Draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Dr Zubir Ahmed)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This statutory instrument makes an important change. It will amend the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 so that the treatment of disease, disorder or injury—TDDI—is brought within the regulatory scope of the Care Quality Commission. The change will be for TDDI provided in sports grounds and gymnasiums or under temporary arrangements at sporting or cultural events where it is delivered for the benefit of those taking part in or attending those activities.
Members will recall the tragic events of 22 May 2017, when the Manchester Arena bombing killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000. The subsequent Manchester Arena inquiry uncovered serious failings, including inadequacies in the provision of healthcare services at the arena. The inquiry noted that those shortcomings may have been present in other venues across the country, in part because of the absence of regulation. A central finding of the inquiry was clear: the Department of Health and Social Care should consider changes to the law to enable the CQC to regulate healthcare delivered at events. The CQC has outlined initial concerns about the quality of care provided at events. It has heard serious allegations where unregulated provision has resulted in harm. The Government are committed to acting on the inquiry’s recommendations and strengthening public safety. I recognise that these changes are overdue, but it was important to consider the impacts carefully, and I am pleased that they have now been laid.
This statutory instrument brings TDDI at events into line with hospitals, clinics, ambulances, GP surgeries, community services and care homes, where it is already regulated. That means that a provider delivering TDDI at an event must register with the CQC and comply with the same robust regulatory standards that apply elsewhere in our healthcare system. Some of these providers will already be registered to provide TDDI in other settings, and the process will be quicker for them.
There has been some confusion about what TDDI actually is. It includes a wide range of treatments from emergency interventions to ongoing care for long-term conditions. I wish to be clear to Members that TDDI does not include first aid. First aid remains outside the scope of CQC regulation.
To support providers to make this transition, they will have significant time to prepare. I can assure everyone involved that there will be a 15-month period in which providers can register and the CQC can process registrations before regulation becomes enforceable. The CQC will consult on guidance and produce supporting materials to help determine whether registration is required. The provision to allow registration will come into force on 7 September 2026. It will not become an offence to provide TDDI as an unregulated provider until 6 December 2027. In developing this policy, the Government have considered a range of options carefully, guided by the Manchester Arena inquiry findings. We concluded that partial removal would risk fragmenting provision, and a threshold based on event size would not reflect risk.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Chair and I represent the great city of Manchester, and one of its darkest moments was Salman Abedi’s arena attack in 2017. These provisions are long overdue, and I thank the Minister and the Government for taking this action.
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly, as all hon. Members in and around the Manchester area have, since the unconscionable events of the Manchester Arena bombing. Regulation such as this could not have come into force without their representations in addition to the inquiry’s findings, so I am grateful to him and other colleagues.
That is why we are taking forward a coherent package, developing non-statutory guidance for providers and organisers alongside the change to secondary legislation to remove the two exemptions and bring TDDI at events within CQC regulatory scope. Stakeholders were concerned that smaller events could be targeted by substandard and unregulated providers. Size does not always correlate with risk, and the Government are determined not to leave those smaller events exposed to inadequate care.
I have heard concerns from stakeholders about the impact on those providing TDDI, such as clinicians who often do so voluntarily, and the potential impact that a requirement to pay to register with the CQC could have on them and the wider event sector. The CQC will therefore commence a consultation in May, which will provide opportunities for further consideration of the appropriate implementation of the regulations for sectors such as individual volunteer clinicians and mountain rescue services.
Some stakeholders have asked whether the CQC is the right body to regulate TDDI. Does it have the capability to do so, given the issues identified by Dr Penny Dash in her review? First, the CQC is the statutory independent regulator for health and social care in England, and it already regulates TDDI in a number of other settings. Extending that regulation to the additional settings outlined will bring more consistency for patient safety and quality of provision.
Moreover, this is an essential amendment to the regulations. The Manchester Arena inquiry recommended action to address gaps in the standard of healthcare provision at events, and it pointed specifically to statutory regulation and enforcement by a regulator. The Government have accepted those recommendations, and this policy reflects our intention to implement them.
Secondly, I will address the CQC’s capability to act as a regulator. It is right to acknowledge the findings of Dr Penny Dash in her 2024 review. Those critiques, I am glad to say, have been catalysts for change. The CQC has accepted the high-level recommendations and is taking forward targeted reforms, including stabilising its regulatory platform and improving the registration experience for providers.
The CQC has set out further steps to improve its inspection framework and strengthen transparency on ratings, characteristics and how judgments are made. This addresses the concerns highlighted by Dr Dash’s review and will help ensure timely, risk-based assessments—exactly what event healthcare providers will need as they register.
Extending CQC regulation to event healthcare is the safest and most straightforward route. It leverages an existing regulatory system, answers the inquiry’s call to action, is being implemented alongside reforms strengthening the regulator’s performance, and closes this long-standing gap in public safety.
By making these changes to the 2014 regulations, the Government will make true their commitments, fulfilling the recommendations of the Manchester Arena inquiry and its drive to improve patient and citizen safety. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. Before discussing the regulations, I want to acknowledge their origin. The horrific Manchester Arena attack killed 22 people and injured more than 1,000 others. I express my condolences and good wishes to all those affected by that vicious attack.
Those running events such as concerts are required to comply with the law, to follow Health and Safety Executive rules, including the purple guide, and—of particular relevance to this debate—to ensure that they have appropriate medical cover. I thank Sir John Saunders for his work on the inquiry. He found very severe deficiencies in the medical cover that night.
SMG had contracted Emergency Training UK to provide medical cover. The person leading that organisation said he had a valid major incident medical management and support qualification—I am sure the Minister has done that qualification, as I have, because hospital MIMMS covers the response to a major incident. He also said that he had an Advanced Life Support Group qualification in advanced life support, but he did not. Again, that is a qualification that both the Minister and I have. I have taught on one of its courses.
This individual was not a health professional, so he was not regulated by the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council. He did not provide adequate training, equipment or record keeping, and he employed staff to do a job for which they were not qualified. Such events are required to have a certain level of medical cover, and although the staff he employed that night did their best, they did not have the level of medical training they should have had. He performed an inadequate risk assessment. Particularly horrifically, he had worked in the arena providing medical cover for a long time.
Of course, most of the time, all was well. However, the system, such as this individual had one, was weak, and when faced with the attack and multiple seriously injured casualties, fell apart. The consequence is that, despite the best efforts of his staff and many others who were present, a poorer quality of healthcare was given than should have been provided had he done his job properly.
Quite reasonably, that caused anger and questions. How on earth could someone be allowed to set up a service to deliver healthcare and safety provision, not through volunteers but as a company, and not provide the proper staff, training or equipment? It was either dishonest or incompetent. It was disgraceful, and the inquiry report was rightly scathing.
The report recommended that the regulation of event medical care be considered, saying that the CQC had suggested that it was the right organisation to provide that. It also recommended that the Government set a standard of medical care for different events to which individuals should be held to ensure consistency, and strongly recommended that sanctions be put in place so that people who do not comply, such as the company in this case, would be subject to criminal or civil sanctions, or both, for their actions. I was outraged when I read the report. Of course, we all want the highest quality healthcare for everybody on all occasions, but we have to consider soberly whether these regulations are the best way to achieve the outcome we all want to see.
The regulations remove exemptions for on-site healthcare at sports events and music festivals, but there is a question of scale. Manchester Arena holds up to 21,000 people, and sporting events or festivals can have many more participants and spectators. There are strong arguments that such events, which usually have commercial healthcare providers, should provide a great service with suitably qualified staff, and should face sanctions if they do not. However, not all sports events are at Wembley, Silverstone or Twickenham, and not all music events are Lost Village, Glastonbury or Manchester Arena.
What will be the effect on grassroots sport? Some small-volume events are high-risk sports and need medical cover, as the Minister suggested, but how small is too small to require healthcare? What regulation will the Government put in place for that? As the regulations also affect volunteers, will they discourage volunteering in healthcare provision? If so, will that affect the ability of sports events to take place, and how many events will be affected? The Government have admitted that they do not know the answer.
The other small peculiarity is whether medically qualified staff will need to step back in favour of non-medically qualified staff who have a first aid certificate to avoid the need for registration, which I will come to in a moment. Will cover, in some cases, be downgraded to first aid cover that, unlike TDDI cover, does not require registration? If there is such a downgrade, will it be good or bad for patients?
What is first aid? The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 define it as
“cases where a person will need help from a medical practitioner or nurse, treatment for the purpose of preserving life and minimising the consequences of injury and illness until such help is obtained”,
or as the
“treatment of minor injuries which would otherwise receive no treatment or which do not need treatment by a medical practitioner or nurse”.
As the Minister said, first aid will remain exempt from registration, but it is not entirely clear whether that remains the case where it is provided by a healthcare professional. The CQC website says that first aid is exempt where it is provided by a non-healthcare professional with first aid training or by a healthcare professional who is acting in an emergency or unexpected situation, but if a person is at a sports event specifically to provide healthcare for people who might have an injury, is that an unexpected event? Does it count as first aid, or is it TDDI?
I note that many of the people who responded to the consultation said that it is not clear where first aid finishes and TDDI starts. It is important that the Government define that more clearly. If they do not, there is a risk that people will not provide healthcare when they could provide it perfectly competently, because they are concerned they do not have the registration status to do so and fear the sanctions that may be imposed, when those sanctions have been decided.
Some of this might be covered by the guidance. The recent Government scoping exercise planned 49 types of guidance, including the purple book and the green book. But it is notable that whereas the Health and Safety Executive used to publish the purple and green books or their equivalents together, they are now provided separately; the purple book costs £50 to read an online copy and the green book costs £30 to read an online copy. That might not be of any particular consequence to Twickenham, Wembley or Manchester Arena, but it is of consequence to people running very small events, whether sporting, cultural or musical.
Can the Minister say when the event healthcare standards will be published? He is asking us to vote to hold people to a standard he has not written yet. Will it be free to access? What consideration will be given to support specific courses? The Rugby Football Union, for example, provides specific courses for healthcare provision at its matches. What role will it play in event healthcare standards? What provision will be made for children? Children are not just small adults and specific healthcare considerations may apply.
Another issue, which the Minister himself touched on, is whether the CQC is fit for purpose. The Secretary of State said that it is not. I have not heard the Minister say what additional resources will be provided to the CQC to deliver the additional regulations. There is a difference between healthcare providers in a muddy field or on the side of a hill compared with medical care providers in a hospital with a full suite of equipment. What extra training will the CQC need to regulate this? What will be provided? Is the Minister confident that it can be done, particularly in time for the deadlines imposed by the regulations we are being asked to vote for today, given that the event healthcare standard has not even been written or published yet, and given the Government’s propensity to delay the publication of things such as the workforce plan, which was due over a year ago and has still not been published?
Another issue is mountain rescue. I should declare an interest as a former member of a mountain rescue service—the Minister is smiling. The service follows insurance licensing rules and the purple book. It also has training for remote rescue medical technicians that is governed by the Mountain Rescue England and Wales medical sub-committee under the auspices of the University of Lancashire. It has expressed significant concerns. First, if there is a healthcare professional on the team, what effect do these regulations have? Will they be able to carry the controlled drugs that they are able to provide for the rescue services if they need to administer healthcare on the side of the mountain? These are volunteers, not paid employees. Who will do the paperwork, who will pay for it and who will fund it? Will the Government consider exempting mountain rescue services and volunteers from the charges?
Will England be a less attractive place for events? The costs and numbers appear far higher than the Government estimate. Sports bodies have done a survey that suggests that almost half of doctors will withdraw from doing voluntary events because of the regulations. What about the wider costs for sports and events? They currently face costs for national insurance, employment costs, rising inflation and Martyn’s law, and now there will be the cost of these regulations. What sanctions will there be? It will be against the law to breach the regulations, but what will happen to people who do?
What will be the effect on international sporting events? Some international teams bring their own medical teams with them. The individual medical team applies for temporary GMC registration, usually a couple of months before they come over for events. They may provide TDDI to those in their care. Will that be affected by the regulations? Will they need to register or not? Physiotherapists too have asked whether the care they provide will count as TDDI or as first aid. Will they need to register?
In the previous Government’s assessment in 2023, the cost was put at £1,200 per registration and an ongoing £1,900 per annum. What will be the effect of meeting the event healthcare standard on the smallest events and how will volunteers manage those costs?
The Government have created an exemption for transport within a site. I want to understand why. For example, my husband was injured in an accident at Silverstone a couple of years ago. He received healthcare in the car, and then as he was being transported to the ambulance building within the complex. He was given excellent care, for which I am very grateful. The helicopter then came and took him to Coventry hospital. Why have the Government chosen to regulate the on-site care that a person receives in the vehicle they were driving, for example, and the care provided in the hospital, but not in the gap between the two? That seems a little peculiar to me. The Minister has obviously thought about it carefully, and I wonder what reason he will give.
The healthcare professional in charge at some events can be quite junior. I went to an event with 18,000 people and met the medical team there, which was led by a doctor three years post qualification. That seemed quite a junior doctor to be covering a whole medical team. I also noted that the responsible officer was his employee. Although there is no rule that stops a responsible officer being an employee, I should explain that the responsible officer is the doctor who signs off on one’s annual appraisal and General Medical Council revalidation every five years. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest if a person’s boss is asking to be signed off. Can the Minister please look at that to see whether it is appropriate a responsible officer to be an employee, as that was also happening in an event setting?
Although I think the draft regulations are born from a good place with an important motivation, and it is important that they are done correctly, we do not currently know their cost, effects, scope or standards, including their effects on grassroots event boards. We therefore cannot have confidence that they will achieve the goal we want. Everyone in this room—everyone in the country—wants everyone to receive the best possible healthcare, but I am not convinced at this stage that the Government have really got this right.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I first want to express my condolences to all those affected by the Manchester Arena attack.
The Lib Dems support bringing providers under CQC regulation, as the draft regulations would do, but we need to be careful about the impact on smaller organisations, as the shadow Minister says.
I reiterate concerns raised by mountain rescue teams about the impacts that the draft regulations will have on their ability to provide services at temporary sporting events in remote locations, such as fell races or mountain bike events. They have emphatically said to us that they will cease providing rescue cover at those events if the regulations are applied. Will the Minister meet mountain rescue representatives and consider their calls to amend the legislation to provide an exemption on rescue cover? Because of those concerns, the Lib Dems will abstain today.
Dr Ahmed
Thank you again for chairing the Committee, Mr Stringer. The shadow Minister is very knowledgeable about these matters. Like her, I have been an attending doctor at events, and I am very sensitive to the representations she made, as well those made by other colleagues over the last few weeks and months. Much of what she talked about relates to the definition of “quality”, but defining that is not for the Government but for experts, clinicians and regulatory bodies, which is why it is so important that we give the CQC the power to do this.
I do not want small events and village fêtes to be overregulated; that is not the intention of this legislation. Nor do I want individual doctors, clinicians and other volunteers to be over-burdened with financial registration fees, and we will look into this with the CQC. Given the changes that have been made to the CQC governance architecture, I believe that it is absolutely the right body to do this work, which is basically an extension of what it already does in hospitals, care homes and GP surgeries up and down the land.
The tragic events in Manchester highlighted the care gap, and this Government intend to ensure that it is closed for the benefit of our citizens attending events up and down the county. By amending the CQC’s regulation, event organisers and those attending events can be reassured that the medical cover provided is adequate and of a suitable quality. Regardless of the size and type of event, a basal level of quality must be assured.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister may be about to answer exactly what constitutes first aid, but I have been looking up the definition of TDDI on the CQC site, which seems to cover mental health. Thinking particularly about festivals, where health incidents arising from drug misuse may lead to associated psychotic episodes and suicidal ideation, would the legislation cover volunteer organisations helping people on that side of things?
Dr Ahmed
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point; I am very happy for the CQC to take that away and answer her specific question. On the issue of what constitutes first aid or more complex medical care, all of us who have been medical cover at events have sometimes come across the incongruous situation where being a medically qualified doctor is sometimes not enough to provide first aid. Those incongruities have existed for as long as I have been in practice, and I do not think the regulations particularly change that. It is often down to individuals’ interpretation of first aid, as well as their insurance cover, and I am sure that we do not want to overly complicate this matter.
Dr Ahmed
The hon. Lady knows that I often indulge her interventions, but not today. These regulations are a response to a public inquiry and are designed to ensure that the CQC has the scope and oversight of events and arenas. It is for the CQC over the next 15 months to provide some of these definitions and clarity, and they are absolutely the right people to do it. On that basis, I ask colleagues to support this very necessary measure to protect those the people we were elected to serve.
Question put.
Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The draft order was laid before the House on 26 February 2026. Automatic enrolment is a major policy success that has substantially increased workplace pension participation. The National Employment Savings Trust has been central to that progress and remains critical to the system’s continued effectiveness. NEST now supports nearly 14 million members, around one third of the working-age population, providing a low-cost, accessible pension scheme for employers and workers across the UK.
Subject to Parliament’s approval, the draft order amends the National Employment Savings Trust Order 2010, which sets out the legislative framework for NEST’s operation. The amendment will allow NEST to expand its retirement options to include flexi-access drawdown. FAD is a retirement income option that allows individuals with a defined contribution pension to withdraw any amount from their pension pot, while keeping the remaining funds invested.
The draft order also enables NEST to offer a scheme pension paid directly by the scheme administrator, or through an appointed insurer, and it gives the trustee authority on a member’s death to provide a dependant’s scheme pension or drawdown pension to eligible individuals, including dependants, nominees and successors.
Together, these measures give NEST the flexibility to offer a full range of retirement and post-death benefits consistent with other major pension schemes and wider industry practice. The Pension Schemes Bill includes guided retirement measures that will require pension schemes to design and make available default pension plans with a sustainable income for the majority of savers. The reforms made through this amendment will ensure that NEST can deliver on those expectations and provide its members with a level of choice, flexibility and support comparable to those of other large-scale providers.
NEST members currently have three main options at retirement: they can buy an annuity; take an uncrystallised funds pension lump sum; or take their pot as cash or transfer to another provider. Since NEST was created, we recognise that pension freedoms have transformed the market. Savers elsewhere can access a far wider and more flexible range of retirement choices—flexibilities that the 2010 Order prevents NEST from offering. As a result, 14 million NEST members are left with fewer in-scheme options than those in comparable pension arrangements elsewhere, which cannot be right or fair.
In the 2023 consultation, “Helping savers understand their pensions choices”, most of the 46 industry and member groups that responded supported allowing NEST to provide default pension options. They recognised NEST’s scale and unique role, and they agreed that its members should receive fair and equivalent treatment, while also being clear that NEST should not gain any commercial advantage. Since the consultation, the Department for Work and Pensions has worked closely with NEST and the wider pensions industry to uphold the principle of fairness.
That work culminates in the amendment before us today, which will allow NEST’s 14 million members to benefit from modern, flexible retirement choices, without distorting competition across the market. Without this change, NEST—as the largest master trust in the country—would be unable to offer flexi-access drawdown or fully meet the expectations of guided retirement, including providing the vast majority of its members with a simple, dependable default income in later life. That would fall hardest on NEST members, many of whom are lower-paid workers, and therefore most in need of secure and straightforward retirement income options.
I am sure all Committee members would agree that we cannot allow that group of savers to miss out on a safe, dependable default pension income, particularly at a time when rising cost of living pressures make a reliable and predictable retirement income more important than ever. I commend the draft order to the House.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As with many areas of Government policy, there is a degree of consensus across the House; the draft order is no different, and the official Opposition will not oppose it today.
Auto-enrolment, alongside the creation of NEST, was an obvious achievement of the Cameron Government. It marked a fundamental shift in how people across the country look at retirement, encouraging millions to save and take long-term financial planning seriously. The liberalisation of one of the NEST pension schemes by enabling flexi-access drawdown is a logical next step. It aligns with the broader principle of pension freedoms introduced under previous Conservative Governments and represents a positive development for workers and savers within NEST.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points with the Minister. First, the pensions industry is uncomfortable with the significant use of secondary legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill, but we are where we are with that. Secondly, as I have touched on, the official Opposition strongly support the principle of pension freedoms. With that in mind, will the Minister revisit previous amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would allow greater access to pension savings for the purpose of obtaining financial advice? Perhaps even more radically, will he introduce the sidecar savings pot discussed during consideration of the Bill? People under the age of 57 sometimes fall back on that in hard times.
Finally, while reforms to promote pension freedoms are a positive step, the situation ultimately depends on the adequacy of savings and investment performance. Where individuals have not saved enough or where returns have fallen short, those freedoms risk offering a limited practical benefit. Could the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to increase auto-enrolment contribution rates, and will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not use the so-called “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill in a way that prioritises public finances at the expense of individuals’ pension pots?
The Opposition will not be opposing the statutory instrument, but I emphasise that cross-party co-operation has long been the foundation of successful pensions policy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to listen to Opposition parties and the industry to reconsider the inclusion of any form of mandation clauses in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Broadly speaking, the Liberal Democrats support this measure. However, we note that an assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions suggests that 77% of NEST members are likely to change their behaviour: a huge number of people will be looking for advice.
As the Minister will be aware, one of the many amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats to the Pension Schemes Bill called for free, impartial advice to be made available to those people when they are looking at their pensions and other issues. I invite the Minister to say a few words on whether the Government believe that the guidance infrastructure is sufficient for the members of this scheme and others to access the free, impartial advice that they need when making such big decisions.
Andrew Western
I welcome the broad support from both colleagues who have spoken. I was surprised that the hon. Member for St Albans resisted the temptation to point out that describing the coalition Government as the Cameron Government when things are positive is a particularly interesting tack; I credit Steve Webb for a lot of the positive work on auto-enrolment and broader pension changes.
On the FAD changes, I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s support. This is an important set of changes, and I am delighted that he is supporting them—not least because his Government consulted on the issue back in ’22-23. Given the broad support, I think we can all agree that this is an overdue change. It is one that I welcome.
On the question of the use of secondary regulations and the concern that the industry has in that regard, I will take that on the chin: the industry is making a fair criticism and we will engage with it on that. On the particulars of this change, as a result of the consultation we know that the industry is broadly content with what is proposed here; I hope that that is part of the reason why the Opposition has determined not to oppose these changes.
On the question of revisiting previous amendments, including the Liberal Democrat one, we will not be looking to reverse previous decisions that the Government have made—the shadow Minister is clearly doing his job in asking us to do so—and that includes decisions on mandation changes.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
If we are going to offer flexi-access drawdown, does the Minister agree that it would be better if members of defined contribution schemes had greater awareness of what their pension schemes were invested in? The latest research suggests that more than 50% of people in DC schemes do not know what they are invested in. To make informed decisions, does it not behove all pension fund holders to make themselves aware of what they are invested in?
Andrew Western
I suggest that it is always good practice for an individual to look at how their pensions and other investments are invested. I am more than happy to ask the pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specifics of whether we are looking at any work in this space to enable people to have greater access to that information. It is best if I take that question away and come back.
It is also best if I come back to the hon. Member for St Albans on her question about behavioural change. As the hon. Member said, 77% is a significant number when we are talking about 14 million members. Guided retirement sets out the principles and framework for how schemes should support the vast majority of members with the big decisions as they move into saving for retirement. We will clearly need to do a range of work to ensure that proper support is available in the necessary amount, but I will ensure that she receives an update on the specific activities that the Department is undertaking to move us forward in that regard. It is a reasonable question, and I will ensure that she gets a detailed response.
The amendment itself simply enables NEST to provide for the accumulation options required to deliver on the broad principles of the changes that we are seeking to make. Given the overall support for the measures, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household (Nesil Caliskan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
I cannot tell you, Mr Twigg, how very delighted I am to be opening this debate. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 March. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out why they matter, why change is needed and how the Government’s proposals strike the right balance between protecting consumers and supporting a successful travel sector.
As I think all hon. Members would recognise, the travel sector plays a vital role in the lives of millions of people across the UK. A holiday is often the most significant discretionary purchase a family makes in a year, and our constituents will often spend many weeks saving for it. Holidays are a source of joy, support people’s wellbeing, bring people together and help families to explore new places in the UK and overseas. The sector is also economically significant, supporting around £58 billion of the UK’s economic output and more than 1 million jobs.
Package holidays remain a central part of the market, and the UK package holiday sector alone was valued at around £11 billion in 2022. From high street travel agents to airlines, accommodation providers and small domestic tourism businesses, package holidays are a central part of the market. Each year, around 15 million to 20 million people in the UK take a package holiday, often choosing them over other types of travel because of their added convenience and protections. The Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 are the cornerstone of consumer protection in the sector, and the changes we propose will support businesses to thrive and grow while ensuring robust consumer safeguards.
The package travel regulations exist to make the market work effectively. They give consumers confidence when they are paying for travel in advance, often months before departure, and give businesses a clear framework in which to operate. In practical terms, the regulations provide a framework of financial protection if a company becomes insolvent, require clear information to be given before booking, set out responsibilities if something goes wrong during a holiday, and protect consumers from unexpected price rises after a booking has been made. Those protections matter both to people and to the industry, but they can only work well if they are clear, understood and proportionate. [Interruption.] Do I continue, Mr Twigg?
Nesil Caliskan
An additional pressure has just entered the room.
Why and what changes are needed? Over time, it has become clear that parts of the current framework are not working as well as intended and are creating confusion for consumers, as well as unnecessary complexity for businesses. Having engaged extensively with a range of stakeholders across industry and consumer groups, we have prioritised a number of targeted reforms to support both consumers and traders.
First, we will remove the category of linked travel arrangements altogether. Currently, those exist as looser arrangements than holiday packages that require businesses to take out insolvency protections. However, there is clear evidence that they are not achieving their purpose. Many consumers do not understand when they are protected and when they are not, and many businesses struggle to understand exactly what their obligations are. That uncertainty benefits no one. It can undermine consumer confidence, increase the number of disputes and place unnecessary burdens on businesses, especially small operators.
Our changes will mean that, in the future, when consumers make bookings in circumstances that closely resemble a package—such as booking multiple travel services through the same trader in a single visit—they will now receive a full package of protections. That will align the law more closely with how people understand their bookings in practice and will strengthen consumer protection. At the same time, we will reduce burdens on businesses that simply facilitate a later booking of a second service within 24 hours. That will allow, for example, domestic tourism businesses to refer customers to one another without triggering wider obligations, supporting collaboration and growth while ensuring that consumers remain protected under wider consumer law.
Secondly, recognising the complex set of relationships that are required to organise a package holiday, we will introduce new provisions to clarify requirements around refunds and redress for businesses working with third parties. When services are cancelled, travel organisers will now benefit from refunds from those third parties within 14 days, bringing their rights of refund in line with those consumers. We will also update provisions to give organisers greater clarity about their ability to obtain redress from third party suppliers. That will help ensure that financial risk sits more fairly across the supply chain.
Let me turn to the impact on consumers and businesses. Strong and consistent protections build consumer confidence to book package holidays, which supports demand and benefits compliant businesses across the travel sector. For consumers, the changes will make the regulations clearer and easier to understand by removing the confusing linked travel arrangements category and clarifying when package rules apply. Clearer rules reduce disputes and uncertainty, helping consumers to book with confidence and reinforcing trust in the travel market. Consumers return to businesses that treat them fairly, creating growth that supports the economy.
For businesses that provide package holidays, the proposals reduce unnecessary complexity and support more straightforward compliance. At the same time, clarifying the right to redress from third party suppliers helps to ensure that costs fall to where failures occur, ensuring a fairer distribution of financial risk. That makes it easier for businesses to plan, manage cash flow and work collaboratively across the sector. Subject to parliamentary approval, the new regulations will commence in April 2027, to allow some time for travel operators to adapt their approach for the new arrangements.
In summary, the regulations underpin the complex but vital relationship between consumers and travel businesses. Consumers rely on businesses to deliver holidays that are often paid for well in advance. Businesses rely on consumer confidence to invest, operate and grow. The regulations help that relationship to function by setting clear rights and responsibilities on both sides.
The changes we are making preserve the core bargain—strong, trusted consumer protections alongside a framework that is workable and proportionate for business. The reforms demonstrate the Government’s commitment to maintaining strong consumer protections, while also reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens, to create an environment where travel businesses can thrive, contributing to economic growth across the county. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair presiding over us, Mr Twigg. I am very grateful to the Government Whip for setting out the regulations. It is clear that this is a matter of great importance across Government, and it is an important matter for the Opposition, too. In fact, the regulations carry on work that the Conservatives started—work that the Labour Government are now continuing.
The aim has always been for reforms that support our domestic tourism and hospitality industries, while still providing appropriate protections for consumers. That is exactly what our goal should be with all regulations. I am pleased that, in this area at least, the Government seem to recognise that growth is increasingly being held back by red tape that brings little benefit to anyone. At least one of the four changes before us reduces regulation, which is a good thing and something that I applaud.
While I welcome the sensible measures to alleviate the regulatory burden, however, we must always remember that there is little point having pro-growth deregulation while increasing anti-growth taxation. Over the past two years, many in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries have felt like a target—in fact, many have felt like target No. 1—when it comes to additional red tape and higher taxes. At least two of the four changes we are considering still act to increase regulation. I have a few questions on those changes.
First, as type A linked travel arrangements become absorbed into the package definition, in the explanatory memorandum the Department has clearly set out that this will increase the regulatory burden. The ongoing compliance costs for businesses offering those services will increase. Can the Minister now give us an estimate of how many businesses the Department feels this will impact, and can she confirm that she has at least met with some of those businesses to hear their views on how the regulations will impact their day-to-day operations?
Secondly, as the Government Whip set out, the regulations also establish a 14-day period for the refund of cancelled services. Can the Minister therefore set out the rationale for arriving at that 14-day period? When the Government come up with these periods, I am always interested to know how they arrived at, say, 14 days rather than another period. Is there a specific reason for that number of days?
Finally, I was contacted overnight by Expedia Group, which has set out its detailed thoughts on the regulations. I will write to the Department with the concerns it has raised. Its requests include that the Government publish guidance defining the terms “single visit” and “facilitate” within the regulations before commencement takes effect, so that operators such as Expedia have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition. On that specific point, I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain her views.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
Thank you for chairing, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for arriving late—I was confused about whether there was another Division in the Chamber. I thank the Government Whip for stepping in and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, for his remarks.
The regulations build on legislation from the previous Government, and we have worked really closely with the sector, which is an important driver of growth in the UK. Great holidays bring so much joy to consumers all over the country, and our reforms are all about strengthening the package—which the hon. Gentleman touched on—for the travel framework, ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from strong protections, while clarifying those obligations to ease the burdens on business, supporting the sector and supporting a healthy and thriving economy.
The shadow Minister asked a couple of questions that I will respond to, first on the cost and the impact on businesses. The policy will deliver a net benefit to business of £19 million over 10 years, with £98 million in costs outweighed by £117 million in savings. The analysis considered a range of sources, including feedback from the consultation.
The best estimate we can point to from published analysis is from the 2023 impact assessment of the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, as the hon. Gentleman might know. That analysis estimates that 13,979 UK businesses sell packages. I hope that provides him with clarity on the costs.
Gareth Davies
Can the Minister clarify whether she has met any businesses since taking office in this specific industry, and not just relied on the 2023 piece of work?
Kate Dearden
I was getting to those points—I thank the hon. Gentleman for the nudge.
Kate Dearden
We have expressed our intention for the regulations to come into force on 6 April 2027. These regulations are commencing next year to give businesses almost a year to implement the changes, and they have been aware of these changes since the Government response in December.
We have been working closely with industry to develop guidance and will continue to do so in the coming months. Officials have already conducted engagement and consulted on the regulation at pace. It is really important for these changes that we work closely with the industry and that it welcomes them. We want to make sure we work closely with the industry on that guidance.
The shadow Minister also asked about the 14-day refund period for businesses. Travel organisers are required to refund consumers within 14 days of cancellation, but sometimes that will be because of a failure from a third party. Introducing a 14-day refund period for businesses from those third parties will create more certainty for travel organisers, helping them to manage cash flow and recover costs. That covers most of his questions, but I am happy to answer any more if he has any. Otherwise, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.