Draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Goods Vehicles (Testing, Drivers’ Hours and Tachographs etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. We both know a thing or two about changing weight categories—[Laughter.] I could not resist. Might I say you are looking very well for it?
The draft regulations will be made under powers in the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. They will alter in three ways the rules that apply to zero emission vans weighing over 3.5 tonnes, up to and including 4.25 tonnes, which I will hereafter refer to as 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. First, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans will be moved from the heavy vehicle testing system into the class 7 MOT testing system. Secondly, the date of the first test will change from one year after initial registration to three years after initial registration, with annual testing thereafter. Thirdly, the regulations will move 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules into the scope of the Great Britain drivers’ hours rules. The GB drivers’ hours rules do not require the driving time to be measured using a tachograph, meaning that vans will not be required to be fitted with one. The aim of the changes is to ensure that 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are regulated in the same way as internal combustion engine vans that weigh over 3 tonnes, up to and including 3.5 tonnes.
Domestic transport is the highest greenhouse gas-emitting sector of the economy, accounting for something like 30% of emissions in 2024. There is therefore an imperative to shift towards zero emission vehicles, particularly in the road freight sector, where the number of vans has been consistently increasing, rising by 9.5% between 2019 and 2024.
At present, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans fall into the scope of some heavy vehicle regulations because their maximum authorised mass is over 3.5 tonnes. However, 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are often like-for-like replacements for internal combustion engine vans weighing under 3.5 tonnes. They may be used for the same purposes and are often visually indistinguishable.
Two areas where there are currently different rules for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans are roadworthiness testing and drivers’ hours. These vans are required to undergo a heavy vehicle test, with a first test one year after initial registration and then annually. They are also required to follow the assimilated drivers’ hours rules. The different regulatory requirements for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans act as a disincentive for businesses looking to make the switch to a zero emission van.
Any 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans will be moved from within the scope of the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) Regulations 1988 into the scope of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981. The practical effect is to move these vans from the heavy vehicle testing system into the class 7 MOT system, and to alter the date of the first test, as already described. That will benefit operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans by allowing them to be tested at the larger network of class 7 MOT testing stations, providing greater choice for operators. The class 7 MOT is also cheaper, which, combined with the later first test, will reduce costs for businesses with 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans.
The regulations will increase the minimum tyre tread depth requirement for 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans by amending the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. That will ensure that they have the same requirement as other vans that undergo class 7 MOT testing.
These vans will also be removed entirely from the scope of the assimilated drivers’ hours rules and will therefore fall under the GB drivers’ hours rules instead. Some 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans may already be in scope of a limited exemption from the assimilated drivers’ hours rules, which is contained in paragraph 6 of the schedule to the Community Drivers’ Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations 2007. However, that exemption applies only to vehicles operating within a 100 km radius of their base. The regulations before us will remove that distance limit for those vans but retain it for other vehicle types currently covered by the exemption.
The change in drivers’ hours rules applicable to these vans will provide greater regulatory consistency for van operators, as internal combustion engine vans weighing under 3.5 tonnes are already in scope of the GB drivers’ hours rules. The GB hours rules do not require that tachographs are used to monitor driving time, removing an additional cost currently experienced by zero emission van operators. The extra administrative burden for fleets where drivers regularly switch between different types of vans, and therefore different sets of drivers’ hours rules, is also removed by the regulations.
The Government have introduced other regulatory changes to support operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. In June 2025, regulations were introduced allowing holders of category B driving licences to drive zero emission vans up to 4.25 tonnes without any additional training. The same regulations also provided 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans with towing allowances equivalent to those available to their lower-weight internal combustion engine counterparts. In addition, there is already an exemption from operator licensing for alternatively fuelled vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes.
Alongside measures specific to this weight class, the Government are promoting the use of zero emission vans via the zero emission vehicle mandate. The ZEV mandate sets sales targets for manufacturers of cars and vans, with a headline target for vans in 2026 of 24%, on a pathway to 100% by 2035. Greater flexibilities were added to the mandate in October 2025 to support manufacturers in reaching those targets.
The Government also provide grant funding for zero emission vehicles and the installation of charge points. Vans weighing up to 4.25 tonnes are eligible for the plug-in van grant, with a maximum discount of £5,000.
Ensuring that road safety is maintained after the introduction of these changes has, of course, been a key consideration during the development of the regulations. Class 7 MOT testing is already used for vans with similar dimensions to 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans. Although these vans are heavier, they may be equipped with features, such as regenerative braking, that can support safer driving. Under the GB drivers’ hours rules, the maximum daily amount of driving is only one hour longer than the limit used under the assimilated rules. In addition, the daily duty limit of 11 hours will restrict drivers from working on other, non-driving tasks, such as loading and unloading, for excessive periods. Following the implementation of the regulations, road safety data will be closely monitored, and the number and severity of collisions will be analysed to understand the regulations’ impact on road safety, if any.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report on the regulations or draw any issues to the attention of the House. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee did publish a report on the regulations, drawing the House’s attention to the fact that when the powers available in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire after 23 June 2026, the Government will not have powers to amend the limited drivers’ hours rules. The Government are actively looking at solutions to close or mitigate that gap in powers at the earliest opportunity to maintain a functioning statute book. That includes introducing primary legislation, where needed, as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The SLSC also raised the issue of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland created by the regulations, which apply only in Great Britain. The Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland has said that it will monitor the implementation of the changes in Great Britain. However, any decision to make similar changes in Northern Ireland will rest with the DFI Minister. Officials in the Department for Transport and the DFI are working together to manage the changes for operators of 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission vans travelling between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This area is devolved to Northern Ireland, so it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to legislate on, should they wish to do so. This is not a type approval issue, and regulations concerning drivers’ hours and tachographs are not included in the Windsor framework.
In summary, the regulations will remove barriers to businesses making the switch to using a 3.5 to 4.25 tonne zero emission van. They introduce regulatory alignment with the equivalent internal combustion engine vans, helping to support the transition to a net zero transport system. I commend them to the Committee.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the Minister for explaining the proposed regulatory changes, which the Liberal Democrats support. Of course, the rules of physics still apply, and these electric goods vehicles will be heavier, so I simply ask the Minister whether he agrees that that underlines the importance of the work the Government are doing on the road safety strategy to reduce the risk and impact of collisions.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec.
The role of goods vehicles, whether heavy or relatively light, is critical to our economy. We know that the transportation of goods and logistics contribute billions to the UK’s GDP, yet they are often a forgotten element of our economy. In principle, therefore, I cannot object to measures that reduce the cost of doing business and that ensure that those using goods vehicles are not unduly burdened by the Government’s policies on electric vehicles. It would be a preposterous endeavour for the Government to encourage and mandate the use of electric goods vehicles and then to proceed to keep in place rules that would prevent them from carrying the same quantity of goods as their internal combustion engine equivalents. In addition, it is important to be proportionate when considering MOTs and driver hours. If we place too great a burden on individuals, without any demonstrable safety benefits, that places a cost on business that is not in the spirit of how the rules are drafted.
However, we must acknowledge the context of these changes. They are not merely attempts by the Government to make proportionate changes to the regulatory burden to help business; they are against the backdrop of an initiative to move all drivers to electric vehicles. In the car market, with fleet sales put to one side, we have seen a stalling of electric vehicle demand, and market share even decreasing, with a Government mandate in place. Furthermore, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has highlighted that in 2025, despite small increases, battery electric van demand remained well below mandated levels, with the steep 2026 ambition set by the Government requiring urgent review.
In that context, it is understandable that the Government are trying to pull every lever they can to try to stimulate demand, but at what price? Appropriately—the Minister mentioned this in his opening speech—the Government talked in their impact assessment about ensuring that there is no negative safety impact. In addition, it makes sense to monitor matters such as roadworthiness test failure rates. Nevertheless, when discussing direct and indirect costs in the impact assessments, the Government seem to have forgotten that the policy’s overall impact is to increase the weight of vehicles. Road damage increases exponentially with axle weight, and it would be a mistake not to recognise that this broader change, which encourages heavier vehicles, is unlikely to come without a cost to our roads. We need the Government to have a comprehensive understanding of whether these heavier vehicles could have any impact on road safety.
I am not pretending that this statutory instrument on its own will alter our roads, but it is part of a broader trend where the Government have acknowledged that there will be heavier vehicles. Are the Government therefore making a broader assessment of the impact of this change on road surfaces? What assessments will they make?
Furthermore, I hope the Minister can answer some specific technical questions on ensuring that the changes are practical. The specific changes to tachograph requirements will cause a divergence, and the Minister spoke in his opening remarks of the impact on Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if he could say more on the discussions the Department for Transport has had with officials in Northern Ireland to mitigate any impact, ensuring that we operate as one country—one United Kingdom—and one economy.
Lastly, it is important that the Government retain the power to alter rules relating to matters such as road safety. When discussing aviation safety secondary legislation in September last year, I raised with the Government the impact of the expiry of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. At that time, they responded that they would have until the middle of this year. As we are fast approaching that point, do the Government truly have a plan for what they will do, as that legislative gap emerges, with regard to this statutory instrument?
Simon Lightwood
To pick up on the point from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage, the Government are absolutely committed to greater road safety. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South in her place today; she steered us through the first road safety strategy in more than a decade, and it is well overdue. It was published on 7 January, and sets out our vision for a safer future on the roads for all. As part of the long-term improvements outlined in the strategy, officials are working with industry to publish clearer maintenance standards for light goods vehicles.
On the effects of these vehicles on road surfaces, the overall road wear effects caused by electric vans are relatively small, because wear and tear on roads is dominated by heavy goods vehicles and buses, with a much smaller impact from vans and cars of any type. In addition, although EVs can be heavier than equivalent petrol or diesel vehicles, passenger cars have been increasing in weight on average for many years now. That trend has been driven by consumer choice and improving safety features for passengers, and many petrol and diesel cars are as heavy as EVs.
On the zero emission vehicle mandate, the Government are committed to decarbonising our road transport and ensuring that the UK successfully transitions to zero emission vehicles, and the ZEV mandate is a crucial part of facilitating that transition. It sets out annual headline targets for the proportion of new zero emission cars and vans sold in the UK, starting at 10% for vans in 2024 and rising steadily to reach 70% of vans by 2030, on a pathway to 100% by 2035. Demand for zero emission vans is growing, making up nearly 10% of the market in 2025, and showing 36% year-on-year growth compared to 2024. However, the Government acknowledge that the van transition requires further support, and we offer generous grants to support up-front purchase of vans, and installations of workplace and residential chargers.
On the devolved Administrations and divergence, these regulations apply in Great Britain only, as this policy area is devolved in Northern Ireland. Officials in the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland have been updated on these regulations, and are currently considering the potential impact of introducing this legislation on regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are also considering the impact of the proposals on drivers’ hours and tachograph requirements presented by the EU Commission, which mirror the changes in these regulations.
I thank everyone for their time today and for their questions. This common-sense move by the Government will take the burden away from those using internal combustion vans, and ease them into the transition to zero emission vans. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. To begin, I would like to take this opportunity briefly to explain that in the explanatory note for the statutory instrument, there was a discrepancy, in that it stated that the percentage increase for 2026-27 was 2.7% when it should have stated 2.71%, and that the percentage increase for ’27-28 was 2.8% when it should have stated 2.68%. I can reassure hon. Members that a correction slip has been arranged regarding that, and the other figures in the draft SI—the consequential figures in monetary terms—are not affected. The SI, which was laid in draft on 5 February, increases the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at “approved (fee cap) providers” in the ’26-27 and ’27-28 academic years.
Our higher education sector is critical to delivering a key mission of this Government—economic growth. It does that through world-leading research and innovation, supporting businesses up and down the country, and by equipping people with the knowledge and skills that they need to thrive. In one way or another, higher education plays a part in the lives of most people in this country, whether through direct participation in university, through research or through its role in our local communities. We are all impacted by universities.
The sector is also crucial to our future prosperity and wealth as a country, but now it is facing severe challenges. Office for Students analysis suggests that without mitigating action, 45% of institutions face a deficit in ’25-26. English providers are attempting to manage significant financial pressures, including the £1.7 billion loss, in aggregate, on domestic teaching and the need for providers to draw on other income to cover it. Such challenges have been unaddressed for far too long, and seven years of frozen tuition fees, plus over-optimistic strategic and financial planning and potential issues with governance, have contributed to the financial challenges facing providers.
The Government have not shied away from these decisions. We started to fix the foundations by increasing fee limits for ’25-26 and boosting the sector’s income, but we must go further if we are to put the sector on a stable footing and provide it with the greater financial certainty that it needs. That can be achieved by boosting incomes, with conditions about improving the teaching quality.
That is why, through this draft SI, we intend to raise fee limits for a further two years. That is necessary to ensure that the sector can face the challenges of the next decade and that students today and in the future can receive a world-class higher education. It will mean that for the ’26-27 academic year, from 1 August ’26 onwards, tuition fee limits for undergraduate courses will increase by 2.71% and, for the ’27-28 academic year, from 1 August ’27 onwards, by a further 2.68%, in line with forecast inflation based on the RPIX inflation index. That means an increase to £9,790 for a standard full-time course in ’26-27 and to £10,050 in ’27-28. It means an increase to £11,750 for a full-time accelerated course in ’26-27 and to £12,060 in ’27-28. The fee limits that apply to lower fee foundation years for classroom-based subjects, such as business, social science and humanities, that begin on or after 1 August ’25 are preserved at ’25-26 levels for ’26-27 and ’27-28.
I recognise that people have concerns about the student finance system and the affordability of higher education. We inherited a broken system and we take borrowers’ complaints seriously. We have already committed to reintroducing maintenance grants and to future-proofing our maintenance support offer by increasing loans for living costs with forecast inflation every academic year from ’26-27. We will continue to look for ways to make the system fairer. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that access to higher education is based on ability and aspiration, not financial means.
Eligible students can continue to apply for up-front fee loans to meet the full cost of their tuition. Given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making those necessary decisions to protect taxpayers and students. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.
We have an expectation of the higher education sector too. We expect it to do more to improve access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to focus on efficiency and specialisation to deliver the very best value for students and for the country. We will make future fee uplifts conditional on higher education providers achieving a high-quality threshold through the Office for Students quality regime. That will protect taxpayers’ investment in higher education and reward providers for high quality. We will set out further details on future changes to tuition fee caps in due course.
We are clear that the diversity of the sector is a strength, but each provider needs to be clear on their distinctive role in the system and to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. Each provider needs to be well run, delivering the very best value for students and operating as efficiently as possible. To conclude, the draft SI will put our higher education sector on a more secure footing, giving it greater financial certainty and therefore enabling it to deliver the world-class higher education that current and future generations deserve.
The Chair
I am minded to allow consideration to continue, notwithstanding the fact that the explanatory note is in effect inaccurate. I appreciate the Minister’s courtesy in correcting that, but in future those things should be done in advance and in writing, and put on the Table so that all members of the Committee can see. I shall be saying to my fellow Chairs that that should be the rule that we adopt. For the convenience of all Members present, I shall now let us proceed with our consideration.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I think you were very magnanimous about the inaccuracies in the documents before us.
The real and growing burden on young people already struggling in a difficult labour market will only be added to by the draft regulations. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), now the Prime Minister, was elected leader of the Labour party on a pledge to scrap tuition fees altogether. The Education Secretary promised graduates that they would pay less under a Labour Government, offering “breathing space”, in her words, at the start of their working lives. Yet in office, Labour has done the exact opposite.
Tuition fees being raised by 3.1% to £9,535 was labelled “economically and morally wrong” by university chiefs. Perhaps the Government will be grateful that the impact assessment makes no reference to the impact on young people. The Government then froze repayment thresholds, an effective tax on graduates that Martin Lewis himself called
“not a moral thing to do”.
This is not breathing space; it is an attack on students.
To add insult to injury, universities did not even benefit, because every penny of those higher fees was wiped out by Labour’s job tax. Now, having already hammered students and graduates, the Government return to do it again, raising maximum tuition fees further to £9,790 next year and £10,050 a year later. That is after the Conservatives froze university tuition fees for eight years. The reality of plan 2 student loans means that millions of graduates’ debt is growing faster than they will ever be able to repay. I see that in my own team—they are looking at fees that go up and up, and at £72,000 or £80,000 of debt. That is something that we must fix. We must reflect on how we got there and ensure that we learn from mistakes and correct them.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I find it quite astounding that the hon. Lady is making this statement, given that her party’s coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats almost tripled—tripled—tuition fees to £9,000 in 2012.
Alicia Kearns
Forgive me, but I did not hear a question in that intervention. It is basic courtesy in the House to ask a question in an intervention, but I congratulate the hon. Member on getting some points with the Whips there. If he had listened to my wording, I said that we should reflect and learn from how we got here. I was acknowledging that we must learn when we make mistakes—that is exactly what I just said. He takes me on to my next point, so I thank him for recognising that I said that we must learn from mistakes, but as there was no question, I cannot answer one.
The average plan 2 graduate must now earn £66,000 a year just to begin paying down their balance. Raising the fee cap makes that problem worse, not better. Youth unemployment stands at 16.1%, which is the highest in more than a decade, and higher than the European average; it is the first time our country has been in that place since records began. Graduate recruitment is at a record low, yet the Government’s answer is to load more debt on to young people’s shoulders. That is a betrayal of the young generation.
Young people deserve better than this, which is why the Conservatives are proposing a genuine new deal for young people. We will abolish real interest rates on plan 2 loans so that balances can never spiral beyond inflation again. We will guarantee fully funded apprenticeship places for 18 to 21-year-olds, and introduce a first job bonus to get young people into work and saving for their futures. Martin Lewis said that the Government’s approach is
“not a moral thing to do”
but, in contrast, he has welcomed our plan, and said that it is the right thing to do.
Higher fees without better outcomes is not a higher education policy. It is yet another broken policy from Labour, who are simply burdening young people with more and more debt.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir John.
I will speak briefly. The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this draft instrument. We understand why the Government brought it forward: universities are under severe financial pressure and the sector needs sustainable funding. We absolutely accept that problem, but that does not mean that we accept the solution. Our position continues to be that any changes to fee limits must be part of a wider package of reform.
Students deserve to know not just what they will pay but whether repayment terms will be fair, whether the system as a whole will treat them honestly and that the terms will not be changed against them when it is convenient. At the moment, young people can see that those questions do not have satisfactory answers, and that is why we have called for a royal commission on graduate finance to address them properly.
Reform of student finance is only half the picture. We are also clear that fee increases should, in return, come with clear expectations on universities about demonstrable financial sustainability, transparent reporting of how money is spent and accountability on student outcomes. None of that conditionality is on offer here. Asking students to pay more while the underlying system remains unreformed, without clear accountability for how the money is used, is not something we can support.
The Chair
Minister, I assume that the correction slip that you drew the Committee’s attention to is going to be produced and delivered today.
Josh MacAlister
I thank Committee members for their contributions today. I will endeavour to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Rutland and Stamford and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, but before I do, let me reiterate the importance of this statutory instrument for putting our higher education sector on a secure financial footing and providing the financial certainty that it needs. I have not heard how either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would propose to do that in the absence of this statutory instrument for the financial years under discussion.
There are few phrases to describe the position of the Conservative party other than “crocodile tears”. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford highlighted repayment thresholds. I have not had the chance to look at her speeches or voting record from the time, but from 2012 onward the Conservative Government of the day designed and introduced the very system that she is now criticising. In the year that the system was introduced, they made a commitment not to freeze thresholds but to increase them. However, in their very first year, they froze the thresholds.
Josh MacAlister
I would be delighted to give way if the hon. Lady will answer this question: how many other times were thresholds frozen by that Government?
Alicia Kearns
I do not want the Minister to unnecessarily age me in this debate, so I want to put on record that, unfortunately, I cannot give him that data on my voting record because I was just finishing university then and was still enjoying the joys of life.
Josh MacAlister
I am pleased to hear that that is where the hon. Lady was at that time. The Conservative Government and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition froze thresholds 10 times.
Ian Sollom
The Minister has made that point in several debates. I would just like to explain that the commitment was to raise thresholds from when the first cohort graduated, which was in 2016. That was indeed why Martin Lewis investigated the issue and considered judicial review in 2016. There was no freezing of thresholds prior to that. They were due to rise from 2016. I am sure the Minister did not mean to misinform us.
Josh MacAlister
Certainly not. In fact, the current student loan system—I believe it is plan 5—which is due to come online with the first graduates this year, has been increased in line with inflation by this Government. The point stands that the choice of the Government back then was to maintain the threshold where it was and effectively freeze it, capturing many more people into the system. The cumulative effect of 10 threshold freezes in a decade where inflation was ticking up is being felt by students now.
It is somewhat galling to hear that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are outraged that this Government, who were able to find the money to lift the threshold in our first year in office, are now balancing difficult decisions so that we can make sure that we have the funding needed for further education, since over half of students do not go to university and need a well-resourced skills system. Both parties seem now to be walking away from their responsibility to make a system that they designed work effectively, which is unfortunate.
The Committee will know how crucial this sector is for our economic growth—I am sure this is felt across the House. Members will recognise its importance in contributing to research and innovation and the impact that it has on local communities and the lives of students. Challenges in higher education have been left unaddressed for far too long, and providers have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income.
The Government have not shied away from the decisions that are needed. We took action to raise the fee cap in 2025-26, and we have committed to bringing back maintenance grants and future-proofing maintenance loans for students, but we need to go further so that that our higher education sector can continue to deliver the world-class education and research that this country and future generations deserve.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I want to make a short intervention, as we may divide on this instrument. Although the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not have a leg to stand on in this debate, I have to take issue with the idea that by simply increasing the fee structure, we put universities on a secure and stable footing. They rely on cross-subsidy from international students, and it is widely debated outside this place as to whether the funding model in chaos and crisis.
In the end, we have a stonking great majority in the House of Commons, and we need to be thinking about reform that goes much further so that the university sector is fit for the modern day—especially for the AI revolution that is coming.
Josh MacAlister
I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing the Committee’s attention to the wider debate around higher education funding at the moment. It is true to say that fee income is only one line of income for universities and that they are facing a whole bunch of pressures in a competitive environment. The Government are committed to looking at the student loan system and making it fairer. I have made that commitment, as have the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary.
One urgent point that I would draw the Committee’s attention to is that a number of years of freezes on the tuition fee cap has eroded the income value, which is a significant income stream for universities. If that were to continue, it would further heighten the situation. As a Minister, I have spent time listening to MPs making very powerful representations about the challenges that universities in their constituencies face because of the legacy of the erosion of the value of the fee income. If we were to not increase fees in line with inflation, which is what we are talking about here, it would further add to that funding challenge that universities face. I do not think it would be responsible for us to do that, given that the financial years we are talking about are pretty imminent.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has opened the box on the topic of funding for universities by mentioning how central that funding is. One of my gravest concerns is the amount of money that is coming from the Chinese Communist party into our universities. Does the Minister believe that by taking this action today, the Government will be able to focus on cracking down on those universities that seem to think there is no problem with taking vast sums from China, which then threatens MPs by saying that it will not take the children of sanctioned MPs at its universities or that it will withdraw all funding from universities if the Dalai Lama speaks at them or there are efforts by Hongkongers or others? Given that the Government are taking action to make sure that universities have a more valid footing, will he make sure that those funding streams are cracked down on?
The Chair
Order. We are not debating how universities are funded by overseas territories, but I will let that go. Minister, you may respond very briefly on that point, and then we will move on.
Josh MacAlister
I am sure that the Committee will be delighted that I will give a short answer, and I can provide a point of reassurance. Of course, universities have responsibility to ensure that they contribute to upholding human rights and freedom of speech, and they have an important role to play in that. We have plans to strengthen their role and responsibility in that respect along with the role of the Office for Students. It is an important point to highlight, even though it is not directly relevant to this SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 12 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. The draft regulations are narrow, necessary and strictly consequential. When Parliament passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, it took the clear policy decision to bring the criminal enforcement functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority into the new Fair Work Agency. Those functions include the ability for the GLAA, as provided for in schedule 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, to obtain authorisations to acquire communications data in the most serious cases of labour exploitation.
The sole purpose of this instrument is to ensure that this capability continues seamlessly when the Fair Work Agency becomes operational in April. It updates the statutory reference that currently names the GLAA, so that the same powers are available to the new agency when carrying out serious exploitation investigations that were previously undertaken by the GLAA.
Let me be clear about what the draft regulations do not do: they do not create new investigatory powers; they do not widen the scope of existing powers under the 2016 Act; and they do not lower statutory thresholds, alter authorisation routes or touch surveillance, entry or financial investigation powers. All those sit in primary legislation and remain entirely intact. This statutory instrument simply avoids an unintended enforcement gap following the transition.
Members of the Committee may also have noticed that an earlier version of this instrument was withdrawn. This was done to correct a technical drafting point where the original text duplicated a removal of the GLAA from schedule 4 that already occurs automatically under the primary Act. The corrected instrument before the Committee today makes no change to substance or policy.
Turning briefly to safeguards, communications data is not the content of calls, texts or emails—it is the who, when and where, not the what. In practice, this means information such as subscriber details, phone numbers, call durations, IP addresses, email logs and location data from mobile devices, but never the content itself. It can only be acquired by the Fair Work Agency for serious criminal investigations—that is, for offences that carry at least a 12-month custodial sentence, and only when necessary and proportionate.
In practice, the GLAA has used these powers sparingly, and only in some of the most complex and organised exploitation cases, often where victims are too frightened or unable to come forward. Those safeguards carry over in full to the Fair Work Agency. Every application will continue to go through single point of contact gatekeeping, and routine cases will continue to require authorisation by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which will continue to inspect and oversee use of these powers, exactly as now.
It is worth underlining that the value of these powers lies not in their frequency of use but in their precision. Communications data is a targeted tool that helps investigators build a clearer picture of organised exploitation, where victims may be isolated, threatened or unable to speak freely. It allows enforcement bodies to corroborate other intelligence and identify links between offenders and locations. Used properly, and under strict oversight, it is a vital element of the wider framework that Parliament has already put in place to confront the most serious forms of labour abuse.
To illustrate the value of these powers in practice, I can point to a recent case in which communications data played a vital role. Forty one vulnerable workers were brought to the UK with promises of decent work and accommodation, only to be exploited by an organised group. Their wages were taken, false identities were created and they were housed in unsafe and overcrowded conditions. Managers within the employing business even assisted the exploitation by diverting wages and acting as unlicensed gangmasters. Access to communications data enabled investigators to uncover the links between the organisers and those inside the firm, revealing patterns of wage diversion, false accounts, excessive deductions and, crucially, further victims. Faced with that clear evidence, the offenders pleaded guilty and received custodial sentences.
On transparency, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will continue to report annually on the use of the powers, providing Parliament with a clear overview of how they are exercised. Additionally, the Fair Work Agency will report on its use of the powers in its annual report. As we bring three enforcement bodies together, the aim is a clearer system for workers and a simpler one for responsible employers.
Those who exploit workers, particularly through coercive, abusive or criminal practices, must not be given the opportunity to exploit gaps during transition. Ensuring the continuity of capability from day one of the Fair Work Agency is essential to that. The draft regulations provide that continuity without changing the law on when or how investigatory powers may be used, without broadening the Investigatory Powers Act and without altering any of the strong safeguards that Parliament has put in place.
This is a precise and technical instrument that ensures that Parliament’s decisions in the Employment Rights Act can operate exactly as intended when the agency becomes fully operational. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; you delivered the title of this legislation with a dryness that belies its purpose and impact on our economy. The instrument looks tiny—there is hardly anything in it—yet I am going to argue that the Committee should vote against it this afternoon. It may look like a technical mechanism, and the Minister described it as such, but it equips the Fair Work Agency with state-level surveillance tools previously reserved for tackling the serious and organised crime that occurs in the gangmaster sector, and applies those investigatory powers across our entire economy. The creation of the Fair Work Agency, a consolidated super-regulator with enhanced snooping powers, represents a significant overreach of the state into the private operations of British businesses.
I hope that not only my Conservative colleagues, but possibly Labour colleagues, and certainly Liberal Democrat colleagues, will vote against this instrument. Currently, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority focuses on high-risk industries, such as agriculture and fishing, where there have been abuses. These changes will allow the Fair Work Agency to snoop everywhere across every workplace in this country. We oppose this statutory instrument as it formalises the transition towards a more litigious and more monitored labour market, which will inevitably stifle start-ups and entrepreneurs and increase the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is not a proportionate or balanced approach to enforcement.
We have heard repeatedly from business groups about the cumulative pressure that they are under. The British Retail Consortium has warned that margins in retail are already at breaking point. The Confederation of British Industry speaks of a “chilling” effect on hiring as firms brace for more aggressive enforcement. This instrument will give those powers. The Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that tighter scrutiny, combined with rising employment costs, will force many small firms to reduce hours, cut staff or automate roles entirely—something that we are sadly already seeing in the monthly unemployment statistics.
The Minister claimed that the statutory instrument simply ensures continuity following the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Of course it does as far as that sector is concerned, but in so doing widens that to the entire economy via the Fair Work Agency. It is not a like-for-like replacement. We are seeing a super-regulator with a far wider remit and far stronger powers. Those reasons, alongside our commitment to repealing the vast majority of the job-destroying Employment Rights Act, are why we oppose this statutory instrument today. We urge all other hon. Members to do so, too.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I was not planning to make a speech, but since the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, said she plans to vote against this statutory instrument and invited me to join her, I feel I should get some remarks on the record on behalf of my party. I thank her for her kind invitation, but I plan to vote with the Government on establishing the Fair Work Agency, in line with the policy of my party throughout the progress of the Employment Rights Bill.
We support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency. It brings together the powers of several different bodies into one unified place, and that is really important. I hear what the shadow Minister is saying about extending the GLAA powers, but I think there is a bigger win here in setting up the Fair Work Agency: it would not only provide a better route for employees to establish their rights in the workplace, but relieve the burden of tribunals from employers, if it works as intended.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I am genuinely shocked and surprised to hear the Liberal Democrat line, because I seem to remember when these investigatory powers—including the right to snoop on communications—were first brought in, the hon. Lady’s party was vehemently against them, yet here we are giving these powers to an agency that will cover every job in this land.
Sarah Olney
I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat what I said: the setting up of the Fair Work Agency is an important step towards ensuring that employees can assert their rights in the workplace and that employers will not be burdened unduly with the costs of tribunals. That is why the Liberal Democrats have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the start.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in my constituency have told me categorically that they are very concerned about this. Entrepreneurs who have taken all the risks to create jobs in their communities run the risk of the Fair Work Agency, which will be given these powers, coming into their businesses and riding roughshod over the work they are creating. How is that liberal and democratic?
Sarah Olney
It is very kind of the hon. Lady to ask me that. This is obviously the Government’s statutory instrument, so I am not entirely certain why I am getting all the scrutiny here. I repeat again that we have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the very start and support the measures in this statutory instrument that contribute to that.
I hear the hon. Lady’s concerns, and the concerns of businesses in Bognor Regis. The Liberal Democrats are obviously concerned to ensure that any request for information from businesses is made proportionately, and only in response to legitimate concerns about employers treating their employees fairly. That is what we would expect the Fair Work Agency to do. I will finish by reiterating that we support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency and this statutory instrument.
Kate Dearden
I thank the shadow Minister for her contributions and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her support for this statutory instrument. It might be helpful for me to run through the purpose of the particular SI, which I hope I made clear in my introductory remarks. I will touch on a few things that the shadow Minister has raised.
To repeat: we are replacing one specified body with a successor. The Fair Work Agency’s remit, as debated across Parliament, is established in the Employment Rights Act, which brings together the existing functions of the GLAA, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’s national minimum wage enforcement.
On what the shadow Minister alluded to, the Act does include the delegated power to add further labour market enforcement functions in future, subject to new regulations and parliamentary scrutiny. However, this SI does not use that power and does not add any new enforcement functions; it is purely consequential. No new powers have been created previously under the GLAA, as I alluded to in my opening remarks. The Fair Work Agency will only be able to request the use of these powers to investigate offences under the GLAA’s previous remit, and for other offences added to the Fair Work Agency’s remit by the Employment Rights Act—which we debated.
For the sake of detail, the only offences in the FWA’s remit that meet the serious crime threshold in the Investigatory Powers Act that I talked about in my opening remarks are as follows: offences under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that were part of the GLAA’s remit, and offences under section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006 that was added to the Fair Work Agency’s remit by the Employment Rights Act, and was debated in the House. The Serious Fraud Office can already request the use of those powers to investigate those offences. The offence of failing to comply with a labour market enforcement order under section 139 of the Employment Rights Act supersedes an offence under the Immigration Act 2016, which is in the GLAA’s remit. The GLAA has never sought the use of these powers to investigate the offence in the Immigration Act. Offences under sections 140 and 142 of the Employment Rights Act are for Scotland only and were considered by the House in Committee.
I hope that it is clear what we are debating today. The offences to which the power relates do not change, only the remit does. We have transferred over the powers of existing enforcement bodies, but added extra safeguards—at present, a warrant is not needed to enter a dwelling, for example. It is clear what this SI will do. Continuing as normal would weaken enforcement, which would not be good for businesses or those who are on the most vulnerable side of the labour market and who need the Government on their side to make sure that their rights are enforced and that they are supported at work, and to stop modern slavery.
That is why this SI is so important. It is disappointing that the Opposition will be voting against it—I thought that we would be on the same page—because the question today is whether serious labour exploitation investigations should continue uninterrupted, and when the new agency goes live. It is quite simple and technical, as I have alluded to. I thank the Liberal Democrats for their support and urge all colleagues to support this necessary legislation so that we can crack on with enforcement and support the agency in doing so.
Question put.