Grand Committee
Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 14 May. This instrument seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market, the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain. Before I turn to the provisions in detail, I will outline some of the background to the capacity market.
Great Britain’s capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to maintain security of electricity supply by ensuring that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future demand predictions. Through auctions held annually one year and four years ahead of delivery, the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios is secured based on advice from the National Energy System Operator, NESO. Participants secure agreements through these auctions, requiring them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is a technology-neutral scheme that pays providers for making capacity available when needed, covering generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection.
Since its introduction, the capacity market has contributed to investment in around 20 gigawatts of new capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to meet our clean power 2030 target. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly amend the implementing legislation based on what is required to best ensure continued security of electricity supply.
This instrument will amend 11 regulations and introduce one new regulation in the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, amend two regulations in the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014 and revoke one chapter of the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019. The draft instrument will ensure that assets awarded a contract for difference, or CfD, following a direction from the Secretary of State will be allowed to participate in the capacity market until the start of the asset’s CfD support. This will better align the capacity market with our clean power 2030 ambition and ensure a smooth transition from payments under the capacity market to a CfD.
This draft instrument will strengthen delivery assurance by increasing termination fees and credit cover to restore their value broadly in line with 2016 levels in real terms. It will also make several amendments and a revocation to ensure that the legislation delivers on the policy intent. As a result, the Secretary of State and NESO will have the power to extend the pre-qualification deadline for an auction following a major IT outage. It will align the capacity market timetable with the ongoing market-wide half-hourly settlement reforms. Finally, it will also remove obsolete provisions.
Two public consultations were conducted in relation to the measures in this instrument towards the end of 2025. Respondents were broadly supportive of the measures included in the instrument that clarified regulations or enabled participants awarded a direct award CfD to manage their transition off capacity market payments. Responses to the delivery assurance reforms were more mixed, with some respondents raising concerns about the impact of higher termination fees and credit cover. The Government have proceeded on the basis that these increases are necessary to realign delivery incentives and strengthen delivery assurance. The changes are proportionate, aligning fees with their real-terms equivalent values in 2016, and will apply only to participants entering the scheme after the instrument comes into force.
We have also made several technical amendments to the capacity market rules, which support the changes made by these regulations, in the form of the Capacity Market (Amendment) (No.2) Rules 2026 laid before the House on 14 May. A final set of amendments to the capacity market rules will be laid on 13 July.
To conclude, this instrument will enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market, so that it can deliver on its objectives, improve delivery assurance and ensure that the legislation is as clear as possible for all participants. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity with which the instrument was introduced. The capacity market has served us well, and we welcome this examination and updating of its functionality so that it can continue to do so long into the future.
From these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have long championed a decentralised, resilient and, above all, clean energy system. We recognise the necessity of the capacity market as a mechanism that keeps the light on during periods of high demand and low generation, and we support the broad thrust of these technical reforms. They should improve confidence that providers can deliver on their obligations, increase value for money and help to further integrate low-carbon technologies into the market. These regulations may be highly technical, but it is important that they are looked at closely, so I hope the Minister will forgive me in advance for asking a couple of technical questions from these Benches.
I welcome the Government’s intent to strengthen the delivery assurance. The 30% increase in termination fees, and in initial credit cover from £10,000 to £13,000 per megawatt, rising to £19,500 for new-build units that miss their 11th-month financial commitment milestone, is a reasonable restoration of real-terms value, given that these figures have not moved since 2016. I find it surprising that these instruments, which govern so finely balanced a market, have not been updated for over a decade. As I understand it, even with these new regulations, there is no standing process to ensure that future regular updates are in place. Were such processes contemplated and examined in the work that was done in preparing this? What guarantees do we have that we will continue to see future upgrades to this important marketplace?
The plan to suspend capacity payments the moment an insolvency termination notice is issued is good stewardship of public money, and we do not oppose it. I am, however, concerned that in seeking real-terms parity, these changes may inadvertently raise the drawbridge behind the incumbents already inside the market. A near doubling of credit cover for those who miss a milestone is a serious sum for smaller storage developers or for demand-side responses, even if it is entirely reasonable for a more established or bigger generator. What assessment has been made of the impact of these credit cover changes on the smaller and newer entrants and on the diversity of technologies bidding in future auctions?
On the new provisions in relation to severe IT issues, which would allow the delivery body to extend the pre-qualification window by up to five working days, we generally welcome this flexibility and understand why this has been updated. But what objective threshold defines “severe”? Bidders deserve certainty that such extensions will be applied consistently and transparently and that they will not be left to the delivery body’s unreviewable discretion. I am not asking the Minister to be too specific, but are these changes partly motivated by any broader concerns about the future functioning of or threats to these systems?
On the treatment of contracts for difference, the instrument will allow a generator that receives a CfD via direct Secretary of State award to pre-qualify for the capacity market, provided that there is no overlap in the delivery period, yet auction-allocated CfD holders are not afforded the same route. I ask the Minister to explain the policy rationale for that distinction and confirm that it will not in any way create a two-tier system for low-carbon generators, depending on how they come by their contracts.
On the shift to accelerated reconciliation, cutting the final settlement from 14 months to four to align with the market-wide half-hourly settlement, we support modernisation, but faster reconciliation means less time to correct errors that might have crept in. What support is being offered, particularly to smaller suppliers, which may lack the systems to absorb the increased administrative velocity?
Finally, the instrument confirms that traditional gas-fired generation continues to sit comfortably within the capacity market alongside wind, solar, storage and demand-side response. Indeed, the market remains technologically neutral. It is worth saying clearly that our systems are among the most resilient in the world and these sensible upgrades will help to keep them that way.
I remind the Minister that this instrument, as sensible as it is, is no substitute for the deeper electricity market reforms that this country still needs. We continue to urge the Government to extend contracts for difference from 15 to 25 years. I have previously talked to the Minister about Greenpeace’s Power Shift proposals and the Minister has spoken about the openness of the Government to perhaps looking at a strategic gas reserve outside of the market. Obviously, those are conversations for another day. We are beginning to see signs of the decoupling of the gas and electricity prices, but more must be done. These changes would unlock future investment in renewables, strengthen our energy security and pass on cheaper home-grown power to consumers. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how the Government plan to keep the capacity market under review and reform it further in the future and I look forward to his response.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of Amey, an infrastructure and support service company in the UK, Acteon, a global subsea engineering company with interests in offshore wind and oil and gas production facilities, and Buckthorn Partners, which invests in energy transition companies.
I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and for broadening our debate to a wider consideration of the capacity market, which allows me to make a few additional comments. As he said, these regulations make technical amendments to the capacity market, so let me address that first. They provide reliable power generators with CMU auctions at either one year, T-1, or four years, T-4, ahead of when they must deliver future electricity capacity. Does he agree that this instrument allows the capacity market delivery body to extend the window for generators to apply to pre-qualify for the capacity market in the event of a severe IT issue? I believe that he does, but I would like him to confirm that.
I ask the Minister to confirm that the changes in these regulations will not be retroactive. Again, I understand that they will not, but it would be good to have that on the record. As I read it, the instrument accelerates the timetable for reconciliation runs in which the CM settlement body must make reconciliation payments to generators, subject to Ofgem approving them to do so. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee when the new timetable is expected to be called into force.
The most recent T-1 auction for 2025-26 secured 7.9 gigawatts of capacity compared with 7.6 gigawatts in 2024. The most recent T-4 auction secured 43.1 gigawatts of capacity compared with 42.8 gigawatts in 2024. Let us be clear and blunt about this: the public are being forced to pay an extra £600 million this year to ensure that there is back-up capacity for the already more expensive renewables that they are subsidising. Conventional forms of power generation from existing generating capacity, including nuclear and gas, were the most common source of capacity in the most recent auction, with 3.6 gigawatts of capacity coming from nuclear and 2.4 gigawatts coming from gas. Electricity supply from gas and overseas interconnectors were the most common source of capacity in the most recent T-4 auction, with 27.3 gigawatts of capacity coming from gas and 6.8 gigawatts coming from interconnectors.
It is self-evident that, despite the Secretary of State’s zealous opposition to gas, this instrument demonstrates that it is still needed and demand for it is actually rising as intermittent renewables increase. It is a function of the need for firm and predictable power when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. When preparing last week for this important debate, I looked at our high level of reliance and dependence on gas. In our generation mix, when I looked at my watch early in the morning, we were just 19% zero carbon as the country woke to turn on the kettles and the lights and to start the day: no solar, 6% wind, 8% biomass, 12% nuclear, 15% imports and 58% gas. That is how dependent we are on gas to provide baseload power, and we will remain dependent on it for many decades to come.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their important contributions to this debate. As I had slightly anticipated, the very specialist nature of elements of these regulations has been somewhat expanded on in the questions that have come forward in this afternoon’s debate. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is used to me saying, there are some areas where these things are really a debate for another day, but I will attempt to answer as well as I can the particular and constructive way in which the noble Lord put his wider points on the table.
To start with the narrower points on the regulations, concentrated on by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—I very much welcome his general support for this SI—he asks the key question, which I have asked officials myself: why have we not done anything about the level of the delivery arrangements, which were there in 2016 and are there today? Why are we therefore now raising those by 30%? On the main issue with the purpose of that raising, I cannot answer for why things were not done between 2016 and 2024, but I agree with the noble Lord that perhaps some consideration of a stepped change upwards, on an index-based arrangement or some such, might have been a good idea during those years. However, that is not the case and we are now faced with the position that we have to get these levels back to those 2016 levels to ensure, among other things, that there is a proper penalty consideration for providers who undertake participation in the capacity market, win a place in an auction and then, importantly, when it is their turn to come on stream, because of a particular issue that needs to be resolved, simply do not do so and cannot do so because the penalties for not doing so are so relatively slight. It is important that we know that there is a properly regulated delivery arrangement so that we can genuinely rely on the capacity market to operate itself properly when those calls are made.
This rise, although perhaps not ideally graduated for the reasons I have mentioned, is nevertheless proportionate. It takes us back to the situation that we were in, in the earlier days of the capacity market. It is a question not of introducing much larger fees but of getting us back to a position where the guarantees are affordable and the delivery mechanisms are not overly punitive, so that we can say that this is a reliable market for the future.
The noble Earl asked about IT issues and what a severe IT outage is. In essence, the SI is drafted to give the Secretary of State some leeway in determining a serious IT outage—and not just that but whether it affects the operation of the capacity markets, bidding and settlement arrangements. In that context, the Secretary of State would have the ability to determine what a severe outage is: obviously, it is not the lights going off for two minutes, when everyone is happy again afterwards. It would be a serious issue within the range that the Secretary of State can consider.
The noble Earl also asked about the provision in these regulations that relates to the holder of a capacity market arrangement being able to transition it to a CfD at a future date. As he rightly points out, that does not apply to those who have allocation via an auction but applies to those who have allocation by specification. Under those arrangements, if a body is seeking an extension to its existing operations, for example, and has negotiated an allocated CfD to allow that to happen, that organisation may be in receipt of capacity market arrangements until that CfD has been allocated. However, once that CfD has been allocated, it would clearly not be eligible for capacity market arrangements, because it has a CfD and the two cannot be run at the same time. The solution under those circumstances is to enable the body that has sought that extension to run its capacity market arrangements until such time as that CfD comes in—it may be a little down the line—and, at that time, to make a smooth transition from one to the other, but not to run both at the same time. That clears up a number of issues about the allocation of CfDs.
The noble Earl asks about half-hour settlements and the arrangements that smaller companies might make around the burdens related to them. We think that they are also fairly proportional, as these are not particularly onerous burdens to place on companies if they have undertaken a capacity market arrangement. The bidding process should properly have taken them into account before the company went into the capacity market in the first place. I believe I have addressed most of the noble Earl’s technical issues but, if there are any still outstanding, I am happy to write to him to clarify those points.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised a number of very important but rather wider points. His first question was about whether the public are going to pay more and more for capacity market payments over a period. I cannot give him complete comfort on that point because, as he will know, both the T-1 and T-4 auctions will come forward at a settlement level based on what capacity is required—or thought to be required —at that particular time, how many people are competing for that particular capacity market, and how things may then turn out in terms of how the auction works.
REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the REACH (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2024–26 (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before this House on 24 March. They will amend UK REACH, which is a central part of the framework governing the safe use of chemicals in Great Britain. EU REACH continues to apply in Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework. UK REACH retains the core approach and key principles of the EU system, including its fundamental aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. I want to be clear from the outset that nothing in the instrument changes those aims or reduces those protections.
The instrument will make two key changes. The first change will extend the deadlines in Article 127P by which registrants, namely manufacturers and importers, must submit information on their chemicals to the Health and Safety Executive, the HSE.
At EU exit, transitional measures were introduced to support a smooth and orderly transition to the UK REACH regime, including deadlines to submit complete registration data. Under the current legislation, those deadlines fall on 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030. The most hazardous and highest-tonnage substances must be registered first. This SI will extend the deadlines to 27 October 2029, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2031 respectively. I recognise that these deadlines have been extended previously. Indeed, this is the third extension since UK REACH replaced EU REACH in January 2021. I therefore want to address directly why a further extension is necessary.
In 2023, the previous Government extended the deadlines in response to transitional challenges. Chief among these was the estimated £2 billion cost to industry of acquiring the information required under the existing registration model. That extension allowed exploration of an alternative transitional registration model, known as the ATRm, with the aim of developing a fairer, more proportionate and workable system. Following the general election, this Government reassessed their broader approach to chemicals regulation while completing the exploration of the ATRm. This work reflects our improved relationship with the European Union.
There was a consultation in 2024 and we then published our proposed approach to the ATRm on 30 March 2026, providing long-awaited clarity for industry. The ATRm will reduce the information that businesses must submit for transitional UK REACH registrations. It is expected to reduce the one-off costs to industry of those registrations by around 70%. At the same time, the model will maintain the important protections provided by UK REACH. It recognises that companies placing chemicals on the Great Britain market remain responsible for understanding and managing the risks that those chemicals may present to human health and the environment. Registration will therefore remain central to ensuring that businesses meet that responsibility and properly manage the risks arising from the hazardous properties of chemicals and how they are used in Great Britain.
The Government are acting decisively by bringing forward the legislation on the ATRm so that industry knows what it needs to do in good time for the extended deadlines. However, the ATRm cannot be implemented in time for the first existing deadline of 27 October 2026. It is therefore necessary to extend the deadlines once more to ensure that we put in place a robust and effective policy framework. Extending the deadlines will provide the additional time needed to finalise and implement the ATRm in a proportionate and workable way. It will also provide businesses with the certainty that they need to plan for compliance and help to maintain continuity in important supply chains. Without this extension, businesses would have to meet the existing deadlines and submit the full registration information currently required by UK REACH, despite the Government’s clear intention to replace those requirements and reduce the £2 billion cost to businesses by around 70%.
I turn to the second change introduced by this instrument. The regulations amend the deadlines by which the HSE must complete compliance checks on 20% of registration dossiers. These dates must remain aligned with the revised registration submission deadlines. Otherwise, the HSE could be required to complete compliance checks before the relevant registration information had been submitted. Under these regulations, the compliance check deadlines will move to 27 October 2030, 27 October 2032 and 27 October 2036. The time available between each registration deadline and its corresponding compliance check deadline remains unchanged.
As with the previous amendment to UK REACH made using powers in the Environment Act 2021, we have followed the safeguards set out in Schedule 21 to that Act. We have worked closely with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who have both consented to this instrument. We conducted a public consultation to ensure that stakeholders could provide their views and evidence.
We have also published a statement confirming that the amendments are consistent with the overarching aims of UK REACH, including the objective of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment. We have published an impact assessment that demonstrates that extending the deadlines will reduce unnecessary costs to businesses while maintaining an effective regulatory framework. The impact assessment builds on the options assessment published in March 2026, which the Regulatory Policy Committee rated fit for purpose.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful to the Minister for presenting these regulations before the Committee. I probably ought to say that I was a Member of the European Parliament when the original REACH agreement and regulations came forward.
I am also grateful to the Minister for commenting on the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I have just two questions on that. First, the Minister said right at the end that legislation and guidance will be published next year. I do not sit on that committee but, from the way I read that report, the final date of the extended timetable and when it will reach its long-term end remain a concern. The committee asked us to raise—I think it is a very good point—the intended timetable for the full implementation of UK REACH. What is the endgame?
I am grateful to the Chemical Industries Association—CIA—for the briefing that it shared with me in preparation for today. It is fair to place on the record that the chemical sector not only is critical for the functioning of the UK economy but underpins manufacturing, clean technologies and many of the Government’s priority growth sectors.
At the time that Britain left the European Union, I personally was led to believe and we were promised—I realise that there was a different, Conservative Government—that there would be friction-free trade with the European Union. However, we have ended up with duplicate registers, therefore duplicate costs, and a lot of increased costs to the sector in that regard. Obviously, we are all paying that in the way of substances such as paint and other toxic substances that we use. I do not know whether the noble Baroness’s department has made an estimate—it might well be in the papers, but I did not see it—of the current cost of having two registers.
The chemicals industry believes that the regulations before us this afternoon should be approved. For the reasons the Minister set out, it is so important to have the necessary extension to the UK REACH registration and compliance deadlines—again, we are going on to finalise the approach on the ATRm. However, the industry has raised with me—I want to share this with the Minister this afternoon—the fact that the revised timetable remains challenging. Although the regulations extend the first registration deadline by three years, they also compress subsequent deadlines into a much shorter period, which will put enormous pressure on the companies concerned. The industry also says, more importantly, that approval should not be interpreted as meaning that the underlying challenges have been resolved. There remains significant uncertainty regarding access to registration data, the cost of compliance and the risk that businesses could be forced to infringe intellectual property rights in order to meet UK registration requirements.
Therefore, I press the Minister to make sure that the Government provide certainty regarding future registration requirements by three specific asks this afternoon. First, avoid placing businesses in situations where compliance conflicts with intellectual property rights, ensuring lawful and affordable access to the data needed for registration. This is currently not the case. Secondly, and alternatively, look to other economies such as Switzerland, which has successfully implemented a model that supports innovation and competitiveness and strengthens supply chain resilience, all while maintaining the same robust health and environmental protections as the EU. Thirdly, monitor whether the compressed timetable from 2029 to 2031, which the Minister set out, remains realistic for both industry and regulators. The goal here is not less regulation or further delays but a model, like the one that exists in Switzerland, that protects the environment, for the reasons the Minister set out, while allowing businesses to drive growth, which lies at the heart of the Government’s priority in economic policy.
I believe the outline model that the Minister has set out this afternoon still leaves Great British manufacturers and importers facing avoidable cost—which they were specifically told would not be the case at the time that Britain left the European Union—inhibits the introduction of new products to the Great British market and leaves serious questions over proprietary data requirements, despite the goalposts on regulating chemicals via REACH having shifted to EU alignment by default.
I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues today. On 13 May 2026 the ACA, the Alliance of Chemical Associations, wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the honourable Emma Hardy, to raise these points, but they are very pertinent as well to the regulations before us this afternoon. The Government, and particularly the department, owe it to the chemicals industry to make sure that we can reduce this dichotomy of having two registers and the duplication of costs that it currently has to face.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I will not detain the Committee for long, but this is a very important and intricate area. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has great experience of this from her time at the European Parliament. I remember visiting the European Parliament—it must have been almost 20 years ago—when REACH was being debated. It was, and I believe it remains, the largest piece of legislation ever passed by the European Parliament.
I did not have the benefit of the CIA briefing, but I will take the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the CIA, because it does a great deal in this area and I have placed that on record. I have worked with it in the past, as with other organisations such as the Society of Chemical Industry and scientific bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry, which 20 years ago were taking a very close interest in this subject. I am glad that my noble friend the Minister referred to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, because it has quite rightly raised some concerns.
My points are very brief. First, I understand the case for extending the current deadlines in the way that my noble friend has set out. I also understand the case for aligning the UK REACH submission deadlines with the development and implementation of the alternative transitional registration model. But I hope my noble friend will understand if I say that we hope that we will not be here in a few years with my noble friend making the case for further extensions to the deadlines. If there is any word of reassurance she can give on that, I would be very grateful.
My second point is to ask whether UK businesses still have difficulty accessing the hazard data required to support registrations. As I understand it, the data is still held by EU-based consortia under the provisions of EU REACH.
Thirdly—I apologise to the Minister in advance if I am wrong—am I right that in the last month 15 substances of very high concern were added to the UK list? I am encouraged by nodding elsewhere along the Benches. If this is true, can my noble friend say a little more about what the substances are? I understand that they are the first major additions to that list for some time. It would be interesting for the Committee to know the reasons for it and to be reassured that there are very good reasons for doing so.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, we recognise the case for this measure and will support it. We do so because it is a pragmatic step to avoid a cliff edge—not because we believe the current system is in any sense satisfactory.
As described by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the chemicals sector could be described as the invisible backbone of our economy. It underpins everything from advanced manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, construction and consumer goods. It matters that we get the regulatory framework right, not just for the industry but for the people who work in it, the consumers and, importantly, the environment. The alternative transitional registration model, which the Minister described to us, is intended to reduce unnecessary duplication. According to the Government’s assessment, it could cut one-off industry costs by around 70%, or roughly—I think this is the estimate that the noble Baroness is looking for—around £2 billion. To stop that additional payment is extremely welcome, but businesses need certainty, not a rolling series of extensions that leave everyone guessing what comes next.
We very much appreciate that this Government are having to square the circle of a previous negotiation and a Brexit that we view as the gift that keeps on taking from the British people and from every industry in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I have four questions for the Minister.
First, can she set out the milestones that will determine whether the ATRm is delivered on time, given that the design and implementation are not, as she described, expected to be completed until summer 2027? The Committee needs some confidence that we are moving towards some kind of stable system, not simply pushing the problem further down the road. Will the Minister also confirm how progress will be monitored and how often updates will be published? What will trigger, in turn, some kind of remedial action if the timetable slips? There is a danger of the perception that the sector continues to run on a series of sticking plasters; I am sure she appreciates that.
Secondly, what assurance can she give that any future divergence from EU REACH will be strictly evidence led and transparent? I read somewhere that the system is like reading the description on the back of a book without having any of the information inside the book that is necessary to move at pace. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has already raised concerns about the lack of clarity around the circumstances in which the Government would diverge, and the Office for Environmental Protection has highlighted the problem of new EU hazard classes that have not yet been brought into GB law. How will the Government avoid creating an unpredictable system in which decisions appear to be made case by case, without a clear scientific basis? I think this is something that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was reaching towards. If the default position is alignment with EU REACH unless there are compelling reasons to diverge, we need to know what those reasons are, how they will be tested, and how the public and Parliament will be able to scrutinise them.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome this measure to extend the transition period for businesses to submit information to the Health and Safety Executive under the UK REACH regulations. I thank the Minister for bringing these regulations to the Committee.
The UK’s registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals replicated the EU REACH regime. To manage the transition, requirements to submit further information were phased, and the deadlines were extended twice by our previous Government, in 2020 and in 2023. This statutory instrument extends the deadlines to submit information to the HSE for registrants, downstream users and distributors that continue to import chemicals from the EU. This will allow the compliance costs of registered businesses in the chemicals sector to be spread more evenly. It is worth noting that 98% of registered businesses in the chemicals sector are small, medium or micro businesses.
In addition, the SI will provide more time for the Government to introduce a new transitional registration model to cover registrations of substances that were already on the EU market at the time of Brexit. This is expected to reduce costs for industry significantly, so can the Minister update the Committee on when this new model will be introduced?
The Minister might be pleased to hear that I do not have many additional questions, given that so many have been asked. But I highlight the Government’s response to concerns submitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about divergence from the EU in this policy area. The Government stated—the Minister was kind enough to repeat this—that
“divergence only occurs where there are compelling reasons, for example to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we will retain full control of our regulatory decisions”.
If that is the case, why will the Government not take the same approach to the SPS regulations soon to be determined by the EU, in particular on the role of precision breeding?
I will take advantage of this opportunity to ask one question on something not directly related to this SI: the chemical Asulox. Emergency authorisations for its use ended a few years ago, and we are already seeing the impact of the withdrawal of Asulox from the market, as bracken moves further and further up the hill, outcompeting grass, outcompeting degraded peat and undermining our habitats. Will the Minister commit to take that away and see whether anything can be done to reintroduce Asulox to the market? I very much look forward to her response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their important contributions and for the careful consideration given to the regulations. I will go through some of the questions and issues raised.
Noble Lords asked about the deadline extension. Clearly, this is now the third time. The deadlines were first altered when we were still preparing for EU exit, to allow businesses enough time to compile and submit the full required information, given the complexity and scale of the task. As I mentioned, there was a further extension in 2023 to address transitional challenges, especially the considerable cost to business of acquiring the additional information. This Government wanted to reassess their broader chemicals policy, and it then became clear that we could not implement the ATRm in time for the original deadline. We want to get a robust and effective policy framework for the future, which is why we have extended the deadlines.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate in particular asked what guarantee we can give that we will not extend it again. Clearly, we really do not want to do that. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that businesses need certainty, and continually moving the goalposts and changing dates does not help, so we have absolutely no intention of extending the deadlines further.
We published our policy conclusions on the ATRm back in March, and that set a firm path forward for government. On the questions around timetables, we are looking to consult very quickly on the legislation in order to bring the model into force next year so that businesses have ample time to prepare for the new deadlines. As I said, we do not plan to bring in any further extensions.
As I said, in March we published the timetable for implementing the alternative transitional registration model. By consulting quickly and then bringing in the new regulations next year, we want to ensure that industry has sufficient time to prepare its registrations so that it is ready to comply with the first revised submission in an orderly way, which is what we want. Now that we have said this is what we will do, we want to consult as quickly as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the Swiss style and why we could not take that approach to chemicals registration rather than developing a separate UK model. One of the core principles of UK REACH is that it is industry’s primary responsibility to understand and manage the risks of its chemicals, and registration is how it demonstrates that it is doing this. That means submitting data on hazard conclusions and classifications and how it is using chemicals in this country. We need to assure the public and consumers that chemicals are managed safely.
This “no data, no market” approach remains a central part of UK REACH, and that is not embedded in Switzerland’s system in the same way. However, we are exploring whether elements of a Swiss-style approach could help improve the speed and efficiency of UK REACH restriction decision-making, particularly where many GB businesses already comply with EU restrictions and there is no compelling reason to diverge. I hope that helps the noble Baroness, as we are still looking at the options around that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am very grateful, but the problem is that the data already exists. The point is that they are having to register the same data twice, so there is obviously a conflict of views here.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That was the problem with leaving EU REACH; that was going to have to take place when we set up our own system in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, talked about the gift of Brexit—it just keeps giving. That is unfortunately one of the outcomes of that decision. But, as I say, we need to understand better the use of chemicals. Part of the reason why we want to explore better relationships with the EU is to help with many of these things. We are obviously not in a position to rejoin EU REACH, but better working relationships will help right across the board.
On costs, as I said in opening, they will be reduced by 70% with the ATRm. The estimate for the separate UK registrations is around £2 billion, instead of the previous figure. Intellectual property barriers were also brought up; companies already have legal duties to classify hazards and provide safety information through the supply chain. We assume that they are meeting those duties, so if industry is managing intellectual property issues in those contexts, we would ask why REACH registration would be any different. We also think that registration dossiers should be developed through substance groups, as those groups can draw on different sources of evidence. Clearly we cannot comment on every source, but if industry has legal advice showing that intellectual property is a real barrier to the ATRm then we would absolutely welcome receiving and hearing about that evidence.
SMEs were mentioned. The consultation response showed clear support for extending the deadlines, one reason for which is that it reduces pressure on smaller and micro-businesses. The options assessment recognised that smaller businesses are less able to absorb significant upfront compliance costs and would benefit from greater certainty and more time to prepare. The extension means that firms will not have to incur costs under requirements that we intend to change—that is one key reason—while maintaining the strong protections that we need. It is also important to note that SMEs will mainly be covered by the final deadline, so they will have the longest time to prepare.
On moving the dates for compliance checks, they need to align with the revised registration deadlines. Under UK REACH, the HSE must carry out compliance checks on at least 20% of registration dossiers. That safeguard remains unchanged. The checks can reasonably take place only once the relevant information has been submitted. Again—this is one of the key issues—if we do not bring in these changes without the amendment, the HSE could be required to complete checks before the dossiers have been received.
My noble friend asked how the alternative transition registration model will work in practice. It will provide a more proportionate route for registering substances that were already on the market under EU REACH before EU exit. It will reduce unnecessary duplication by removing the need for businesses to submit full EU hazard data packages up front, while still requiring key information such as hazard conclusions, classification and use and exposure data. This will still provide the means for business and regulators to assess and manage risk. The “no data, no market” principle will remain in place and the HSE will retain powers to request further hazard information where needed. My noble friend asked some very specific questions about a number of chemicals, so I will need to get back to him on that specific point.
Finally, on divergence, we are committed to drawing more from other trusted jurisdictions such as the EU by taking their regulatory decisions as a starting point and aiming to ensure that divergence occurs only where there are compelling reasons—for example, to protect the resilience of essential national infrastructure. In doing so, we retain full control of our regulatory decisions. We are currently defining the specific circumstances under which divergence may be considered for UK REACH and we intend to publicly consult on those proposals as well.
I hope I have addressed the questions raised by noble Lords. If I have not been able to provide a full response—for example, to my noble friend—we will come back in writing. I will check through Hansard, as there were quite a lot of questions flying around and it is quite a complicated area. I recognise the concerns that this is the third time we have had an extension, about the time it is going to take and about certainty. As I say, the important thing is that we have published our intended approach and we expect to legislate for the new model next year, because we absolutely need to give an assurance that we will not be in a situation where businesses do not have the certainty that they need to do this.
One final point I have just realised I did not respond to was from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about Asulox and bracken. I am happy to take that away and discuss that further with the department.
We believe these regulations strike the appropriate balance. They will preserve strong protections while providing industry with the time and certainty needed to prepare for a more proportionate and effective registration model. I commend them to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Could the noble Baroness also respond to the point about the possible compromise to intellectual property rights? I will send her the briefing, because it is all there.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
If the noble Baroness sends me the briefing, I would be happy to pick it up. Perhaps we can meet to discuss it further.
Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Justification Decision (Generation of Power by the RR SMR) Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 3 June. They will give effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that power generation using the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is justified in the UK under the UK’s regulatory framework for practices involving ionising radiation. This decision has been taken within that regulatory framework. It is a step towards enabling a new form of reliable, low-carbon power generation in the UK, supporting our energy security, reducing carbon emissions and delivering economic opportunities, including for UK jobs and supply chains. It also has the potential to provide dependable baseload power for a more resilient electricity system, while supporting the development of a domestic nuclear supply chain.
The statutory framework, in place since 2004, requires that any new class or type of practice involving ionising radiation is assessed before it can be introduced. The key question is whether the benefits outweigh the potential risks to health from radiation exposure. In this case, the Secretary of State has concluded that they do.
It is important to be clear what this decision does and does not do. This is a generic, non-site-specific decision. It does not authorise the construction or operation of any reactor. Any future project would be subject to the UK’s independent system of scrutiny, including the need to secure environmental permitting, nuclear site licensing and planning consent before it could proceed. These processes involve detailed assessment by independent regulators, including bodies such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the relevant environmental regulators, to ensure that safety, security and environmental protection requirements are met.
The decision underpinning the instrument follows a thorough and proportionate evidence-based process. It draws on advice from independent regulators, statutory consultees and a public consultation, which was held in late 2025 and received 50 responses. Most respondents agreed that the Rolls-Royce SMR represents a new class of practice and that sufficient information had been provided to inform a decision. Taken together, the evidence provided a proportionate and transparent basis to support the Secretary of State’s conclusion.
The issues raised, including safety, radioactive waste, environmental impacts, cost and energy security, were considered alongside expert advice before the Secretary of State reached her decision. The assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR is expected to result in a low level of potential radiological health detriment, that the design can meet the UK’s requirements on safety, security and safeguards, and that radioactive waste can be managed within existing UK arrangements. Environmental impacts are considered manageable within established regulatory frameworks. Taken together, this provides a clear evidence base for concluding that the benefits, including reliable low-carbon power and support for energy security, outweigh the potential risk to health and radiation exposure.
Finally, I emphasise that this is only one part of a wider regulatory system. Any proposal to construct or operate a reactor would remain subject to detailed scrutiny by independent regulators at every stage. The instrument will give legal effect to a decision required by the statutory framework, while leaving decisions on siting, design and operation to the UK’s regulatory, planning and wider governmental processes. It is a proportionate step within a well-established system of independent regulation. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. This is the right thing to do, and it is the right time to do it, because our energy security is under real pressure. We need every credible part of the low-carbon mix working as hard as it can.
This order will give legal effect to the decision that the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor is justified under the 2004 regulations. It is a generic and non-site-specific decision. It does not authorise a single spade in the ground, still less the construction or operation of the reactor. All the real-world hurdles remain: environmental permits, a nuclear site licence, planning consent and all the other approvals that any serious project must secure. It was good to hear the reassurances on that front from the Minister.
That matters, because this Committee should be clear about what is being decided and what is not, as the Minister said. We are not approving a reactor to be built tomorrow; we are saying that, in principle, the design has passed the justification test. That is sensible, and we support it. But it is not the same thing as delivery, and we are clear that we do not want it to be confused with a regulatory green light, with progress on the ground.
Our central point is that we believe the best way to cut bills for everyone is to invest in home-grown renewable power, electricity storage and the infrastructure that gets clean electricity to where it is needed. That is where the quickest gains are, where the biggest jobs dividend is and where the strongest long-term energy security will come from. So we support SMRs and we support this justification decision, but we should not let the enthusiasm for emerging nuclear technology become an excuse to drift back into the bad old habits of overpromising on nuclear while underdelivering on renewables. Large-scale, expensive and slow-to-deliver nuclear projects have had years to demonstrate their value. Too often, they have done the opposite; they have tied up time, money and political attention that could have been used more productively and more proactively elsewhere.
That is why the balance matters. SMRs may well have a role to play, and this design may contribute to a more secure decarbonised grid, but the Government must be absolutely clear that the priority is not to deepen our dependence on the old model of nuclear development. The priority is to accelerate renewables generation, storage and the modern grid that can support them.
It will astonish the Minister to hear that I have only one question regarding this SI. How will the Government make sure that support for Rolls-Royce SMR does not slow down the pace of renewables and storage, so that we ensure that this is genuinely complementary rather than competitive with the faster deployment of the clean power that is already available? How will the Government avoid the familiar pattern in which nuclear projects absorb the oxygen while more agile solutions are left waiting in the wings?
We support this instrument but we do so on all those clear understandings—that it is part of a wider energy strategy, not a substitute one. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for this statutory instrument following the Government’s consultation on the application for the Rolls-Royce small modular reactor. The decision obviously confirms that the small modular reactor is justified in principle, and we support that. This is an encouraging step in the right direction to enable the UK’s first small modular reactors and ensure that new nuclear reactor technologies form part of our future energy system.
Our domestic nuclear reactor industry needs a supportive Government in order to be globally competitive. There are many rivals around the world that benefit from such a situation, and we must not handicap our own. This is a strategic industry where the research and manufacturing capabilities are critical, not just to our energy security but to our national security. That support is critical also to the export success for Rolls-Royce SMRs in Sweden and the Czech Republic and its current European leadership. Rolls-Royce itself describes the need for volume to drive industrialisation and reduce unit costs.
As the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, have pointed out, this is just a first step. The construction or operation of a reactor still has to go through all the hurdles of environmental permits, a nuclear site licence and planning consent. The Government must be consistent in their backing, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out a timeline for the delivery of the first UK SMRs.
I have a few further questions related to the issues in this SI, which may well be outside the brief that the Minister and I usually inhabit so I will be completely happy with replies in writing. There is considerable evidence of the favourable carbon emissions intensity of SMRs, but what assessment have the Government made in coming to this decision about the cost of this electricity and how that will compare to other electricity generation sources? We appreciate the importance of this project but we would welcome the publication of more information on the impact of future electricity costs in the UK.
When making these calculations, can the Minister confirm whether they rely to a greater or lesser extent on the Government’s internal calculation of current carbon emissions, last published at a central cost of £273 per tonne? By contrast, the UK Woodland Carbon Code units trade at £30 to £40 and our own ETS price is £60 per tonne. I asked the noble Baroness’s colleague in the debate on the carbon orders two weeks ago whether this really was an appropriate cost and whether this leads to faulty decision-making about the appropriate energy investments in this country to create an affordable energy transition; I am yet to receive an answer. I should also, in that context, declare my interest as a developer of Woodland Carbon Code forests.
When we debated the creation of GB Energy in your Lordships’ House, we were assured that it would not crowd out private sector investment. Now, it has been selected as preferred bidder for the Wylfa SMRs. How can we be confident that it has not done that by using the UK’s low sovereign cost of borrowing to out-compete the private sector? How can we be confident that this government body has priced risk effectively when competing with the private sector?
Furthermore, this Government scrapped the previous Government’s plan for two SMR projects and have refused to honour the commitment for 24 gigawatts of electricity to be generated from nuclear by 2050. We are all aware of the need for energy infrastructure, as well as the economic opportunities it brings. Can the Minister give any indication of whether the incoming Prime Minister will be more ambitious and may at least match the ambitions of our previous Conservative Government? I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who took part in the debate. As was said earlier, it is important to point out that the matter before the Committee is this particular instrument, which is narrow in what it does. It gives legal effect to the Secretary of State’s decision that this class or type of practice—power generation using the Rolls-Royce SMR—meets the statutory test. A few questions were broader than that, particularly the noble Lord’s on woodland carbon capture and so on. I will focus on the questions on the statutory instrument, and we can perhaps pick up some questions more broadly. Quite a lot of work is going on in that area within the department and in other Ministers’ portfolios, and it might be easier for us to pick up some of those particular questions around carbon capture and so forth on another occasion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the time it takes to bring in a new nuclear build. I understand why there is nervousness about timescales when we talk about building new nuclear energy, in whatever form. I have the scars on my back from working on the Hinkley Point C project—we initially had it coming online in 2019—so it is very problematic sometimes with these really big nuclear power stations.
I will make two comments on that. First, SMRs are a lot smaller and quicker to build. They can be more flexible in what they are, what they look like, how much they supply and so on. So it is an approach that is different from the traditional large power stations that we are used to seeing built. We fairly recently did the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which looks at bringing in nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—of which nuclear is part. So we are doing what we can to speed up the planning process to ensure that we can build these smaller and smarter nuclear power stations more quickly.
I reassure the noble Baroness that renewable energy is an absolute priority. I do not think anyone here would think that the Secretary of State for DESNZ does not have renewable energy as a priority. But we need a proper energy mix in this country, particularly if we are to meet our carbon targets, and nuclear energy plays an important role in that. As the noble Lord said, we want to move as quickly as we can on this, but that is not the purpose of the statutory instrument; it enables Rolls-Royce to take those SMR projects forward. As the noble Lord said, Wylfa is likely to be the first.
On the economy around this, one thing that Rolls-Royce SMRs have the potential to do is provide reliable and always-on low-carbon power, with a view to complementing renewables—you do not have to worry about the wind not blowing and so on. So it supports our energy security and it supports UK jobs, manufacturing and supply chains. We have some really skilled people in the nuclear sector here, and we need to support them as well.
On cost and value for money, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we assessed the economic aspects of this, and that assessment considered economic and socioeconomic factors and concluded that the benefits outweigh any potential detriments.
On the public funding for Rolls-Royce’s SMR, the assessment also concluded that the socioeconomic benefits would outweigh the public funding associated with the delivery. But further decisions around funding for the Rolls-Royce SMR are taken separately from this justification decision; as I say, this is a very narrow statutory instrument.
Cost effectiveness is not determined through the process we are looking at today; that is considered separately as part of wider government decisions on energy policy and investment and what the priorities are.
On carbon reduction in particular, the assessment found that the Rolls-Royce SMR would provide low-carbon electricity across its lifecycle, and by doing that it would make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thereby supporting the UK’s net-zero targets.
When bringing in this kind of legislation, you have to look at safety, waste, environmental impact and wider policy. Taking all that together, the evidence provided a clear basis for concluding that this class or type of practice meets the statutory test of justification. I therefore very much thank noble Lords for their support in bringing this forward so that we can move forward and build some SMRs, I hope in the very near future, because this has been an awfully long time coming.
Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2026.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this order seeks to amend the definition of “ninja sword” in the list of prohibited offensive weapons contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.
I will briefly set out the context. Noble Lords will recognise the campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed in 2022, following which there was a Labour government manifesto commitment to ban ninja swords. In 2024, we held a public consultation to seek views from the public and a range of interested stakeholders on the draft definition of a ninja sword. Ninja swords are defined as a bladed article with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. This length was chosen in order to exclude knives and tools designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knives.
In order to be within scope of the ban, the article should also have the features specified in paragraph 1(u) of the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, namely: a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge and a blunt spine, with either a tanto-style point or a reverse-tanto style point. These terms are further defined in the detail of the legislation.
We analysed the consultation responses and introduced legislation as per the manifesto on ninja swords, which were prohibited from 1 August 2025. The Government recently became aware that the wording of the legislation does not correctly describe the length of the secondary straight cutting edge of a ninja sword as intended. The order before the Committee today seeks to rectify that and align the legislation with the original intention.
To be clear to noble Lords, this amendment is a technical clarification to existing secondary legislation banning ninja swords, and although the amendment to the definition widens the scope of the current wording, it does not introduce new offences, bring any ninja swords out of scope or impose any additional requirements on the public. The detail is as follows: under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire a weapon specified in an order made under that section.
The current legislation contains a detailed description of the tanto-style or reverse tanto-style point of the sword. It may be helpful if I just remind noble Lords of that legislation, which states that
“a secondary straight cutting edge is a cutting edge … which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and … is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
The reference to “5%” is incorrect and limits the scope of what size of tip falls under the legislation. We are therefore proposing to use this order-making power in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to amend the definition of a secondary straight cutting edge to
“a cutting edge … which forms an angle with the primary straight cutting edge and the spine, and … is no more than 105% longer than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
That correction will allow the legislation to function as intended and remove any ambiguity about the swords which fall within the scope of the definition. We have also included an additional diagram in the explanatory notes to make the definition easier to understand.
To conclude, we have a mission to halve knife crime in a decade, and it is essential that we stop potentially dangerous weapons such as ninja swords getting into the wrong hands. This is a necessary clarification, and the order will aid both the Government and the police in that vital effort. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the order has been brought before Parliament to correct an error in a previous piece of secondary legislation—the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025—which we debated on 5 June 2025. As the Minister said, the previous order banned so-called ninja swords under the powers in Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I supported that measure at the time, and I still do.
Knife crime remains one of the toughest and most serious challenges in policing, and its effects weigh heavily on communities up and down the country. However, since passing the order, the police have raised issues with the definition of the characteristics of the weapon in question. The order stated that, for an article to be considered a ninja sword, it had to have a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge, a blunt spine and a tanto-style point or a reverse tanto-style point. The original order defined the secondary cutting edge as being a cutting edge which
“is no more than 5% longer or shorter than the width of the blade immediately after the handle”.
As the Minister said, the police have raised an issue with that definition, and it appears that the Home Office was mistaken to use the 5% threshold in the original order. The order before us today amends that definition to 105%.
As I supported the ban on ninja swords and this piece of legislation corrects the error in the definition, I therefore support this order today. It is a welcome move, as the Government have listened to concerns from the police and acted swiftly to rectify the mistake.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I cannot let the moment pass without asking: how did this happen? How did the Home Office not realise when it was drafting the order last year that the definition it had used for the secondary cutting edge was incorrect? Did officials consult the police or did the Home Office engage weapons specialists? If so, how did no one realise the error in the definition? I look forward to the answers from the Minister.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for his broad support for the original and existing orders. I am indebted to him for his contribution to this debate.
In 2024, the Government consulted on new legislative proposals on ninja swords, which were agreed last year, as the noble Lord said. We included the proposed definition that was in the order last year and liaised directly with all stakeholders. At the time, there was no indication from any of them, including the police, that we needed to revisit the definition. They all supported it. The consultation included wide-ranging discussions, and there was no indication that the legal definition would not function as intended.
This happened only after the police began to collect the knives that had been surrendered. There were 3,942 knives surrendered, including 142 weapons where compensation was not claimed. A total of 3,570 knives and weapons were surrendered through an extended surrender scheme. The police became aware of the issues at that time and raised them with the Government. Once the police identified the error, we acted immediately to correct the wording and ensure that the definition functions correctly to outlaw these weapons.
We have passed legislation on ninja swords—a type of sword that we are aware has been used for crimes. We will keep the legislation under review, but if it was an error then it was one made by everyone involved in the consultation. My job is to make sure that we rectify that, which we have done today, by bringing this order before the Committee.
Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Registration of Births and Deaths (England and Wales) (Specified Requirements) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations made under Section 38B of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 specify the requirements that a person will need to meet when registering a birth, stillbirth or death. The regulations will replace the requirement for a person to sign the register with a “wet” signature with specified requirements which, when taken together, will be treated as signing the register. This will support the move to an electronic register for the registration of births and deaths.
This instrument represents an important and necessary step in modernising the system of civil registration in England and Wales. The current framework, which requires individuals to attend a register office and physically sign a paper register, has remained unchanged for generations. While it has provided a reliable foundation for recording these vital life events, it no longer reflects the opportunities offered by modern technology nor the expectations of people engaging with public services in the 21st century.
These regulations will support the transition to a fully electronic register by replacing the traditional requirement for a handwritten signature with a new framework based on clearly specified legal requirements. At the heart of this approach is a simple but crucial principle: individuals must formally declare that the information they provide is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. This declaration will ensure that personal accountability is preserved even as the system moves away from a paper-based process.
In addition, the regulations introduce appropriate and proportionate safeguards to verify identity when registering a birth. In cases where identity assurance is required, individuals must either use a recognised digital identity verification service or provide documentary evidence to the registrar. This ensures that the integrity of the registration process is maintained, while allowing for greater flexibility in how people engage with the service.
The regulations, as set out in detail, give the types of documents that may be used to establish identity, which include well-known and trusted documents such as passports, biometric immigration documents, travel documents and photo driving licences. In circumstances where not a single document of this kind is available, individuals may provide two supporting documents, such as utility bills, bank or building society statements or official correspondence issued by government bodies. The approach is deliberately balanced. It recognises that while robust identity assurance is essential to protect the accuracy of vital records, there must also be flexibility to accommodate the diverse circumstances of the population. By offering both digital and documentary routes, the regulations promote inclusion, ensuring that individuals are not disadvantaged by their access to technology or documentation. The regulations provide clarity for both registrars and the public.
Crucially, the legal effect of registration is preserved in full. Where a person complies with the specified requirements, they are to be treated in law as having signed the register and, where relevant, as having done so in the presence of the registrar. This ensures continuity and legal certainty, while enabling the practical benefits of an electronic system to be realised.
The benefits of this reform are clear. Moving to an electronic register will improve efficiency within registration services, reduce reliance on paper processes and better align civil registration with wider government digital strategies. It will also provide greater convenience for the public, giving more flexible ways to provide information in the future to complete registrations.
At the same time, and this is important, these regulations will maintain the high standards of accuracy and trust that are fundamental to the registration system. Birth, stillbirth and death records underpin legal identity, public administration and the collection of vital statistics. It is therefore essential that any change to the system continues to safeguard the reliability of these records. The requirements for declaration and identity verification ensure that these standards are upheld.
I hope it is reassuring, in case there are any questions, if I provide clear assurance that the move to an electronic register is underpinned by robust and comprehensive cyber security arrangements. The systems supporting digital registration are designed and operated in accordance with National Cyber Security Centre guidance and wider Cabinet Office security standards, ensuring that personal data is protected against unauthorised access, loss or misuse. This includes the use of secure authentication, encryption of sensitive information and continuous monitoring to detect and respond to potential threats.
In addition, the identity assurance elements of the system align with the Government Digital Service’s good practice guide 45, ensuring that identity verification processes are both secure and proportionate. Taken together, these measures reflect the Government’s firm commitment to safeguarding the integrity of vital records and maintaining public trust as we modernise civil registration. The instrument will deliver a measured and forward-looking reform. It retains the core principles of accountability and integrity that have long underpinned civil registration, while enabling the system to operate effectively in a modern, digital context.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to the officials who have spent many years in gestation of this modernising approach. I thank them for their efforts and continuing support. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to speak for long at all. Like other Members present here today, I have registered births, deaths and just the one marriage, so far. Of course, it is a very important thing to do. I fully understand my noble friend’s argument that we must move, in the 21st century, to enable these things to be done digitally. A couple of years ago I helped to pilot on to the statute book a Private Member’s Bill to provide a digital version of the lasting power of attorney to avoid the hundreds of pages involved in producing it by a normal, old-fashioned method.
I want to raise two quick points. First, is it in fact being suggested by my noble friend that in the future these things will be done entirely online and that no person will need to go to their local authority to register a birth, marriage or death? Secondly, and he referred to the cyber security aspects of this, it is terribly important. The damage that would be caused were someone to be able to intervene and change the digital record of a birth or a death would have incalculable consequences. I hope that those are two reasonable points to mention to my noble friend.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the questions asked by the noble Viscount. I was not clear from the paperwork as to whether you would still need to take your baby to the town hall to register or not, or whether that would become an online process rather like applying for a TfL permit. I had a lot of difficulty with getting the documents through to TfL in a form it would accept. I am, of course, supportive of modernisation and moving to a more electronic basis for lots of very good reasons. But people need to be clear what will happen in future, what the timeframe for that is and whether we will have another discussion before we move to a completely electronic system.
I came here today because I wanted to explain a problem with the current death figures, which I do not think will be removed by the SI because that is addressing the important issue of digital administration. There is, however, a link, because the digital records will be easier to use and easier to search going forward. The fact is that death figures and birth figures are a very important tool for determining the future of public policy. They are used by doctors, by academics for longitudinal studies and, of course, for planning health and social care many years ahead.
I have a story about why they may be becoming less accurate. My husband’s aunt, for whom he had a power of attorney, had a serious health condition. Tests came back saying that her problems were not incompatible with Alzheimer’s. In the next few years, it became clear that, whatever was wrong with her, it was not Alzheimer’s. Moreover, my husband visited her regularly in her nursing home and she always remembered the previous conversations. He discussed it with a consultant psychiatrist who agreed that it was not Alzheimer’s.
When Iris died—my granddaughter is named after her—her death was certified by a locum doctor, and he put Alzheimer’s down as the cause of death. My husband objected to this. He was told he could appeal to get it changed but—and here is the rub—if he did so, it would take several months, and her body could not be buried until the matter was resolved. So, of course, rather than delay the funeral at an emotional time for us all, he dropped the matter. Her wrong record will not be unique. I am sure a change was made after the awful Shipman murders, but it is having a perverse effect. Can I ask the Minister to look at changing the rules so that, when a next of kin disputes the cause of death, burial can still go ahead while the appeal is heard? There could be a provision preventing burial if the police request it.
I have dealt with data accuracy in many roles: Clubcard at Tesco, the use of data for health management at HDR UK and data protection at DCMS. I am troubled by this example of lack of integrity. I hope the Minister will look at it and make sure that the data does indeed have integrity.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. They are not particularly controversial, so the noble Lord will be delighted to hear that it will be easier to deal with them than with other matters we have before us at times.
These regulations give effect to the provisions in Section 38B of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 as inserted by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. The policy intention is to digitise the process of registering births, stillbirths and deaths and end duplication. This, of course, is all very welcome, but I would like to press the Minister on a few points.
First, on the wider process of digitisation and technology upgrades, the General Register Office has acknowledged that the civil registration service is supported by a mixture of legacy systems, many of which are ageing and increasingly difficult to maintain. There are more than 130 million historic records stored on microfilm, which presents risks to the preservation of historic records. I understand that there is a major programme under way, the civil registration service transformation project, to digitise records and update the service. Can the Minister update us on the progress of this programme?
Secondly, Regulation 2(3)(a) states that a person can fulfil the requirements if they verify their identity by
“using a digital identity verification service”.
However, as far as I can tell, the regulations do not define what is meant by “digital identity verification service”. The Explanatory Memorandum does not provide any more detail either. In fact, digital identity is not mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum at all. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify what is meant by “digital identity verification service”. What will it look like and how will people be able to access it?
Why do the Government believe this is necessary, given that an incredibly wide array of available documents is already acceptable for the purpose of proving one’s identity? There are 11 documents listed in paragraph 1 of the Schedule and 17 in paragraph 2. That means that a person could use 28 different documents to verify their identity; surely that provides a wide enough array of choice without the need for a digital identity verification service. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I give what I hope is an assurance to my noble friend Lord Stansgate. Provision for online services will be available next year, but we are taking a staged approach: we are undertaking deaths online first, and births and stillbirths will come later. We are also introducing the provision to register deaths by telephone from November this year. However, there will still be an option to attend in person and, as the new system is being developed, that option will always remain. I hope that reassures my noble friend.
I would also reassure my noble friend on cyber security, which we take very seriously. These are important matters that are extremely important for individuals to have confidence. In my introductory remarks, I indicated that cyber security is up to the standards of all our developments in government. There are always challenges and people trying to get information, and there will always be potential attacks, but we are confident that the provisions in place are up to the standard that the Government expect for cyber security, for the reasons I outlined in my opening remarks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about whether a burial can still go ahead while an appeal on the cause of death is being heard, which is an important question. Obviously, it is a very difficult time for anybody when a death occurs, and that is an added complication, so I understand why she has raised this. If a medical examiner discusses the case with the certifying doctor, the cause of death can be amended if evidence is available to support this. Alternatively, the case could be referred to the coroner; once the coroner has released the body, this does not necessarily require the cause of death to be established.
Again, looking at the advice—I was aware that the noble Baroness would raise this—my understanding is that, under the recently introduced medical examiner scheme, a disposal document can be issued only upon receipt of a completed medical certificate of cause of death. The medical examiner has a duty to discuss the cause of death with the next of kin. The medical examiner issued a report yesterday confirming that medical examiner officers in both England and Wales report that an interaction with the next of kin took place in 97% of cases. Feedback received from the medical examiner confirms that the overwhelming number of cases were positive and that, if there are particular difficulties, the medical examiner and others will look at those. If the noble Baroness wants to write privately with the specific details of the case, outside the Committee, I will certainly look into it, because potentially some of the issues she raised may well have been due to misinformation rather than any malpractice. If she writes, I will look at the case as a whole.
With regard to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I think he is referring to the use of One Login, the Government’s approved digital verification service, which will be used for those using an online system. People will be required as of now to use the Government-approved digital verification when registering online. That will be similar to other forms of Government Gateway that are used.
The noble Lord also mentioned cyber security. As I said to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, as a Government we take that issue very seriously. We believe that this meets the standards. As I said to my noble friend, there will be opportunities to use the telephone and do it in person, as well as to do it online. However, the whole purpose of the regulations is to allow that online push for greater efficiency to continue. I hope the noble Lord is content with those comments. If there are further issues, I will look at what he has said and drop him a helpful letter, unless he wishes to raise any further issues now.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
I have no further issues to raise, but I will make a comment. I have used the government verification system recently, and it is an absolute nightmare. If nothing else, I wish they could make it a lot easier, because you almost have to have a degree in mathematics to use it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I confess that the education I had in maths did not even really reach O-level standard, but I managed to use it. I can never remember the verification numbers or reference numbers that I have, and that is always difficult, but that is a common problem in every aspect of modern digital life. I cannot remember passwords and other things, so I tend to write them down, which then makes them vulnerable to misuse. It is very difficult—I accept that—but, fortunately, nobody knows where I have written down my verification for the government log in except me, so I think I am safe.
The Government’s intention is to make this type of activity as simple as possible for people. When we had Covid, I used the telephone service when a close relative of mine died and I had to report the death. I found the telephone service 100% efficient and useful. In fact, it saved me a journey from where my mum died into the centre of Liverpool to register the death at a time of great distress. It was much easier to do that on the phone, in the comfort of my own home, rather than having to go along to a city-centre office to do it. As my noble friend Lord Stansgate said, it is still possible to do that, but I think the movement to online, digital and telephone will help the consumer, which is what we should be about, and improve efficiency. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That the Grand Committee do consider the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move this draft order. Wireless connectivity underpins a vast range of everyday services, from mobile phones and wifi to broadcasting and satellite communications. All these rely on access to radio spectrum. Spectrum is a finite and valuable resource, and it must be carefully managed to ensure that different services can operate without interference, that networks function reliably and that consumers and businesses benefit from competition and innovation.
In the UK, Ofcom, the independent communications regulator, manages spectrum by issuing licences, setting conditions and promoting efficient use. Government set the overall policy and strategic priorities for spectrum, including through the statement of strategic priorities that Ofcom must have regard to when discharging its functions. Maintaining a clear and effective framework for managing spectrum is therefore an important part of supporting investment in digital infrastructure and the wider economy. This instrument contributes to that by improving legal clarity without changing existing services, business models or regulatory requirements.
This draft order revokes a direction given to Ofcom in 2010. At the time, the Government used this direction to ensure that a specific set of reforms to support the rollout of mobile broadband was implemented clearly and at pace, alongside Ofcom’s existing statutory framework and in line with wider European measures to harmonise the use of key spectrum bands. These measures included allowing operators greater flexibility in how they could use key spectrum bands, enabling spectrum trading so that licences could be bought and sold, updating licence conditions to support long term investment, setting licence fees to reflect full market value and preparing for major spectrum auctions. Together, these changes helped operators transition from older mobile technologies towards newer ones, enabling the rollout of 3G and 4G services more quickly and efficiently and supporting the widespread availability of modern mobile services across the UK. The reforms also reflected wider European measures to harmonise the use of key mobile spectrum bands and support this transition.
All the obligations set out in the direction have now been fully implemented by Ofcom through a series of regulatory actions over the past decade. As a result, the direction no longer has any practical effect and is now redundant. This instrument therefore revokes that direction. Its removal will improve the clarity of the legal framework and remove the risk of confusion that could arise from retaining obsolete provisions. For example, when Ofcom looks to set annual licence fees for mobile spectrum, we want to minimise the risk of unnecessary legal challenge. The direction requires Ofcom to have particular regard to the outcome of the 800 megahertz and 2.6 gigahertz auction when setting certain licence fees. That auction took place in 2013; retaining the direction could create uncertainty about whether those historic auction outcomes should continue to carry special weight today.
This instrument does not introduce any new policy or change the way that spectrum is managed in the UK. Ofcom will continue to exercise its functions under its existing statutory framework, including duties set out in the Communications Act 2003 and powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. These provide the framework for managing spectrum efficiently, promoting competition and investment and protecting consumers. This step will help ensure that the framework underpinning wireless connectivity remains clear and effective and supports continued investment. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I am somewhat intrigued as to why we are privileged to have two Ministers for these orders, which are both under the heading of electronic communications. No doubt the mystery will be resolved. Of course we do not oppose this instrument and I do not intend to detain the Committee long on what are, on the face of it, tidying-up measures. However, they raise a question or two worth putting to the Minister.
We have no quarrel with removing a direction that has plainly served its purpose. As the Minister said, Ofcom completed the work that the 2010 direction required years ago. However, can she say a little more about why now? The Explanatory Memorandum notes that retaining the 2010 direction risks creating
“legal challenge against Ofcom if they proceed with changes to licence charging arrangements”.
That is not a housekeeping observation but a forward-looking one; it suggests that Ofcom already has changes to spectrum licence fees in contemplation. Can the Minister tell the Committee what those changes are and on what timetable we might expect to see them?
Looking further ahead, can the Minister say something about how the Government see the framework for spectrum direction-making evolving to meet the demands of 5G and 6G rollout, non-terrestrial and satellite networks, and the rising spectrum needs of AI-related infrastructure? The 2010-era framework, tied as it was to 3G liberalisation, was never designed to anticipate those needs.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction. This is indeed a short and straightforward instrument, but certainly one worth a little bit of careful thought because of its real strategic importance. As we have heard, the Government propose to revoke the 2010 directions to Ofcom. The directions were originally issued to support the release of additional spectrum for next-gen mobile broadband. The directions have now served their purpose, and the Government, completely plausibly, argue that they are redundant.
Certainly, on the face of it, this revocation is sensible. The 2010 framework was designed for a very specific moment in the evolution of mobile networks. The market has moved on, Ofcom’s regulatory toolkit has matured, and spectrum management now operates under a more flexible and market-driven regime. Removing obsolete directions is, in principle, good housekeeping.
However, it is worth briefly pausing to consider and to put a couple of questions. Spectrum is a national strategic asset. The stability and predictability of the regulatory environment underpinned billions of pounds of private investment, and the balance of responsibility between Ministers and Ofcom must, of course, be handled with care.
I will put two questions to the Minister. First, how does this revocation sit within the Government’s wider spectrum strategy? The questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were absolutely right in this respect. The UK faces increasing pressure on spectrum availability, from 5G and 6G deployment, satellite services, defence requirements and emerging industrial uses. Removing a set of directions is tidy, but more broadly, do the Government have a long-term strategic plan for spectrum allocation, resilience and competitiveness? If so, how does the instrument fit into that strategic plan?
Secondly, what assurances can the Minister give that revocation will not inadvertently reduce investment certainty? The 2010 directions were introduced precisely to give operators confidence during a period of rapid technological transition. We must ensure that today’s decision does not create ambiguity at a time when the UK needs sustained private investment in digital infrastructure.
Of course, we do not oppose the instrument, but we ask the Government to demonstrate that revocation is part of a coherent strategy, not simply administrative pruning. Ofcom must have the clarity it needs, operators must have the certainty they expect, and Parliament must have confidence that spectrum policy is being managed with foresight rather than drift. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank noble Lords and the Committee for their support for this housekeeping measure to remove an obsolete direction. The direction was fully implemented and cast for its time. As noble Lords have indicated, technology has moved forward, as indeed has the state of mobile coverage and other investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, specifically asked, “Why now?” We want to ensure that obsolete regulations are not in place. We have heard from the market that there is a possibility that having active obsolete regulations could provide a lack of clarity and could potentially lead to legal challenge. That is why we want to make this move now. Ofcom last revised annual fees last year and new ones are envisaged in the next year, so we are doing it now to provide clarity before then.
On the framework for spectrum, I heartily agree with the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made about the importance of spectrum. We designated an updated statement of strategic priorities in April this year; it set out our priorities across telecoms, the Post Office and, of course, spectrum, including the Government’s policy direction to Ofcom for spectrum. It touched on a number of the important matters that noble Lords have raised, including the importance of growth, innovation and the multiple uses of spectrum. This is very much a housekeeping matter in the context of that wider discussion, and it will have no impact other than that. It supports a clear and coherent framework for spectrum management, and it gives certainty to the regulators and the industry.
On certainty for investment, investment is currently at high levels. For example, the investments being made by mobile phone companies in stand-alone 5G are significant. It is being commercially led and there is committed investment in that area, such that Ofcom reports that, as of January 2026, stand-alone 5G was available outside 93% of premises across the UK—an increase of 10 percentage points since July 2025. The stability and certainty of that regulatory framework is indeed important. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords in the Room have just spotted the mystery mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about why two Ministers are answering on these two SIs. I suspect that those who decided and invited me to lead on this know that it is my first outing on the Front Bench and think—I share that hope—that this will be a slightly gentler environment than my first Oral Question next week.
This statutory instrument is required to amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023, by updating the international mobile roaming wholesale rates it sets. Wholesale rates are what mobile operators charge other mobile operators, as opposed to retail rates, which they charge their customers.
The amendments give effect in domestic law to a November 2025 decision of the EEA EFTA-UK free trade agreement Joint Committee. EEA EFTA is Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and this committee is the governing body of the agreement on which each party has a seat. I note, however, that one member, Liechtenstein, has opted out of these international mobile roaming provisions in the free trade agreement.
The amendments to the international mobile roaming wholesale rates are being made to ensure that they continue to reflect current international benchmarks, which reflect market conditions. This is consistent with and necessary under the terms of the free trade agreement. I hope this summary of the instrument’s purpose was helpful to noble Lords; I will briefly provide some background to support their consideration.
In 2021, the UK and EEA EFTA signed a free trade agreement. Its core terms included provisions on industrial goods, digital trade, services and investment, and fisheries and agriculture. Under digital trade, in a telecoms chapter, it contained provisions on international mobile roaming. These provisions set a wholesale cap. As mentioned, this limits what mobile operators can charge each other.
In 2023, the UK introduced the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations to implement these provisions into UK legislation. This is the instrument being amended by this instrument. As per the free trade agreement, the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations covered wholesale charges only. Wholesale rates can be set in an international treaty, whereas retail rates can be controlled domestically.
The free trade agreement contains a review clause, under which the wholesale rates should be reviewed by all affected parties every two years
“with a view to determining whether those rates are still appropriate”.
The UK, along with Norway and Iceland, are the affected parties.
The rate set under the agreement has now diverged from the “relevant international benchmarks” that the agreement states should be considered. The benchmark relevant to the EEA EFTA-UK agreement is the European Union-set international mobile roaming wholesale rate, called the Eurorate. EEA EFTA adheres to the Eurorate as part of its access to the EU single market. The UK adhered to the Eurorate until 2021, with the end of the Brexit transition period at the end of 2020. The EU benchmark is based on the principle that the wholesale cap must be high enough to allow operators to fully recover reasonably incurred costs involved in building, maintaining and operating their networks. This principle, based on market conditions, is supported by the UK.
In 2025, Norway, supported by Iceland, requested a move to reflect the Eurorate. The reason was that the wholesale cap in the UK-EEA EFTA agreement should reflect international benchmarks and current market conditions. Ministers agreed to proceed with legislation for these new rates to demonstrate the UK’s willingness to align with the free trade agreement’s provisions.
In November 2025, the governing body of the agreement, the EEA EFTA-UK Joint Committee, made decision 1/2025, which agreed that the wholesale rates should be changed. This instrument will amend the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations to give effect in domestic law to the commitments the UK has made at the joint committee.
This instrument is strictly about amending the wholesale rate contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations. However, I believe it would be helpful to conclude by setting the context that the wholesale cap in the free trade agreement was intended to facilitate surcharge-free roaming between the UK and Iceland or Norway. I can confirm that this surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. Mobile network operators EE and Three continue to surcharge their customers roaming in Norway and Iceland. It is welcome that Vodafone removed the surcharges. VMO2 did not reintroduce roaming surcharges to the EU and EEA EFTA after the Brexit transition period.
The Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers to Norway and Iceland, in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement. I stress, however, that this instrument is strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and fulfilling commitments that the UK has made under international treaty.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to contribute to this, but I hope the Committee will allow me to say that I took great interest in the fact that surcharges for roaming may affect calls between this country and, for example, Norway. We will have to wait and see what happens on Saturday, and whether that encourages or discourages further calls.
As this is my noble friend’s first appearance at the Dispatch Box, I congratulate her for the way that she introduced this statutory instrument. I wish her well, not just for today, but for her first Question, which we understand is next week.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount, particularly in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, to the Government Front Bench.
We again raise no particular objection to these regulations. Reducing the wholesale caps for calls, texts and data between the UK, Norway and Iceland, in line with the Joint Committee’s decision, is sensible and follows the agreement’s own review mechanism, exactly as intended. These new caps are, however, explicitly benchmarked against the EU’s own roam-like-at-home rates. If that standard is right for our EEA EFTA neighbours, it prompts an obvious question: why has no equivalent effort been made to secure a reciprocal surcharge-free roaming arrangement with the European Union itself, where far larger numbers of UK travellers go? They may go to Norway in greater numbers after this Saturday—I do not know—but certainly the numbers at the moment point that way. This Government, like their predecessors, seem content to import EU benchmarks piecemeal, while leaving the much bigger prize—a UK-EU roaming deal—untouched.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister to the Front Bench. I know that the first OQ is one of the most alarming experiences this House has to offer, but I am sure she will be brilliant and I look forward to hearing it.
On these Benches, we are pleased to support this instrument. As has been outlined, it is a technical measure that updates the wholesale mobile roaming charge caps applying between the United Kingdom, Norway and Iceland, in accordance with the review mechanism established under the UK-EEA EFTA free trade agreement. These arrangements originated in the agreement secured by the previous Government following our departure from the European Union. The agreement provided an important framework to facilitate surcharge-free roaming, while ensuring that wholesale charges between operators remain proportionate and subject to regular review. These regulations do not alter that policy; they simply give effect to revised wholesale caps, following the Joint Committee’s conclusion that the previous figures had diverged from international benchmarks. Indeed, the revised limits represent a reduction in the permitted wholesale charges for voice calls, text messages and, most significantly, mobile data.
It is reassuring that the Government do not anticipate any significant impact on businesses or consumers. As the Explanatory Memorandum notes, wholesale rates are already expected to be below the revised caps in most circumstances, meaning that these regulations are principally about ensuring that domestic legislation remains aligned with our international obligations.
I have one brief question for the Minister. While these regulations concern wholesale rather than retail charges, will the Government continue to monitor whether the benefits of these international agreements are being reflected in the experience of UK consumers travelling abroad? I thank her for her account of these surcharges in some circumstances by some operators, especially as future reviews of the roaming provisions are undertaken. This represents a sensible administrative update and demonstrates the importance of keeping our domestic legislation aligned with agreements negotiated in the national interest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support across the Committee for the draft Trade (Mobile Roaming) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. I particularly offer my gratitude and thanks to my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. I appreciate their comments. I do not think it has made me feel any more secure about next week, but I will hold on to those comments.
I appreciate that this is a somewhat technical amendment, but it is necessary to meet the international obligations we have made with our friends and neighbours —Norway and Iceland—although I take the point from my noble friend about our friendship in Norway following whatever the result is on Saturday. I further appreciate that surcharge-free roaming has not been delivered for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland. However, keeping the free trade agreement’s wholesale rates up to date with this instrument is a necessary, though insufficient, step for allowing future developments to ensure surcharge-free roaming for UK travellers.
On the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the reduction of wholesale prices is welcome. He asked about benchmarking; why there is no equivalent with the EU; about the practical effect, which may be limited with Norway and Iceland; and whether any change will be felt by customers. I remind the noble Lord that this is entirely about wholesale; it is not about retail prices at all. I stress that the Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming in line with the aspirations of the free trade agreement.
On the options around benefits for UK travellers, which I think the noble Lord was driving at, the Government are continuing to review options for delivering surcharge-free roaming. I can only repeat that. Also, surcharge-free roaming has not yet been ensured for all UK travellers to Norway and Iceland.
In answer to the question of whether the Government are reviewing the delivery of surcharge-free roaming to consumers travelling to Norway and Iceland, yes, that review is planned. Sorry to hop around, but Regulation 13 has not yet been fully examined but it remains under review.
I remind noble Lords that this is strictly about amending the wholesale rates contained in the Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations and it has nothing directly to do with consumers, because it does not concern retail prices. It is primarily concerned with fulfilling the commitments that the UK has made under international treaty. I beg to move.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the Grand Committee do consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 (Establishment of Schools) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their scrutiny of this instrument. The draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 20 May 2026. As noble Lords will be aware, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 changes the legal framework for opening new state-funded schools. It ends the legal presumption that new schools should be academies and helps to ensure that new schools can be delivered quickly where they are needed by enabling proposals from local authorities and voluntary organisations as additional routes to delivery. This provides greater flexibility in the system, including in circumstances where suitable academy trust capacity is limited.
This instrument makes consequential amendments arising out of these provisions. The amendments to primary and secondary legislation are necessary to ensure that references to the legislative framework for opening new schools are correct and consistent across the statute book and to update provisions to ensure that they are compatible with the new legislative framework. The amendments are minor and technical in nature and do not introduce any significant new policy.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act repeals Section 6A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, relating to the presumption that new schools should be academies. Arrangements for inviting proposals for new schools are now contained in the amended Section 7. The Act also replaces Sections 10 and 11 of the Education and Inspections Act with an amended Section 10. The draft regulations before us remove references to Sections 6A and 11 in other primary and secondary legislation and replace them with references to Sections 7 and 10 respectively where necessary, providing legal clarity.
The amended provisions relate to: land given to a local authority on trust for educational purposes; transfer of employment where an independent school is replaced by a maintained school; proposals of new schools; the ability of local authorities to put in place governance arrangements for new schools ahead of proposals being approved; and powers enabling a preparing or shadow council to exercise certain functions in relation to establishing, altering or closing schools during the process of local government reorganisation.
The draft regulations also make two small amendments of substance. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 sets out procedures for the establishment of new pupil referral units by local authorities. The regulations extend legislation to apply to newly established pupil referral units in two cases. Currently, where a new maintained school replaces an independent school, a teacher at the independent school transferring, under transfer of undertakings (protection of employment) legislation, to the new school may choose to retain their existing terms and conditions or choose to opt into the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. This instrument extends the provision so that it applies when an independent school is replaced by a pupil referral unit, affording teachers the same choice.
Secondly, this instrument applies and extends Regulation 5 of the School Governance (New Schools) (England) Regulations 2007 to pupil referral units. When only one school proposal has been published under Section 7 or 10 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 as amended, a local authority is able to put in place governance arrangements for a maintained school in anticipation of that proposal being approved. This will now also apply where only one proposal for a pupil referral unit has been published. These amendments will ensure legal clarity and consistency.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, remembering the bit of the Bill we did when we started this, I think this is quite a sensible provision. There is no great disagreement in principle on this, certainly on my part. We have a mixed economy for schools, and indeed the previous Government discovered, when they wanted everything to become academised, that even people who were good long-serving Conservatives were not that keen on getting functional schools converted across. We have a mixed economy, and it seems to be largely accepted that, until we get around to a radical reform or until the wind changes, it will stay as that.
I do not know what councils and local authorities having some capacity to expand or change the school system will mean with falling school rolls, but the emphasis on pupil referral units and special schools is quite sensible, as this will undoubtedly be part of a more coherent picture of dealing with those who will not succeed in mainstream schools. The autism lobby might be interested in the potential here, because the huge costs involved in transporting people to appropriate special schools might be addressed here, at least in the medium term. That is probably more hope than expectation, but it would certainly be something that allows that to happen.
On pupil referral units, whatever is happening at the moment, more people seem to be failing and rejected by mainstream schools, and they need somewhere where they can be addressed. I do manage to make everything about special educational needs, do I not? The high number of needs identified in people on the way to or in pupil referral units is a reality. Those who are not succeeding at school tend to be rejected in the majority of cases. So this is a sensible suggestion, if we accept that we have this mixed relationship in where schools come from. As such, I have no objection to this; indeed, I have a little bit of hope.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing today’s statutory instrument, which makes amendments consequential to the provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act. I record His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s support for one measure within these regulations. These regulations will make it easier for teachers and local authorities to transition into new pupil referral units, making it easier to create those new PRUs.
We support the expansion of alternative education provision, particularly for those who need additional help. Indeed, in government, we supported PRUs and general alternative provision. We oversaw an increase in independent alternative provision pupils of 156% in the seven years leading up to the 2024 election. Alternative provision academies doubled in our final 10 years in office, and these in particular are more likely to be judged outstanding by Ofsted and have better attendance than other state-funded alternative provision, as they can combine academic freedom with tailored pastoral support. We therefore support regulations enabling the expansion of alternative provision.
However, although some of this instrument supports the expansion of alternative provision education, which so benefited from the freedoms the Conservatives gave it, other measures in this SI simultaneously enforce the Government’s crackdown on the freedoms of academies. The Academies Act 2010 ushered in the most substantive education reforms in a generation. It introduced the academy as the presumptive model for any new school, a provision that was introduced into legislation the following year. This SI now repeals that free school presumption, instead allowing an array of new schools to be proposed.
The success of academies was one of the proudest achievements of the last Conservative Government. By the end of our time in office, England’s performance in global PISA rankings had improved from 27th to 11th in mathematics and from 25th to 13th in reading. That improvement lies primarily with academisation. Pupils attending early sponsored academies achieve on average one GCSE grade higher than those in predecessor schools. Seventeen out of the top 20 English secondary schools with the highest Progress 8 scores are academies or free schools, as are 84% of the top 50.
It was, prior to the last election, a cross-party consensus that giving schools the freedom to compete and innovate was the key to improving their standards. Simply comparing England’s results to those of Wales and Scotland proves this hypothesis. We believe that removing the academy as the default is ill advised. It will serve only to slow the improvement of educational standards to the detriment of future generations. With luck, the next Administration will realise that mistakes have been made and change tack to the right course of action but for now, we will have to continue our constructive challenge for what we see as the right decision.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contribution to this discussion today. I know from previous experience that both noble Lords are passionate about education and understand its importance for our young people. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his particular reference to the mixed economy and the ability to respond to particular circumstances as they arise. He quite rightly referenced, for example, falling rolls, which is an issue that is working its way through primary schools at the moment and which will be going into secondary schools for a substantial number of years; of course, that has an effect. I am interested in his comments about the autism lobby. I know he will keep us up to date with his thinking around that, but from my own experience—
Lord Addington (LD)
I will let the noble Baroness know that I do not have to keep noble Lords up to date; it is going to let everybody know.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I have no doubt about that either, and of course we welcome the extraordinary work that it does in such an area of high need going forward. But I think the noble Lord must acknowledge that he has a particular role in terms of promoting, at every possible opportunity, as he quite rightly outlined, his commitment to making sure that Members of this House take account of the challenges, needs and opportunities—and of course the successes—in these areas.
I think it is fair to say that pupil referral units have had a rather mixed experience over the years, and so everything that we can do to make sure that there is proper oversight and connection with other schools in a particular community is to be welcomed.
I do not have much to say to the noble Earl, Lord Effingham; I think he will continue to express his concerns and his views. But I would have thought that the most important thing that we can do is to support local areas to come up with the best provision that they can. It is simply a fact that in some areas the academy chains do not necessarily have the reach or the capacity or the expertise in particular areas to take on the important challenges that are facing our young people today. It is absolutely with that in mind that we want to move forward to make sure that all schools and institutions have the very best opportunity to work with the best providers, making sure that we have proper oversight of the governance going forward.
I am sure that the noble Earl will continue to have a look at progress as we go forward. Despite his acknowledgement of the incredible progress that has been made in some areas, we know that the education system is letting down too many young people, and we have to do everything that we can to make sure that the opportunities are there.
This is not an ideological decision by any means at all; it is simply practical. It responds to need and will make sure that the best possible players are available. Just to recap, the instrument will make the necessary consequential amendments arising out of the provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 relating to the opening of new schools. With that in mind, I beg to move.