and, most importantly, to access justice. The new clause does not propose such a visa, but it is one option the Secretary of State should strongly consider as a way of supporting workers on temporary visas in the assertion of their employment rights.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration of interests and my membership of the trade unions Community and Unison.
I will note a couple of useful points in response to the important arguments of the hon. Member for Dundee Central about migrant workers and the conditionality of visas. I have worked on migration issues for a long time, so I sympathise with the objectives and the direction that he puts forward.
The new clause essentially proposes an investigation or information-gathering exercise. The new Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a body of experts that is independent of the Government or the Home Office, to look into issues around the conditionality of visas and the different types of worker visa to which he referred. The MAC is doing a lot of important work, and I think it is the appropriate location for that research. I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which is also looking into some of the changes that are happening. I reassure the hon. Member that a lot of the work and thinking on this issue is already getting under way.
The hon. Member raised some substantive points. First, on seasonal or temporary workers who find themselves at risk of exploitation, he referred to the distinction between those whose immigration status is permanent or secure and those whose status is conditional on their employer. I think the point he is driving at with that distinction goes to the heart of the immigration system overall. We have a system in which conditionalities are applied to visa status, whether that is for someone who has come to do a job, for someone who has applied to do a university course or for someone who is in a relationship. He is driving at a philosophical problem in the immigration system, rather than a technical one.
Where employers abuse the system, there are two points to address. First, it is a breach of immigration law and not necessarily of employment law. The hon. Member drew attention to the fact that they lose their sponsorship capacity. When that situation occurs, it is appropriate that we look at it through Home Office immigration regulations. That can be much more effective than trying to crowbar quite a specific point into the UK-wide labour market.
Chris Law
The hon. Member’s last point is an important one. When I approached this area of work to decide whether it fitted this Committee or whether it should be considered in immigration legislation, I took some advice. I appreciate, from a home affairs point of view, that this might not be the place for that point. However, it is the place for talking about it, and that is why the new clause has been accepted by the Clerks for debate today. I appreciate that this might also be an issue for the Home Office, but it is clearly an issue for the Minister in charge of employment rights, because at the end of the day it is not immigration rules that need to be changed. This is about making sure that employment rights are fit for everyone, regardless of whether they are here on a temporary or a permanent visa.
Chris Murray
That is a very helpful intervention, because it draws me on to my final point. There is a distinction between what rights there are and what rights are enforced. We have seen from the discussion around the fair work agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority that the issue is that rights are not enforced. The good part of this Bill is that it sets up a fair work agency that will look at enforcement.
Not supporting the new clause does not mean not recognising the objective that it puts forward. The argument is that this point should and could be dealt with more effectively through other legislative avenues, such as the modern slavery legislation brought in by the previous Government, which they then completely gutted. Looking at how the labour exploitation components of that legislation could be strengthened would deal more effectively with the issues that the hon. Member is raising via his new clause.
Greg Smith
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition cannot support new clause 51. The horrible practices outlined by the hon. Member for Dundee Central need to be tackled, but the Bill will already do that. I actually find myself in agreement with parts of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said. There are other routes within immigration law where such things can and should be tackled. No matter how much we disagree with parts of the Bill, if we take the view that the law must apply equally to everybody whether or not they are a British citizen, it is unnecessarily to carve out a particular section of people through new clause 51, when there is other legislation to deal with the abuses that no one on the Committee or in the House wants to see.
Justin Madders
Let me start by reaffirming our strong view that every worker has the full right to protection under the laws of this country. That includes migrant workers, as is clear from our plan to make work pay, which recognises that particularly vulnerable sectors are open to abuse from unscrupulous employers. The immigration framework is an important part of ensuring that those who come to this country under visas and sponsorship are protected and that modern slavery abuse is tackled.
Sponsorship is a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities for sponsors to ensure that they adhere to employment rights in the United Kingdom. They must have full responsibility for the work that workers are conducting, and in all cases they must ensure that those they sponsor are paid appropriately and that they act in compliance with relevant legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh says, a lot of work is ongoing in this area, particularly from the Home Office, which recently announced that it would ban from future sponsorship any business found guilty of serious employment law breaches, including failing to pay the national minimum wage.
We are committed to strengthening the enforcement of rights more broadly through the fair work agency. The Committee has heard plenty of evidence that the current system of enforcement is fragmented. Unfortunately, as we know, that often means that not everyone gets the protection that they should have. One of the essential functions of the new fair work agency will be to produce a strategy setting out its assessment of the scale and nature of non-compliance with labour market rules. This is to ensure that the risks of abuse across all sectors and groups of workers are properly understood and captured. In producing the strategy, the fair work agency will need to consult with an advisory board made up of trade unions, business and independent experts. That will ensure that we get a broad view of the gaps and risks in the labour market.
The hon. Member for Dundee Central suggests that this area is a blind spot for the Government. I can assure him that it is not. I have had conversations with the Director of Labour Market Enforcement about the issue, and plenty of work is under way at the Home Office. The hon. Member need only consider the Low Pay Commission’s report to see that the issue is clearly on our radar. An additional report would not add anything to the work that is already under way. I therefore ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Chris Law
I appreciate the comments that have been made in this short debate. Just to be clear, the new clause is about issues that are not currently protected under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and are often under-reported. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the fair work agency and the recent Low Pay Commission report, but I must ask about the timeframe. My suggestion—I will try to work with him on this—is that the timeframe be six months beyond the passing of the Bill, so that we can get decisions made. Perhaps the Secretary of State could let us know what kind of timeframe we are talking about, to give us peace of mind that action will be taken for those who are most vulnerable and have come here from overseas. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Warrants under Part 5: further provision
“Part 1
Application of this Schedule
1 This Schedule applies in relation to—
(a) applications for warrants under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83, and
(b) warrants issued under section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) or 83.
Part 2
Warrants: applications and safeguards
Applications for warrants
2 (1) Where an enforcement officer applies for a warrant, the officer must—
(a) state the ground on which the application is made,
(b) state the provision of this Act under which the warrant would be issued,
(c) specify the premises which it is desired to enter, and
(d) identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.
(2) An application for a warrant must be made without notice and must be supported by an information in writing or, in Scotland, evidence on oath.
(3) The officer must answer on oath any question that the justice hearing the application asks the officer.
Safeguards in connection with power of entry conferred by warrant
3 A warrant authorises an entry on one occasion only.
4 (1) A warrant must specify—
(a) the name of the person who applies for it,
(b) the date on which it is issued,
(c) the provision of this Act under which it is issued, and
(d) the premises to be entered.
(2) A warrant must identify, so far as is practicable, the purpose for which entry is desired.
5 (1) Two copies are to be made of a warrant.
(2) In the case of a warrant issued in electronic form, the copies must be clearly marked as copies.
(3) In the case of a warrant issued otherwise than in electronic form, the copies must be clearly certified as copies.
Part 3
Execution of warrants
Warrant to be executed within three months
6 Execution of a warrant must be within three months from the date of its issue.
Time of entry
7 Execution of a warrant must be at a reasonable time, unless it appears to the officer executing it that there are grounds for suspecting that the purpose of entering the premises may be frustrated if the officer seeks to enter at a reasonable time.
Evidence of authority etc
8 (1) Where the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is present at the time when an enforcement officer seeks to execute the warrant, the following requirements must be satisfied—
(a) the officer must produce to the occupier documentary evidence of the fact that the officer is an enforcement officer;
(b) if the officer is asked for it, the occupier must be told the officer’s name;
(c) the officer must produce the warrant to the occupier;
(d) the officer must supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant that is marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5.
(2) Where—
(a) the occupier of premises to be entered under a warrant is not present when an enforcement officer seeks to execute it, but
(b) some other person who appears to the officer to be in charge of the premises is present,
sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if any reference to the occupier were a reference to that other person.
(3) If there is no person present who appears to the enforcement officer to be in charge of the premises, the officer must leave a copy of the warrant, marked or certified as a copy in accordance with paragraph 5, in a prominent place on the premises.
Securing premises after entry
9 An enforcement officer who enters premises under a warrant must take reasonable steps to ensure that when the officer leaves the premises they are as secure as they were before the officer entered.
Return and retention of warrants
10 (1) A warrant which—
(a) has been executed, or
(b) has not been executed within the time authorised for its execution,
must be returned to the appropriate person.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) the appropriate person is—
(a) in the case of a warrant issued in England and Wales, the designated officer for the local justice area in which the justice was acting when the warrant was issued;
(b) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a justice of the peace, the clerk of the justice of the peace court in the sheriffdom for which the justice of the peace was appointed;
(c) in the case of a warrant issued in Scotland by a sheriff or a summary sheriff, the sheriff clerk;
(d) in the case of a warrant issued in Northern Ireland, the clerk of petty sessions.
(3) A warrant that is returned under this paragraph must be retained by the person to whom it is returned for a period of 12 months.
(4) If during that period the occupier of the premises to which the warrant relates asks to inspect it, the occupier must be allowed to do so.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new Schedule makes further provision about applications for, and the execution of, warrants under Part 5.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 2
Increase in time limits for making claims
“Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977
1 (1) In regulation 11 of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977/500) (time off for safety representatives), in paragraph (2), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.
(2) In regulation 12 of those Regulations—
(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
2 (1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 66 (unjustifiable discipline by union), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In section 68A (unauthorised deduction of union subscriptions), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(4) In section 70C (collective bargaining: obligations relating to training), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(5) In section 87 (unlawful deduction of contributions to political fund), in subsection (2)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(6) In section 139 (refusal of employment on grounds related to union membership), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(7) In section 145C (inducements), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(8) In section 147 (detriment for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(9) In section 171 (time off for trade union activities), in subsection (1)(a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(10) In section 189 (consultation in collective redundancy), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (c), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(11) In section 192 (remuneration under protective award), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(12) In paragraph 157 of Schedule A1 (detriment in relation to trade union recognition), in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for ‘3’ substitute ‘six’.
Pension Schemes Act 1993
3 In section 126 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (unpaid pension contributions), in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Employment Rights Act 1996
4 (1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (written statements), in subsection (4)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In section 23 (protection of wages)—
(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(4) In section 27N (information relating to tips etc)—
(a) in subsection (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(5) In section 34 (guarantee payments), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(6) In section 48 (detriment in employment), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(7) In section 51 (time off for public duties), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(8) In section 54 (time off following redundancy), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(9) In section 57 (time off for ante-natal care), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(10) In section 57ZC (time off for ante-natal care: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(11) In section 57ZF (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(12) In section 57ZH (time off to accompany to ante-natal appointment: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(13) In section 57ZM (time off to attend adoption appointments), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(14) In section 57ZQ (time off to attend adoption appointments: agency workers), in subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(15) In section 57B (time off for dependants), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(16) In section 60 (time off for pension scheme trustees), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(17) In section 63 (time off for employee representatives), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(18) In section 63C (time off for study or training), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(19) In section 63I (requests in relation to study or training), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(20) In section 70 (rights following suspension from work)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(21) In section 70A (rights of agency worker where supply is ended on maternity grounds)—
(a) in subsection (2)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(22) In section 80 (parental leave), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(23) In section 80H (right to request flexible working), in subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(24) In section 80N (carer’s leave), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(25) In section 111 (unfair dismissal), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(26) In section 188 (rights on insolvency of employer), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996
5 (1) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 (S.I. 1996/1513) (time off for representatives of employee safety etc), for ‘three’, in both places it occurs, substitute ‘six’.
(2) In paragraph 3A of that Schedule—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(c) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Working Time Regulations 1998
6 In regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) (rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words from ‘three months’ to ‘six months)’ substitute ‘six months’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), omit ‘three or, as the case may be,’.
National Minimum Wage Act 1998
7 In section 11 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (access to records)—
(a) in subsection (3), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in subsection (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Employment Relations Act 1999
8 In section 11 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999
9 (1) In regulation 27 of the Transnational Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999/3323) (time off for members of a European Works Council etc)—
(a) in the heading, for ‘tribunals’ substitute ‘employment tribunals in Great Britain’;
(b) in paragraph (1), for the words from ‘complaint,’ to ‘, that’ substitute ‘complaint to an employment tribunal in Great Britain that’;
(c) in paragraph (2)—
(i) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(ii) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(d) omit paragraph (2B).
(2) In the heading of regulation 27A of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings), at the end insert ‘in Great Britain’.
(3) After regulation 27A of those Regulations insert—
‘Right to time off: complaints to industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland
(1) An employee may present a complaint to an industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland that the employee’s employer–
(a) has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off as required by regulation 25; or
(b) has failed to pay the whole or any part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26.
(2) A tribunal shall not consider a complaint under this regulation unless it is presented–
(a) before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the time off was taken or on which it is alleged the time off should have been permitted; or
(b) within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of that period of three months.
(3) Regulation 27B (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland) applies for the purposes of paragraph (2).
(4) Where a tribunal finds a complaint under this regulation well-founded, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect.
(5) If the complaint is that the employer has unreasonably refused to permit the employee to take time off, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which the employee would have been entitled under regulation 26 if the employer had not refused.
(6) If the complaint is that the employer has failed to pay the employee the whole or part of any amount to which the employee is entitled under regulation 26, the tribunal shall also order the employer to pay to the employee the amount which it finds due to the employee.’
(4) In regulation 27B of those Regulations (extension of time limit to facilitate conciliation before institution of proceedings in Northern Ireland)—
(a) in paragraph (2), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;
(b) in paragraph (3), for ‘27(2)(a)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(a)’;
(c) in paragraph (4), for ‘27(2)(b)’ substitute ‘27AA(2)(b)’.
Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003
10 In regulation 18 of the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3049) (merchant shipping: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004
11 In regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation (Working Time) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/756) (civil aviation: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004
12 In regulation 19 of the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea-fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713) (fishing vessels: rights to rest and leave), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006
13 (1) The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 12 (notification of employee liability information), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
(3) In regulation 15 (information and consultation requirements), in paragraph (12)—
(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in the words after sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008
14 In regulation 17 of the Cross-border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660) (cross-border railway services: rights as to working time), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009
15 In regulation 28 of the European Public Limited-Liability Company (Employee Involvement) (Great Britain) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/2401) (time off for members of special negotiating body etc), in paragraph (2)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Agency Workers Regulations 2010
16 In regulation 18 of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/93) (rights of agency workers), in paragraph (4), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.
Equality Act 2010
17 In section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination etc at work), in subsection (1)(a), for “3” substitute “6”.
Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018
18 In regulation 26 of the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58) (rights of seafarers to leave), in paragraph (6), for ‘three’ substitute ‘six’.”—(Justin Madders.)
This new Schedule would increase time limits for making claims in employment tribunals (and, in certain cases, industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland) from three months to six months.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
Seafarers’ wages and working conditions
“Amendment of Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023
1 The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 (“the Act”) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 23.
Part 1 of the Act: relevant services
2 For the italic heading before section 1 substitute—
‘Part 1
Relevant services’.
3 In section 1 (services to which this Act applies)—
(a) for the heading substitute ‘Relevant services’;
(b) in subsection (1), for ‘This Act applies to’ substitute ‘In this Act, “relevant service” means’;
(c) in subsection (2), for ‘this Act does not apply to’ substitute ‘“relevant service” does not include’;
(d) for subsection (4) substitute—
‘(4) In this Act, “ship”—
(a) includes—
(i) any kind of vessel used in navigation, and
(ii) hovercraft;
(b) includes a ship which is registered in a State other than the United Kingdom.’
Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Act: non-qualifying seafarers
4 After section 1 insert—
‘Part 2
Remuneration of seafarers
Chapter 1
Non-qualifying seafarers’.
5 In section 2 (non-qualifying seafarers), in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Act: national minimum wage equivalence declarations
6 For the italic heading before section 3 substitute—
‘Chapter 2
National minimum wage equivalence declarations’.
7 In section 3 (request for declaration)—
(a) in the heading, after ‘for’ insert ‘equivalence’;
(b) in subsection (1)—
(i) for ‘Act applies’ substitute ‘Chapter applies (see subsection (4A))’;
(ii) at the end insert ‘(see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”)’;
(c) after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) This Chapter applies to a relevant service, subject to provision made by remuneration regulations in reliance on section 4A(6).’;
(d) omit subsections (5) and (6).
8 In section 4 (nature of declaration)—
(a) in the heading, after ‘of’ insert ‘equivalence’;
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
‘(5A) For the meaning of “UK work”, see section 19.
(5B) For the meaning of “national minimum wage equivalent”, see section 4D(1).’;
(c) omit subsections (6) to (10).
Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 2 of the Act: remuneration regulations and declarations
9 After section 4 insert—
‘Chapter 3
Remuneration regulations and declarations
Remuneration regulations
4A Remuneration regulations
(1) Regulations may specify requirements relating to the remuneration of non-qualifying seafarers in respect of their work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service (whether or not in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom).
(2) In this Act, regulations under subsection (1) are referred to as “remuneration regulations”.
(3) Remuneration regulations may relate to remuneration in respect of only some of the work carried out in relation to the provision of a relevant service, and may frame such provision by reference to the waters in which the work is carried out or in any other way.
(4) Remuneration regulations may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
(6) Remuneration regulations may provide that Chapter 2 does not apply to any extent to a relevant service to which the regulations apply.
Remuneration declarations
4B Request for remuneration declaration
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which remuneration regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—
(a) 120 occasions, or
(b) if remuneration regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,
during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a remuneration declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4C Nature of remuneration declaration
(1) A remuneration declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in what remains of the relevant year there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in what remains of the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred—
(i) there have been no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service have been remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them, and
(b) in what remains of the relevant year—
(i) there will be no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(ii) non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service will be remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) in the relevant year there were no non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service, or
(b) in the relevant year non-qualifying seafarers working on ships providing the service were remunerated in respect of their work in relation to the service in accordance with the remuneration regulations that apply in relation to them.
Chapter 4
Chapters 2 and 3: supplementary regulations
4D Regulations about national minimum wage equivalent etc
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the national minimum wage equivalent is an hourly rate specified in regulations.
(2) Regulations may make provision for determining for the purposes of this Part—
(a) the hourly rate at which a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated in any period in respect of any work, and
(b) whether, or the extent to which, a non-qualifying seafarer’s work in relation to a relevant service is UK work.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a) may in particular make—
(a) any provision referred to in section 2(2) to (6) of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998;
(b) provision relating to currency conversion.
(4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of—
(a) section 4, and
(b) remuneration regulations that are framed by reference to the national minimum wage equivalent.
(5) The Secretary of State must in making regulations under this section seek to secure that a non-qualifying seafarer is remunerated at a rate equal to the national minimum wage equivalent only if their remuneration is in all the circumstances broadly equivalent to the remuneration they would receive if they qualified for the national minimum wage.’
Part 3 of the Act: seafarers’ working conditions
10 After section 4D (inserted by paragraph 9 of this Schedule) insert—
‘Part 3
Seafarers’ working conditions
Safe working regulations
4E Safe working regulations
(1) In this Part, “seafarer” means a person who works on a ship providing a relevant service.
(2) Regulations may specify conditions relating to the working pattern and rest requirements of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, including conditions about—
(a) their maximum periods of work in a specified period;
(b) their minimum periods of rest in a specified period.
(3) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of managing and mitigating risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of a relevant service.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, among other things—
(a) require the operator of a relevant service to produce a plan to manage and mitigate risks arising from fatigue suffered by seafarers when carrying out their work relating to the provision of the service (a “fatigue management plan”);
(b) make provision about the contents of such a plan by reference to a specified document as amended from time to time.
(5) Regulations may make provision for and in connection with the training of seafarers who carry out work relating to the provision of a relevant service, for the purpose of ensuring—
(a) the safety of the ship on which they work,
(b) the safety of things on the ship, or
(c) the health or safety of persons on the ship.
(6) In this Act, regulations under subsection (2), (3) or (5) are referred to as “safe working regulations”.
(7) Safe working regulations may impose requirements on the operator of a relevant service.
(8) Safe working regulations may apply to—
(a) all relevant services, or
(b) one or more relevant services of a specified description.
(9) For the purposes of subsection (8)(b), a service may be described by reference to (among other things) the route operated by the service.
Safe working declarations
4F Request for safe working declaration
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a harbour authority has reasonable grounds to believe that ships providing a service to which safe working regulations apply will enter, or have entered, its harbour on at least—
(a) 120 occasions, or
(b) if safe working regulations specify a higher number in relation to services of a specified description and the service is of that description, that higher number of occasions,
during a relevant year (see section 19 for the meaning of “relevant year”).
(2) The harbour authority must, within such period as is determined by regulations under this subsection, request that the operator of the service provide the authority with a safe working declaration in respect of the service for the relevant year.
(3) The duty under subsection (2) is subject to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(1)(a).
(4) A harbour authority which fails to comply with subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to a fine, or
(b) in Scotland and Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
4G Nature of safe working declaration
(1) A safe working declaration in respect of a service for a relevant year is a declaration within any of subsections (2) to (5).
(2) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided before the beginning of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(3) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(4) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided during the relevant year and it is to the effect that—
(a) the safe working conditions have been met in relation to the service in so much of the relevant year as has already occurred, and
(b) the safe working conditions will be met in relation to the service in what remains of the relevant year.
(5) A declaration is within this subsection if it is provided after the end of the relevant year and it is to the effect that the safe working conditions were met in relation to the service in the relevant year.
(6) For the purposes of this section the safe working conditions are met in relation to a service at a particular time if at that time—
(a) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(2) or (3) that apply to the service,
(b) the service is operated in compliance with a fatigue management plan that is required for the service by regulations under section 4E(3) (see section 4E(4)), and
(c) the service is operated in compliance with regulations under section 4E(5) that apply to the service.
(7) References in subsection (6) to the operation of a service include references to its operation outside the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.’
Part 4 of the Act: enforcement of Parts 2 and 3
11 After section 4G (inserted by paragraph 10 of this Schedule) insert—
‘Part 4
Enforcement of Parts 2 and 3
Offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration’.
12 In section 5 (offence of operating service inconsistently with declaration)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in subsections (2), (3) and (4), omit ‘equivalence’.
13 (1) Section 6 (imposition of surcharges: failure to provide declaration in time) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (1)(b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(4) In subsection (2)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(5) In subsection (3)(b)(ii), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(6) In subsection (5)(a), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘the requested declaration’.
(7) In subsection (5)(b), for ‘section 4(4) or (5).’ substitute ‘—
(i) section 4(4) or (5),
(ii) section 4C(4) or (5), or
(iii) section 4G(4) or (5),
(whichever applies).’
(8) In subsection (6)—
(a) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in the definition of ‘prescribed period’, for ‘3(5)(a)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(a)’;
(c) in the definition of ‘prescribed form and manner’, for ‘3(5)(b) and (c)’ substitute ‘16A(1)(b) and (c)’.
14 In section 7 (imposition of surcharges: in-year declaration that is prospective only), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a)—
(i) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(ii) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’;
(b) in paragraph (b), for ‘3(5)’ substitute ‘16A(1)’;
(c) in paragraph (c), for the words from ‘within subsection (3)’ to the end substitute ‘—
(i) within subsection (3) of section 4 (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),
(ii) within subsection (3) of section 4C (and not also within subsection (4) of that section), or
(iii) within subsection (3) of section 4G (and not also within subsection (4) of that section),
(whichever applies).’
15 (1) Section 8 (imposition of surcharges: operating inconsistently with declaration) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies” substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (3), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’;
(4) In subsection (4)(a)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(5) In subsection (6), after ‘equivalence declaration’ insert ‘, remuneration declaration or safe working declaration (as the case may be)’.
16 In section 11 (refusal of harbour access for failure to pay surcharge), in subsection (1), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
17 (1) Section 12 (provision of information by operators) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert ‘for the purposes of Part 2,’;
(b) after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(c) for the purposes of Part 3—
(i) information relating to the working pattern, working conditions or training of persons working on ships providing the service;
(ii) a fatigue management plan produced by the operator of the service (see section 4E(4)(a)).’
(4) In subsection (5), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
18 In section 13 (provision of information by harbour authorities), in subsection (2)(b), omit ‘equivalence’.
19 In section 14 (inspections), in subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’;
(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b), for ‘an equivalence declaration’ substitute ‘a declaration’.
Part 5 of the Act: general and final provisions
20 After section 15 insert—
‘Part 5
General and final provisions’.
21 After section 16 insert—
‘16A Regulations about declarations
(1) Regulations may make provision—
(a) as to the period within which declarations are to be provided;
(b) as to the wording of declarations and the form in which they are to be provided;
(c) as to the manner in which declarations are to be provided.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) may specify a single form combining different kinds of declarations (but a requirement to provide a declaration in such a form does not require an operator of a service to provide a declaration which a harbour authority has not requested the operator to provide).’
22 In section 17 (regulations)—
(a) in the heading, at the end insert ‘: general’;
(b) in subsection (2)(a), for sub-paragraph (i) (but not the ‘or’ after it) substitute—
‘(i) relevant service,’.
23 (1) Section 19 (general interpretation) is amended as follows.
(2) After the definition of ‘the data protection legislation’ insert—
‘“declaration” (without more) means—
(a) an equivalence declaration,
(b) a remuneration declaration, or
(c) a safe working declaration;’.
(3) Omit the definition of ‘national minimum wage equivalent’.
(4) In the definition of ‘operator’, for ‘service to which this Act applies’ substitute ‘relevant service’.
(5) After the definition of ‘operator’ insert—
‘“relevant service” has the meaning given by section 1;’.
(6) In the definition of ‘relevant year’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 3(6);’ substitute ‘means—
(a) the period of 12 months beginning with a date specified in regulations, and
(b) each successive period of 12 months;’.
(7) After the definition of ‘relevant year’ insert—
‘“remuneration declaration” has the meaning given by section 4C(1);
“remuneration regulations” has the meaning given by section 4A(2);
“safe working declaration” has the meaning given by section 4G(1);
“safe working regulations” has the meaning given by section 4E(6);’.
(8) In the definition of ‘UK work’, for ‘has the meaning given by section 4(10)’ substitute ‘means work which is carried out in the United Kingdom or its territorial waters’.
Amendment of title of the Act
24 (1) The Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 may be cited as the Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023.
(2) For the words ‘Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023’ wherever they occur in any enactment substitute ‘Seafarers (Wages and Working Conditions) Act 2023’.”—(Justin Madders.)
This schedule amends the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations specifying conditions relating to the wages and working conditions of seafarers working on ships providing services currently covered by that Act. Those conditions are enforceable in the same way as existing provisions of that Act.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 113
Power to make consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I will be brief. The clauses are simple and standard, and they appear in most legislation.
Clause 113 will allow the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments—that is, amendments that are immediately consequent upon a provision in the Bill—to primary or secondary legislation. Consequential amendments are necessary changes to other legislation to ensure that the law works alongside the changes to the law made in the Bill. Subsection (2) will allow the power to be used to amend primary legislation where we would not expect to be burdened with further primary legislation to make changes. Subsection (4) sets out that regulations that amend primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus maintaining Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the provisions made under the power.
Clause 114 will allow the Secretary of State to make two types of provision. The first type is a transitional provision, which can be used specifically to assist the changeover from the state of the law before the Bill comes into force to the state of the law when it is fully in force. The second type is a saving provision, which can be used to preserve certain elements of the old law even after the new law comes into effect. They are used to maintain specific rights, obligations or legal effects that existed under the old law so that the changes will not apply in certain pre-existing cases.
We have ensured that the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to make provisions under clauses 113 and 114 are limited. As I say, the clauses are customary provisions. I commend them to the Committee.
Greg Smith
As the Minister says, the clauses are standard in a lot of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 113 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
Regulations
Greg Smith
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—
(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom; and
(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 165, in clause 115, page 104, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this Act unless the Secretary of State has—
(a) consulted such persons as they consider relevant to the proposed regulations; and
(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament a report of that consultation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult and publish a report of that consultation before making any regulations under the Act.
Greg Smith
I think this will be the last set of amendments we discuss, so let us ensure that they are good ones. Amendment 164 would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Bill. Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to undertake consultations on all regulations published under the Bill.
The effects of the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises are apparent for all to see. On 7 January, the yield on a 30-year gilt broke a 27-year record, at 5.198%. That is the highest figure since the Debt Management Office was created in 1998. On Monday, the yield rose to 5.461%. That is not abstract; it reflects dwindling confidence in the UK economy, puts extra pressure on the Government’s headroom against their own fiscal rules and could lead to taxpayers paying billions more just to service the Government’s debts.
The Chancellor has chosen to increase borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year for the next five years. That is the largest fiscal loosening in any fiscal event in recent years. It will add substantial pressure to those debt repayments. Earlier this week, The i Paper reported that average two-year and five-year fixed deals for those with 25% equity or deposit are now expected to rise above 5% in the coming weeks, causing more financial pain for buyers and those trying to remortgage.
The Budget, the rise in employer national insurance contributions and, importantly, the provisions in the Bill could not be described as pro-growth, yet the Government repeatedly assure us that growth is the one thing they will deliver, which will unlock everything else.
Amendment 164 would restore the Government’s good intentions and get them back on track. It would ensure that the Secretary of State has regard to the need to ensure growth when making regulations under the Bill. On the basis of all the evidence that we have seen since the general election, growth is clearly not front and centre in the Government’s thinking when they are making policy. It must be.
Amendment 165 would ensure that the Secretary of State consults properly before making regulations under the extensive powers in the Bill. It is merely to hold the Government to their word: they acknowledge that in many respects the policy in the Bill is undercooked and needs further work before implementation.
With these final amendments that the Committee will discuss, let us lay down the gauntlet and see whether the Government will put their money where their mouth is. If the Government are serious about growth, they will surely accept amendment 164.
Steve Darling
Throughout our debates, Conservative colleagues have been critical of the Government for not having an oven-ready Bill and emphasising the need for further consultation. I have sympathy with that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. However, the last Conservative amendment that we will consider in Committee would require consultation, so I wonder whether the Labour party’s proposals have worn the Conservatives down into believing in it. I am delighted by that; perhaps they have changed their minds on the rest of the Bill, too. I hope that the Minister will grasp the opportunity with both hands.
Justin Madders
The shadow Minister’s amendment 164, as he said, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s growth and international competitiveness when making any regulations under the Bill. As the shadow Minister knows, the Government are committed to getting growth in this country back on track and to maintaining and strengthening our international standing. I noticed that in his litany of negative economic news, he forgot to mention today’s growth figures, which show us back in positive territory.
Our employment rights framework is about ensuring that the economy works for everyone. The Government believe our plan to make work pay will bring the UK back in line internationally and tackle issues with low growth, productivity and pay. The plan is not only a core part of the mission to grow the economy, but crucial to delivering on our milestone to raise living standards across the country and to create opportunities for all. It sits alongside work on planning reform, the skills revolution, tackling inactivity and launching our vision for a modern industrial strategy. The strategy will enable the UK’s already world-leading services and manufacturing sectors to adapt and grow, seizing opportunities internationally to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well-paid jobs. It will be grounded in long-term stability, a renewed commitment to free and fair trade, and a pro-business approach focused on reducing barriers to investment in the UK.
We have committed to full and detailed engagement with businesses and trade unions alike as we develop the detail of regulations under the Bill. Our published impact assessment evaluates a wide range of evidence and concludes that the package could have a direct and positive impact on growth. Our intention is to refine our analysis as policy development continues, including by publishing updated option assessments and impact assessments, alongside future consultations and secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirements. In developing the detail of regulations, our officials and Ministers will pay close heed to the potential impacts on growth, as well as to our international comparability. We are committed to ensuring that we get support across the country among workers and employers alike.
Amendment 165 would require the Secretary of State to consult, and to publish a report of consultation that has been undertaken on specific measures, before making any regulations under the Bill. As was noted by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, those on the Conservative Benches have taken a rather vacillating approach to consultation during the passage of the Bill, but we have been clear that we are pro-business and pro-worker. That is reflected in our approach, not just in Committee but with engagement since before the Bill’s publication, to ensure that our plan to make work pay is delivered.
As the Committee knows, we have committed to full and comprehensive consultation with all stakeholders. We began in October with an initial consultation package and, as set out in the “Next Steps to Make Work Pay” document, we will consult further on the implementation of the Bill’s measures. Alongside formal consultations, we have conducted extensive engagement on how best to put our plans into practice. We have already held and attended about 40 meetings of external stakeholders related to “Make Work Pay”. Eighteen of those meetings have been specific to businesses, eight specific to trade unions, and seven held in a tripartite setting.
I have written to the shadow Minister with details of the engagement that has already taken place. The figures are not exhaustive and do not include officials’ meetings or recurring meetings with external organisations to discuss a range of topics. I therefore suggest that we are engaging and consulting fully and that the amendment is not necessary.
Greg Smith
Well, there we have it. The Government who say they are pro-growth have shown their true colours and will not back our amendment to prove their intentions towards growth. This whole Bill is a socialist charter and we know that we cannot have socialism and growth at the same time. The history books have taught us that time and again.
We deeply regret the Government’s resistance to these two amendments. We will continue to be the party that champions business, growth and getting our economy going again, while this Government do everything they can, in this Bill and in their Budget and in so many other ways, to hold our economy back.
Michael Wheeler
I am going to try an entirely new tactic to derail the shadow Minister mid-stride. This is a genuine question, and I hope he answers it. Does he agree that throughout our line-by-line discussion of the Bill, he has been most generous with his time in accepting interventions that I believe to have been valuable?
Greg Smith
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is for others to judge whether any Member of this House has been generous or otherwise.
What I can say, as we come towards the end of our debate on the final amendments and move on to the final clauses, is that we have had a good debate in this Bill Committee. It has not been one of those where those on the Government Benches are told to be quiet in the interest of getting on with it. We have had a genuine debate and a back and forth. Although we have not always agreed, and it looks like we do not agree on the amendments we are debating right now, we have had a debate. Our constituents sent us all here to represent them in arguments over ideas, concepts and values, and practical steps to meet the ideas and values that we hold dear, and we have done so. I agree with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
On amendments 164 and 165, I repeat that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition regret that the Government do not wish to accept these pro-growth amendments. I will not press them for now, but we may well be seeing them very soon, when the Bill returns to the main Chamber on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
I hope the Committee will agree that, like other clauses we have debated in part 6, clause 115 is a straightforward and customary provision. It sets out various procedural aspects that are relevant to the making of regulations under the Bill by statutory instrument, with the exception of commencement regulations, which I will speak to separately as they are dealt with in clause 118.
Subsection (2) sets out that regulations made under the Bill may make different provision for different purposes, and that they may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions. Subsections (4) and (5) explain what is meant by references in the Bill to the negative procedure and the affirmative procedure. The delegated powers memorandum sets out each power in the Bill, as introduced, and justifies the procedure set out in the relevant clause.
Greg Smith
I reiterate that we think the clause could have been improved by our amendments, but, for the time being, that is not to be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 115 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
Financial provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Justin Madders
Clause 116 simply sets out that expenditure incurred under the terms of the Bill is to be met by supplies from Parliament. Clause 117 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill as introduced. With the exception of clause 25, parts 1, 2 and 4 extend to England, Wales and Scotland; part 3 extends to England and Wales only; and clause 25 and parts 5 and 6 extend to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is also worth noting that amendments or repeals made by the Bill have the same extent as the provision amended or repealed.
Clause 118 sets out the manner in which provisions of the Bill will be commenced. Subsections (1) and (2) set out which provisions come into force on Royal Assent and two months after Royal Assent respectively. In respect of all other provisions, subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the days that such provisions come into force. Finally, clause 119 provides that the short title of the legislation will be the Employment Rights Act.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the Minister for taking us through those standard clauses at the end of the Bill. The only thing worthy of comment, which has come up during our debates on many of the clauses, is the variable commencement timings of some of the provisions, as listed in clause 118. I appreciate that that can happen in legislation from time to time, but the variable timescale adds an element of confusion for businesses. Some provisions will be commenced immediately, some after two months, and some after longer than that.
With that, we come to the end of our debates on the clauses and will move on to decide on measures that we have already debated. As I said in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles in the last debate, we have had a good debate in Committee. We have clearly outlined a number of areas where the two major parties in the House of Commons disagree on the approach to the Bill, but let nobody be in any doubt that we have gone through it line by line and debated it in a good level of detail.
I will end simply by saying that although clause 119 gives the short title of the Bill and says that
“This Act may be cited as the Employment Rights Act 2025”,
the Opposition’s view is that it will, in reality, be the Employment (Job Losses) Act.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
Extent
Amendments made: 206, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, for
“Part 3 of this Act extends”
substitute
“Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 3 of this Act extend”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 207.
Amendment 207, in clause 117, page 104, line 22, at end insert—
“(ba) Chapter 3 of Part 3 of this Act extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland;”.
This amendment states the extent of the new Chapter proposed to be formed by NC48 and NS3.
Amendment 107, in clause 117, page 104, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) (statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”
This amendment is consequential on amendments NC5 and NC6; it limits the extent of new clauses (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: removal of waiting period) and (Statutory sick pay in Northern Ireland: lower earnings limit etc) to Northern Ireland only.
Amendment 108, in clause 117, page 104, line 27, leave out “An amendment or repeal” and insert
“Except as set out in subsection (4), an amendment, repeal or revocation”.
This amendment is consequential on NS2 and amendment 109.
Amendment 109, in clause 117, page 104, line 28, leave out “amended or repealed.” and insert
“amended, repealed or revoked.
(4) In Schedule (Increase in time limits for making claims) (increase in time limits for making claims)—
(a) the amendments made by paragraph 9(3) and (4) extend to Northern Ireland only;
(b) the amendments made by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.”—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would limit the extent of certain amendments in NS2 so that they only extend to Northern Ireland or Great Britain (where they would otherwise extend to both). This is to ensure that the increase in time limits in those cases only applies in relation to employment tribunals in Great Britain.
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
Commencement
Amendment made: 110, in clause 118, page 105, line 17, at end insert—
“(na) section (Employment outside Great Britain) (employment outside Great Britain);”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment would bring NC7 into force two months after Royal Assent.
Clause 118, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Title
Amendments made: 208, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to amend the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023;”.
This amendment is consequential on NS3.
Amendment 209, in title, line 6, after
“Adult Social Care Negotiating Body;”
insert
“to make provision for the implementation of international agreements relating to maritime employment;”.—(Justin Madders.)
This amendment is consequential on NC52.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Justin Madders
I wish to thank you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have presided over this lengthy Bill Committee. I also thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters. I thank all members of the Committee who have participated in what has been a healthy and engaging debate. No doubt there will be more discussions and debates to come as the Bill progresses. I also thank the officials Cal Stewart, Jack Masterman and Shelley Torey.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Christopher. All good things must come to an end, and sadly that includes this Committee. I echo the thanks given by the Minister to the workers—to everyone who has supported the Committee—and I thank our Front Benchers, who have done a sterling job and from time to time gently and appropriately warded us off our individual enthusiasms. Perhaps that was just me.
Work on what became this Bill began a long time ago. It is hard to believe that almost five years have passed since my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles and I first became involved in the discussions. To name contributors is to commit the sin of omission. That is the case too for the staff of the Labour party, due to the party’s professional code of modesty, but I would like to place a few names on the record. They include my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who previously ably represented the Community and Unison unions respectively, including through the Labour party’s national policy forum. That was in itself an exhaustive process. I just say to hon. Members that if they liked this Committee, they would have loved the NPF. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but there was no smoke in those rooms, and no beer. There were occasionally sandwiches.
I would be in error if I did not personally thank Jaden Wilkins in my office and the staff of the TUC for their consistently excellent research publications. I also thank some of the GMB figures who made critical contributions during that time, including the national political officers during that period—Tom Warnett, Caitlin Prowle and Gavin Sibthorpe, who put in more hours than anyone—the national legal officer, Barry Smith, and the staff of the research and policy department, Anna Barnes, Ross Holden and Cassie Farmer. Finally, I would like to mention the staff of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation: Robbie Scott, Kieran Maxwell and Helen Pearce—the best political organiser in the labour movement, who herded cats and moved mountains.
Greg Smith
I echo the thanks that the Minister gave, particularly to the Clerks of the Committee, the wider Scrutiny Unit and everyone else who has worked so hard. These Bills are an enormous amount of hard work for the staff of the House, particularly the Clerks, and it is always appreciated by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Likewise, from the Doorkeepers and Hansard to everyone who prepares the room for us, it is an enormous job of work, and we thank them most sincerely. The Bill will shortly move on to Report, when the battle will recommence. In the meantime, Sir Christopher, I thank you and the other Chairs of the Committee for your chairmanship. We look forward to the next round.
Steve Darling
I echo the thanks to you, Sir Christopher, and the other Chairs who have ably chaired the Committee. I thank the Clerks, Doorkeepers and Hansard, who have reported throughout. I thank colleagues for the good-natured way that the Bill has been debated. This is my first Bill Committee, and I look forward with gusto to my next one. I also thank Laura Green, who has ably supported me throughout the Committee.
Chris Law
It would be easy for me to express exactly what the hon. Member for Torbay has just said in thanking everybody who has been involved. My only concern as we go to the next stage is that of all the amendments we have discussed and all the measures that have been proposed, not a single one has been adopted. There is an issue with that in general, because the Government have such a large majority. I guess that is not a bad thing for Labour Members, but it has meant that we have lacked the ability to really pull things apart. I hope that will come at the next stage. That is my only disappointment, but I wanted to put it on the record, because I know that it is a concern shared by other Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister is listening so that we can get far more robust and real opportunities to amend and improve the Bill, which we all wish to see.
The Chair
May I thank everybody for their kind remarks? I know I speak for all other Chairs when I say that it has been a very good-natured Committee. Almost everybody has been in a new role: for some people it was their first Standing Committee, for others it was their first leading for the Opposition, and for some it was their first real Committee as a Minister. Everybody has performed pretty well—you should all be able to thank yourselves for that. I also thank the Clerks—behind every amendment is a heck of a lot of work by them—the Hansard reporters, who have done their job assiduously, and the Badge Messengers and Doorkeepers and everybody else involved, not forgetting the electricians who managed to ensure that we kept the lights going.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.