Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny of this instrument they have provided. I believe that they were satisfied with it. The draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 18 May 2026. These regulations are the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement—LLE. They establish a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that begin on or after 1 January 2027.
The LLE is one of the most significant reforms to student finance in a generation. For the first time, it creates a single flexible funding system for study at levels 4 to 6, spanning both further and higher education—one that supports people to learn, upskill and retrain across their working lives. The LLE was a central element within the Government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, supporting the growth and skills missions as well as the industrial strategy.
The case for the LLE is clear. Over a third of job vacancies are unfilled because of skills shortages and at least 80% of the workforce of 2030 are already in work today, yet our current system was designed largely with younger, full-time learners in mind. It does not offer the flexibility for someone who is older, who wants to study part-time, take a short course or module, or retrain mid-career. The principle of a single lifelong learning entitlement was a central recommendation of Sir Philip Augar’s 2019 review. Parliament then established the framework for this through the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 and the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023. These regulations now continue the serious work of implementation.
The LLE will broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training. It will support learner mobility and help our colleges, universities and other providers respond more effectively to the skills needs of learners, employers and the wider economy. In doing this, it will support the Prime Minister’s ambition for two-thirds of young people to access higher-level learning by the age of 25 and help to increase participation in high-quality technical education. This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth, and the LLE is a central part of that mission. These regulations set out the details of the LLE tuition fee limit system. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider in England can charge per year if they are subject to a fee cap. Currently this limit is up to £9,790 for a standard full-time course in 2026-27.
At present, fee limits are set as a fixed cash amount for each academic year, regardless of how much learning that year contains. That works for a traditional three-year degree but it cannot price a single module or a short course effectively. These regulations replace this with a credit-based approach. Credits are units widely used to signify the amount of learning a student would ordinarily be expected to undertake to complete a particular course or part of a course. Across the further and higher education sectors, definitions are consistent. One credit equals about 10 hours of student learning, so to give a straightforward example for a typical higher education course, the standard higher fee limit amount for the academic year 2026-27 is £9,790 and a standard full-time year contains 120 credits. The LLE per-credit fee limit as described by these regulations represents that £9,790 divided by 120. The result is therefore a tuition fee limit of close to £82 per credit, or £81.58 to be precise. These regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course.
The new system established by these regulations does not change the overall tuition fee limit, as debated by the House earlier this year. The vast majority of students will see no change in the fees they are charged. What changes is the application of the tuition fee limits that have been set. For the first time, fee limits will apply fairly to short periods of study, as well as to traditional longer courses; that is because they will be based on the amount of learning in a course or module. Students will therefore know that their tuition fees reflect the volume of learning they are undertaking. The regulations provide protection for students and taxpayers. There are limits on the credits for which a provider can charge: 360 credits for a typical three-year degree and 180 credits within any one year.
Subject to Parliament’s approval of these regulations, it is my intention to make and lay two further instruments, which are necessary to establish the LLE. The two instruments, on student support and on repayments, have already been published in draft so that the House has full sight of the suite of legislation proposed and the sector can make appropriate preparations for the introduction of the LLE system. These two instruments will both be subject to the negative procedure. Given their dependency on the regulations before us today, they will be made only if both Houses approve these regulations.
These regulations represent a significant step in fulfilling this Government’s commitment to deliver the lifelong learning entitlement. They establish the fee limit system needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance—one that works better for young people and adults alike. By doing so, they will help learners study in a way that fits their lives, help providers respond to changing skills needs and support people across the country to access the education and training they need to succeed. I beg to move.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations and, obviously, support the objective of the lifelong learning entitlement. As the Minister said, it originated in the Augar review a few years ago, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, played an important part. I am glad that this Government are continuing the work initiated by previous Governments in this respect.
These regulations are really important because they put in place the funding architecture for the LLE, without which it cannot become a reality. However, the real test will be whether, in reality, the architecture translates into substantially greater participation in lifelong learning, which has always been one of the missing pieces of our educational landscape in England. That will become all the more important in the world we are moving into—that of artificial intelligence. As Ministers and others have noted, we will need to enable the retraining of people many times over the course of their working lives. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the LLE is intended to operate alongside employer-funded retraining through the growth and skills levy.
It is important that we have clarity on the boundaries between these two important funding schemes, and how they relate to one another, so that we eliminate any policy confusion that might inadvertently depress demand for lifelong learning, which, as I said, is already pretty low. If a worker needs to retrain because AI has transformed their role, how should they go about it? How will they know whether the expectation from government is that their employer will fund that training or whether they should fund it themselves through loans via the lifelong learning entitlement? I would really welcome some thoughts from the Minister on those questions.
I also have broader questions about the future of this policy. These regulations are a great start and it is better that we are starting down this journey towards more modular study where possible, but I think the Minister has admitted in the past that this is not the end point or final destination. I would like to probe a little further where she sees this policy area going. In particular, when will the LLE be extended to master’s level study—level 7—given the increasing demand for postgraduate-level reskilling in areas such as AI, digital technologies and advanced professional practice? Many adults who need to retrain in the coming decade will already hold a bachelor’s degree, given current levels of tertiary enrolment, and will need to acquire higher-level skills rather than simply further study at undergraduate level or sub-degree level, which is the current area of focus of the LLE.
Secondly, what is the Government’s thinking on eligibility for funding for courses not drawn from existing qualifications? The stipulations in the policy are very clear at the moment: funding will be made available only for modules that are drawn from existing qualifications. I have said on a few occasions that this risks us stifling innovation in what is on offer, meaning that we, in effect, provide access only to more of the same but in smaller pieces. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how we can meet demand from employers for shorter, more agile programmes that respond to rapidly changing labour market needs but do not necessarily fit within traditional qualification structures. If lifelong learning is genuinely to become a normal feature of working life, it seems likely that the funding system will ultimately need to accommodate that greater flexibility.
In her remarks, the Minister referred to two further regulations that are going to be laid, one of which is on student support. As she thinks about the future direction of this policy area, could she say whether the Government might soften their stance on student support for online, distance-learning qualifications? It stands to reason—and this is the whole intent of the Government’s policy—that the smaller the unit of study, the more likely it is to be studied at distance and online, given that students will not want to incur the frictional costs of upping sticks and moving to study at another institution in person. None the less, they will still need to incur maintenance costs, which the current regulations do not provide for. As we move into a more modular landscape, it is likely that we will need to rethink that, so I would like to understand the Government’s intentions in that respect.
Finally, what does success look like in this policy area? How are we measuring it? What level of adult participation do the Government want this entitlement to achieve over the next three to five years in shifting the market share away from this category-killing three-year bachelor’s degree towards other more flexible forms of study? Where does the Minister want us to end up in changing the way higher education is consumed and delivered over a horizon of three to five years and by what measures will the Government judge whether further reform is needed? All those points are not to detract from the importance of these regulations: they are a really important beginning. I wish the Minister every success in getting them through Parliament.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I also welcome these regulations. They seem to have taken a while, and it is really good to see them. As the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, pointed out, this policy was the number one recommendation of the Augar review, of which I was fortunate enough to be a member. The cross-party support for that has been really gratifying, because we all recognise the importance both of continuing education and training and of greater flexibility.
I thought it might be worth putting on the record some of the things that we were most concerned about, because they lead into the question of how we know whether it is working or whether anything else needs doing. First, we were not particularly looking forward to modular study as such; it was much more about creating a comprehensive change in the student funding system that would build in far greater flexibility.
The thing that we were most concerned about was the rigidity of the equivalent level qualification regulations, which had been brought in by previous Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, will probably be able to elaborate. The idea was that you should have people going up and up in levels all the time. We felt that that was deeply misconceived and that one of the things you had to do—for everybody, not just for a few additional people—was to make it clear that what was important was what you were learning, not the level at which that took place.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
I thank the Minister very much for her comments in response to my remarks. I make just two observations. In relation to the Minister’s point on the master’s loan, it is, I think, still the case that the master’s loan is not available in a modular, flexible form; it is still for a year’s worth of funding. So the flexible goals of the regulations will not apply at level 7, even through the master’s loan.
On the Minister’s point about maintenance funding, I think that it is probably a mistake to think that, just because someone is studying online or at distance, they do not need support. Even if they are not incurring the same living costs as someone who has physically moved to study a higher education course, they are none the less incurring the opportunity cost of not earning. That is the principal loss of income to them, which the maintenance loan is traditionally supposed to meet.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is of course the case that, even for distance learning, if you had a disability, for example, you would have access to the disabled students’ allowance. However, with limited resource, we have to make decisions about where we want to focus maintenance support. I do not think that it is inappropriate to focus it on those who find it much more difficult to earn alongside their learning. I understand the point that the noble Lord is making—anybody who has done an OU course understands precisely how much time it takes to do that—but the Government have focused in the way that I have described.
The next set of issues, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, relate to what we see as success, where we see the future of this measure and how radical we think it should be. It is important to say that this is not a short-term fix; it is a bold long-term investment to support the creation of a student finance system that is fit for the challenges of the future. We have made a deliberate decision to phase in the delivery of the LLE, placing quality and learner outcomes ahead of an immediate large-scale rollout, but we want to see education providers using the LLE to innovate, driving deeper collaboration between further and higher education institutions and supporting smoother learner transitions across levels.
The student finance system must also meet labour market needs, which is why we are calling on employers to be active partners. We want employers to see the LLE as an essential part of their workforce strategies, helping them to attract new talent, develop skills and retain employees. We expect more FE and HE providers to work with employers and representative bodies to co-design flexible provision, helping create coherent learner pathways into the workforce.
I reiterate, as others in this Committee have, my thanks to and respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She has a long record in this area and is, in fact, one of only two people in this Room who turned up to my briefing session on the LLE.
University Student Finance
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, the Office for Students is undertaking a new approach to measuring the quality of what is being provided in our universities. Secondly, we have seen through some of the research published last week the ability to determine what the returns are from individual courses. It is for that reason that we will take action to prevent the expansion of those courses that are not providing the returns or experience that students have the right to expect. If necessary, we will legislate to do that.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is entirely right to be sceptical about a graduate tax. I am glad to hear her repeat the commitment to automatic indexation of tuition fees. However, that requires legislation—of which there was no mention in the King’s Speech. What are the Government’s plans for giving effect to that commitment?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The first thing that indexation of tuition fee caps needs is political will from a Government. It was a lack of that political will that meant that they were frozen for seven years under the previous Government. We have already taken action, two years in a row, to increase the tuition fee cap. We will continue to do this up to the point at which we can legislate to index that.
Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, the lifelong learning entitlement was intended to usher in a skills revolution. But I fear that it will turn into a pea-shooter initiative unless the funding, the eligibility of which is restricted to level 4 and level 5 courses, is widened so that students can take level 7 courses. Will the Government set out what plans they have to do that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is important that we introduce the lifelong learning entitlement in a relatively restricted way, enabling us to build for the future. The key requirements, which I was addressing yesterday, are to provide flexibility for students at levels 4, 5 and 6. Those are the first priorities that we have set for the lifelong learning entitlement.
Schools and Universities: Language Learning
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a visiting professor at King’s College London and chairman of FutureLearn. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out in her introduction to this important debate, languages are a strategic asset for an outward-facing country such as the UK, yet we have essentially adopted an approach of benign neglect. It is surely telling, for example, that this Government’s industrial strategy does not contain a single reference to languages. This is not unique; every single iteration of the industrial strategy since Brexit has also essentially neglected to mention languages as a key component of our economic performance.
When it comes to engaging with the big emerging powerhouses of the global economy, it is not surprising that we find ourselves hobbled by this linguistic weakness. I think we can all agree that our export performance gives no grounds for complacency. Initiatives such as World of Languages show that there is no shortage of curiosity about global languages in our schools, but, as we have heard in this debate, the pipeline through school into university and beyond is clearly broken.
Take Mandarin as an example of where we could clearly do better. For obvious reasons, given China’s importance to the global economy, national security and other matters, countries such as the US and Australia have designated Mandarin as a strategic or priority language and support it accordingly. By contrast, no equivalent strategic designation exists in this country and, tellingly, there is no certainty beyond this financial year over the funding for the valuable Mandarin Excellence Programme delivered by University College London’s Institute of Education, in partnership with the British Council.
As we have heard this afternoon, teacher supply in schools is a major constraint, as is the fact—as with other languages—that the curriculum content is seen as hard to access for many non-heritage students. The end result is a shrinking flow into universities, leaving the UK unable to produce China-capable graduates at scale. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned some other key statistics, but those for China are particularly striking. Just 685 UK students enrolled in China studies degrees or other degrees with a China content in 2023-24, which was down 20% in a decade—a period during which we cannot say that China’s significance has diminished.
I will end with three short questions for the Minister. Like others, I welcome rejoining Erasmus+. But, on its own, as a Europe-focused programme, it is clearly very limited, for capacity reasons, in the extent to which it supports the lived study-abroad experiences that underpin learning of vital non-European languages. Will the Minister ensure that a genuinely global route, such as Turing, will continue to sit alongside Erasmus post our rejoining it in 2027?
Secondly, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned the lifelong learning entitlement as a possible way to promote language learning. I fear that the Government are missing a trick with the lifelong learning entitlement, because of their restrictive, STEM-oriented approach to eligibility for this important funding stream. Will the Minister ensure that foreign language modules are eligible for LLE funding, so that more people can build language skills flexibly over time?
Finally, like the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar, Lady Blower and Lady Lane-Fox, I urge the Minister and the Government to think more strategically. If the Government really want to show that they take these issues seriously, will she ensure that the next update to the industrial strategy clearly designates languages as a long-term strategic capability for the country?
Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I ask noble Lords to keep their questions short. We have enormous interest in this subject and we want to get through as many questions as we can.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a visiting professor at King’s and chairman of FutureLearn. I welcome the Statement, particularly, like my noble friend Lord Willetts, the bold decision to index fees with inflation—it is absolutely the right thing to do after a decade of real-terms freezes. However, I regret the missed opportunity to fix some of the big problems with the lifelong learning entitlement and the decision to take away with the other hand what the Government have just given on the fees front. Can the Minister please confirm the scope of the proposed tax on international tuition fees? Does it include, for example, online provision and transnational education—that is, courses taken by students from British universities while they are studying in other countries? Given that the Government have acknowledged that they do not have a strong evidence base on elasticity of demand, would it not be a better idea to pause to rollout of this tax or, better still, shelve it altogether?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I explained to the noble Lord’s colleague the reason behind the international student levy. I do not think it is true to say that there is not an evidence base on the elasticity of demand for international students, but we will have more to say about the design of the international student levy at the point of the Budget.
Health and Safety Executive
Lord Johnson of Marylebone Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mrs Brooke, for calling me to speak. I am delighted to have secured this debate on the remit of the Health and Safety Executive, and I am also delighted to see the Minister in her place. She is having a busy afternoon, so I am grateful that she is here in Westminster Hall to respond to the debate.
The Health and Safety Executive is an important organisation in today’s society, stating clearly that its role is
“to prevent people being killed, injured or made ill by work.”
The HSE has a great website where people can look up information by topic or industry, and obtain advice and guidance about health and safety at work. However, there is one huge gap in the HSE’s work, and it relates to driving for work purposes. HSE guidance for work-related road safety points to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which
“requires employers to take appropriate steps to ensure the health and safety of their employees and others who may be affected by their activities when at work. This includes the time when they are driving, or riding at work, whether this is in a company or hired vehicle, or in the employee’s own vehicle.”
However, the HSE has no responsibility for enforcement of the legislation. In October 2008, the Transport Committee’s 11th report of the 2007-08 Session of Parliament stated:
“It is anomalous that the vast majority of work-related deaths are not examined by the Health and Safety Executive, purely because they occur on the roads. The Government should review the role of the Health and Safety Executive with regard to road safety to ensure that it fulfils its unique role in the strategy beyond 2010.”
A Department for Transport booklet signposted on the HSE’s website sets out basic steps that employers should take, but it does not provide the kind of excellent advice that is given for other workplace situations. Deaths and injuries in other workplaces are properly investigated by the HSE, and what is learned is made available to other organisations. That does not happen for work-related deaths and injuries on our roads.
A report by the HSE in March 2012, entitled “Health and safety in road haulage”, does not discuss issues relating to sleep or fatigue, or vehicles on the road. It focuses on manual handling and workshop safety, which, although important issues, are not the key one of work-related deaths on our roads.
In response to a recent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield),the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) provided statistics about the proportion of work-related road deaths and injuries. He said that some of those deaths and injuries involved journeys
“where the journey purpose was known and recorded as ‘part of work’.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 391W.]
He said that 24% of serious injuries and 30% of road deaths in 2010 could be linked to work-related road traffic accidents. As there is no requirement to report work-related deaths, that is likely to be an underestimate. Even using those figures, we are talking about, on average, 11 deaths and 105 serious injuries every week.
Employers have a responsibility to report work-related injuries to the HSE under the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995—RIDDOR—but that does not include a responsibility to report work-related road traffic accidents. Why are deaths and injuries resulting from those accidents not counted as workplace deaths and injuries? The Institute of Occupational Safety and Health argues that all work-related accidents, even those on public roads, should be included as a reporting requirement under regulations. It has repeatedly called for work-related road traffic accidents to be reportable and to be investigated by the HSE under RIDDOR.
The HSE recorded the number of workplace fatalities in 2010-11 as 171. However, those fatalities exclude fatalities of workers travelling on a public highway—in other words, fatalities in road traffic accidents. The HSE says:
“Such incidents are enforced by the police and reported to the Department for Transport.”
Using DFT statistics, “such incidents” equate to more than 550 work-related road traffic deaths in 2010, which is three times more than all the other deaths at work recorded for the most recent period.
The UK is rightly proud of the work that it has done to reduce deaths at work. The HSE’s website shows the steadily declining incidence of such deaths, which we should all welcome. However, because the fatal accidents being recorded exclude road traffic accidents, a full picture is simply not being provided. We do not know enough about why and how people at work die on the road, or how many members of the public are killed by people who drive for a living.
I became aware of this gap in the HSE’s coverage through an interest in the identification of obstructive sleep apnoea, particularly in lorry drivers. Some years ago, I was contacted by a constituent following the death of his 25-year-old nephew, Toby Tweddell, who was killed in 2006 by a lorry driven by somebody with undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating one of my constituents, Carole Upcraft of Orpington, for her tireless and much-needed campaign to alert us to the dangers of undiagnosed obstructive sleep apnoea, and to the need for early identification screening of drivers, particularly heavy goods vehicle drivers? We need to raise awareness of this condition in the haulage industry, and Mrs Upcraft’s campaign is performing a vital public service.
Meg Munn
Indeed. I have had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Mrs Upcraft. Along with members of others families who have been affected by this condition—such as my constituent, Seb Schmoller, his brother-in-law, Nick Tweddell, who is Toby’s father, and the rest of the Tweddell family, as well as Toby’s fiancée, Jenny—she has been involved in this campaign. These people are all determined that other people should not suffer in the way that they have suffered.
The link between untreated obstructive sleep apnoea and road traffic accidents is well established. Someone with that condition experiences repeated episodes of apnoea, whereby breathing is temporarily suspended because of a narrowing or closure of the airway in the upper throat during sleep. It results in episodes of brief awakening to restore normal breathing, of which the person may or may not be aware. The sustained failure to get proper restful sleep night after night means that the affected person is constantly tired and liable to fall asleep during the day.
Obstructive sleep apnoea affects many people, but despite it being a common, identifiable and treatable condition, knowledge of it among primary care practitioners remains poor, which means that the diagnosis rate is very low. It is estimated that 4% of men and 2% of women have the full syndrome—the symptoms of sleepiness I have described—and that up to 80% of cases may be undiagnosed.
The rate of obstructive sleep apnoea among lorry drivers is significantly higher than it is for the general population. There is a high correlation with being overweight, and the sedentary lifestyle of many who drive for a living increases their risk of developing it. According to medical experts, it is likely that between 10% and 20% of lorry drivers are affected by sleep problems. There are 400,000 large goods vehicle drivers in the UK, which means a minimum estimate of 40,000 affected drivers.
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency estimates that 20% of serious road traffic accidents on major roads are caused by sleepy drivers. Clearly, the danger and damage caused by a heavy lorry crashing will be much greater than that caused by a car crashing, making sleep apnoea a significant health and safety at work issue. A 40-tonne lorry travelling at its maximum speed of 58 mph that fails to brake because the driver has fallen asleep, and that hits a queue of stationary vehicles, will crush at least the first car and its occupants. If it collides with the central reservation, it will probably flatten it, before continuing into the opposite carriageway, with all the consequent problems—even disaster—that that will cause. The number of road accidents, with the resulting deaths and serious injuries, can be substantially reduced by increasing the number of drivers who are diagnosed and successfully treated for this condition.
Obstructive sleep apnoea can be relatively easily diagnosed, with most sufferers being easily treated. In just two weeks, the benefits can be felt. Screening drivers within the workplace would be a significant contributor to the health and safety of lorry drivers and other road users. Some companies, such as Allied Bakeries, are taking that approach seriously, promoting awareness of the condition with their drivers and arranging to screen them. Some drivers describe the resulting treatment as life-changing. So far, 3% of approximately 1,000 of Allied Bakeries drivers have been successfully diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnoea and, following treatment, continue to work in the company.
Continuous positive airway pressure—or CPAP—treatment equipment costs less than three new lorry tyres or one tank of diesel fuel. That is a relatively small price, compared with the £1.5 million that the Department for Transport estimates to be the average cost of a fatal lorry collision, excluding the costs of any long-term health care, loss of income and insurance compensation for death and injury.
The British Lung Foundation is leading a major campaign to raise awareness of obstructive sleep apnoea, to improve diagnosis and treatment. It advises companies that employ drivers to encourage their staff to take part in screening programmes, while providing reassurance that people with sleep apnoea can, and do, continue in their jobs, if treated successfully.
Businesses in the UK sometimes complain that there is a complex regulatory environment—I should perhaps say “often complain”—but few argue with the important work that the Health and Safety Executive undertakes.