Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Christopher Chope, Graham Stringer, Valerie Vaz, † David Mundell

† Bedford, Mr Peter (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)

† Darling, Steve (Torbay) (LD)

† Fox, Sir Ashley (Bridgwater) (Con)

Gibson, Sarah (Chippenham) (LD)

Gill, Preet Kaur (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co op)

† Griffith, Dame Nia (Minister for Equalities)

† Hume, Alison (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)

† Kumaran, Uma (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)

Law, Chris (Dundee Central) (SNP)

† McIntyre, Alex (Gloucester) (Lab)

† McMorrin, Anna (Cardiff North) (Lab)

† Madders, Justin (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Business and Trade)

† Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

† Murray, Chris (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)

† Pearce, Jon (High Peak) (Lab)

† Smith, Greg (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)

† Tidball, Dr Marie (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)

† Timothy, Nick (West Suffolk) (Con)

† Turner, Laurence (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)

† Wheeler, Michael (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)

Kevin Maddison, Harriet Deane, Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 9 January 2025

(Morning)

[David Mundell in the Chair]

Employment Rights Bill

Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will now continue line by line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.

On a point of order, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I seek your guidance on the status of a document circulated to Members by the Scrutiny Unit. It says it is submitted by a Professor Mitie, but I believe that the document is in fact from Mitie, the organisation, and perhaps we do not know its author. Could I ask that we be told who the author is? It is Professor Somebody Else, I suspect. The document also has tracked changes in it, and I seek your guidance on whether those are comments inserted by the Scrutiny Unit or, perhaps, by the author. It is sometimes difficult to know when documents are circulated at the last minute.

Thank you, Sir Ashley, for giving notice of that point of order. The issue you have raised is obviously on the record. It will be raised with the Scrutiny Unit and there will be a report back to the Committee on the outcome of that inquiry.

Clause 72 Enforcement of labour market legislation by Secretary of State

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 72, page 79, line 15, at end insert— “(4A) Accordingly, in the case of the exercise by an enforcement officer of an enforcement function of the Secretary of State, any reference in an enactment to the Secretary of State in connection with that function is to be read as, or as including, a reference to that officer or any other enforcement officer.”

This amendment ensures that, where an enforcement officer is exercising an enforcement function of the Secretary of State by virtue of clause 72(4), references in legislation to the Secretary of State in connection with that function will include references to enforcement officers, so that the legislation will apply in relation to the enforcement officer as it would apply to the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State were exercising the function. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Mundell. I start by making the customary reference to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Clause 72 is the first in relation to the fair work agency, and it is one of the building blocks of the agency. I will explain the main elements of the clause, as that will help us to understand the amendment. The clause confers an overarching function on the Secretary of State to enforce certain legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4, which the clause introduces. The clause provides flexibility for the Secretary of State in how to deliver that overarching enforcement function. It enables them to appoint enforcement officers to carry out the function on their behalf, and it provides that enforcement officers will be able to exercise any of the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State and will have the enforcement powers conferred on them as set out in the terms of their appointment by the Secretary of State.

As I said, the Secretary of State has the function of enforcing the legislation set out in part 1 of schedule 4. The legislation contains references to the Secretary of State having functions and powers in connection with the enforcement of the rights set out in that legislation. It is important that those references can be read as references to the enforcement officers the Secretary of State appoints to act on their behalf; otherwise, enforcement officers may not be able to properly exercise the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State. That would make their appointment, and potentially their enforcement activity, less effective.

Government amendment 84 inserts a new subsection after clause 72(4) to ensure that references to the Secretary of State are read as references to enforcement officers where necessary. The practical effect is that the legislation will apply to enforcement officers as it would to the Secretary of State. This is a technical change, but I hope that Members will see that it is necessary.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once more, Mr Mundell.

Government amendment 84 looks to us like a drafting correction. We will not rehearse the arguments we have had so many times in the Committee about drafting corrections, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the powers in the Bill, which are directly related to the amendment, for enforcement officers to enter and search business premises are any wider in scope than current enforcement powers and, if so, how and why.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for not rehearsing the arguments, as we may end up having them every five minutes, given the number of technical amendments we will deal with today. He raises an important question about the enforcement powers and powers of entry. There are a number of clauses that deal with that. My initial understanding is that, generally speaking, we are not seeking to widen the remit of current enforcement powers. I will endeavour to write to him if there are any changes or exceptions to that. It may be something that becomes apparent when we debate the clauses in question.

Amendment 84 agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 is important, as it sets out the principles of a major part of the Bill. The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, domestic agency regulations and the gangmasters licensing scheme is split between three different agencies. That often means that workers do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective. It is not fair for workers or businesses.

Clause 72 is a vital building block in the creation of the fair work agency. It is worth noting from the outset that the FWA will be established as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade, which means that it will not have its own distinct identity in legislation. The Bill therefore vests responsibility for enforcement of labour market legislation in the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State intends to discharge those responsibilities through the fair work agency, which will be created in administrative documents.

Clause 72(1) places responsibility for enforcing a set list of labour market legislation on the Secretary of State and introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing. There is a general power in clause 118(3) to make regulations that commence different aspects of the Bill at different points. Exactly when the Secretary of State will take on responsibility for enforcement will depend on the detail of those commencement regulations. However, creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around; the agency will also take on the ability to enforce workers’ right to paid holiday and their entitlement to statutory sick pay.

Clause 72(2) explains that part 5 of the Bill confers powers on the Secretary of State and enforcement officers to carry out the purpose of enforcing the labour market legislation in schedule 4. Clause 72(3) makes it clear that an enforcement officer includes anyone whom the Secretary of State has appointed to carry out enforcement of that legislation on his behalf, and clause 72(5) clarifies that enforcement officers appointed by the Secretary of State have only the powers conferred on them when they are appointed. Practically speaking, that means that whether the Secretary of State or an enforcement officer is carrying out this work, they will have the enforcement and investigatory powers they need to do the job effectively. Those powers are set out in later clauses.

Clause 72(5) is also a particularly important safeguard. As I have already said, the responsibility for enforcing legislation and the powers to carry it out will be vested in the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will then confer them on the enforcement officers he appoints. However, the FWA’s remit will also include the serious issue of modern slavery and labour abuse, for which certain specially trained enforcement officers will have extensive police style powers, as set out in section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Certain officers in the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority are trained to use those powers, which are subject to additional oversight, including by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. The powers should continue to be reserved for tackling the most serious issues handled by the FWA. That is why we have included clause 72(5), through which the Secretary of State will specify what powers enforcement officers will have access to when appointing them. We will ensure that powers are conferred only on officers who are sufficiently qualified to use them and who genuinely need them to do their job.

The Minister is talking about granting officials of the state extensive powers currently reserved to police officers. Can he tell us how many additional officials will be granted those additional powers?

What we are doing is transferring existing powers and responsibilities from the existing agency. There are no new police style powers being created for these officers; it is simply a transfer over to the fair work agency.

Clause 72 is key to delivering the much needed upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights so that it is more effective and fair for workers and businesses. It brings together enforcement functions currently split between several different enforcement agencies and gives the fair work agency the flexibility to respond to a rapidly changing labour market. I commend the clause to the Committee.

A lot of the detail is in the clauses that follow this one; as the Minister said, this is very much a building block clause. Although I totally understand and appreciate the rationale for taking enforcement powers that are currently fragmented across multiple different agencies and consolidating them into one, the devil is always in the detail.

Although it might seem sensible to consolidate the powers that are currently so spread out into one agency, this is very much a centralisation of power. The crux of clause 72 is about directly providing the Secretary of State with the overall function of enforcing labour market legislation. Whenever I see such provisions in any legislation, I cannot help but be reminded of the late, great President Reagan’s famous quote about the nine most terrifying words in the English language: “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater suggested in his intervention on the Minister, the serious detail is about the practical workings of the fair work agency as it is set up. What will be the total number of enforcement officers, employees and ancillary staff required—admittedly, some will be brought across from other agencies—to form it? What will be the cost to the taxpayer of putting that together? How many people are we actually talking about? I think that, as opposed to the powers that they will hold, was the crux of my hon. Friend’s intervention.

As I said, we accept the rationale for bringing these powers together under one agency, but whenever such powers are granted to a Secretary of State, no matter what the field, there is always uncertainty and scope for never ending expansion of the new agency, and of the size of the state, to do what is, in many cases, important enforcement work—I do not doubt that. Given the presumption that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament and that the agency will be set up in the way envisaged in clause 72, it would be good to have clarity about the plan for just how big the agency will be and whether the Secretary of State will put any cap on that from the get go. How far does the Minister envisage the agency going?

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I broadly welcome the bringing together of powers under the fair work agency. I note that the Secretary of State is due to publish an annual report, but I am sure that businesses in Torbay would be interested to know where in the Bill the critical friend is to hold the Secretary of State to account and ensure that they are being light of foot and driving the agenda we all want to see in this area, so I would welcome the Minister’s sharing that.

As is customary, I draw the Committee’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers and the GMB.

I warmly welcome this clause and the subsequent clauses, and the establishment of the fair work agency. I remind the Committee of the evidence we heard of the broad support for the agency, including from Helen Dickinson, the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium, who said: “I think everybody is supportive of and aligned on proposals like a single enforcement body.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 99, Q95.] Jamie Cater, the senior policy manager for employment at Make UK, said: “The important thing for levelling the playing field is the fair work agency, and making sure that we have an approach to enforcement of labour market policy and regulation that is properly resourced and does have that level playing field.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 54, Q53.] Jim Bligh, the director of corporate affairs for the Food and Drink Federation, said: “For me, it is about enforcement and having a really strong, well resourced enforcement agency.”––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 26 November 2024; c. 55, Q53.]

It is clear that there is support for the fair work agency across industry. I warmly welcome it. However, while rights for workers are incredibly important, rights are nothing without enforcement. Enforcement is incredibly important, but enforcement does not work without resources. That is to acknowledge that in setting up the fair work agency, which has broad support, we must ensure that it has adequate resources to do its job well and fulfil its function.

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. As is customary, I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my membership of the GMB and Unite trade unions. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles. I will make two brief complementary points.

First, the establishment of a single enforcement body was one of the core recommendations of the Taylor review. We were told over the last two Parliaments that an employment Bill was coming. Now that it is here, it is welcome that that recommendation is being acted on.

Secondly, in the Australian system of industrial relations, the Fair Work Commission is a long standing and effective enforcement body that has survived multiple changes of governing party, so there are good international comparators to draw on, as well as the support we heard in the evidence sessions. The resourcing questions that have been raised are valid, and I am sure that those of us who come at this from a trade union background and point of view also take a close interest in the resourcing of the fair work agency. I make those two additional points in support of this measure.

I want to add my support in principle for the idea of a single labour market regulator. I have written about that in the past in different ways and can claim a small amount of credit for the commissioning of the Taylor review into the gig economy when I was working in 10 Downing Street. These issues are very important to me. Hopefully that will reassure the Minister and Labour Members of my cross party credentials when that might be necessary.

We can all think of ways in which different kinds of labour market exploitation—non payment of the national minimum wage or living wage; breaches of terms and conditions, health and safety or holiday rights; and illegal working, among many other examples—can be difficult to address if the laws are tough but the enforcement is poor. Those on both sides of the Committee can agree on that.

I want to add to the questions that have already been raised. I think the Minister said that the idea is that no additional powers will be granted and that this is just a consolidation. My understanding is that the fair work agency will not be a single monolithic agency; it is more about different strands of work being brought under a single leadership. If that is the case, presumably the different agencies that exist will do so until this legal change comes into effect. Presumably, the powers of the officers in each of those agencies differ in certain ways. Will that remain the case under the one body, or will there be interoperability and transfer of officers within the different sections under the single regulator? Or is the idea that the officers across those different entities will all assume the maximum powers that exist at the moment so that they can operate across all the different responsibilities of the new agency? I think that would still mean a net increase in powers across those people. What work has been done in the Department to give us an idea of the numbers we are talking about? If the Minister could answer that and then write to us with some more detail and statistics, I would be grateful.

It is pleasing to hear generally broad support for this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield pointed out, and as the hon. Member for West Suffolk will know better than most, this was previously a Conservative party manifesto commitment, and we are pleased to be able to move it forward.

Some detailed operational questions were asked. At this stage, how the agency will work in practice is still being fleshed out. The current understanding in the impact assessment is that this is about the consolidation of existing resources and having a single point of leadership. Members will recall that, in her evidence to the Committee, Margaret Beels, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, talked about how her role would be much easier if she were able to combine the powers of different agencies.

The shadow Minister asked whether we will require extra staff. That will be part of discussions with the Treasury. As he will know, there is a spending review on the horizon and Departments have been asked to look at savings. Clearly, we hope that the combining of resources will lead to some efficiencies, but there is certainly a view from a number of stakeholders that enforcement is not at the level it ought to be—

I fully acknowledge and appreciate the Minister’s point about negotiation with the Treasury, but even if we take it as read that it is right to bring powers into a single enforcement agency, there is always a cost to creating anything new, even if it is a consolidation. Surely, the Department for Business and Trade has a cost for that. There is legislation live, in front of us right now, that seeks to create the agency, so surely he must know the broad cost of setting it up and consolidating those powers.

Yes, the impact assessment sets out the one off set up costs. I am sure the shadow Minister can spend the lunch break looking at the detail. In terms of the current enforcement framework, as I say, there is a view that more needs to be done. Of course, we will be adding holiday pay and social security to that, and there is a power to add further areas. We know that generally, when resources are combined, we can deliver more—the sum is greater than the parts.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, asked about the critical friend. This Government are always ready to have critical friends—more on the “friend” side than the “critical” side. We will come shortly to a clause about an advisory board, which will have a broad range of stakeholders able to take that role.

Does the Minister not agree that for any power held by any Secretary of State in any Department, the critical friend is a very simple concept? It is called Parliament—it is all of us.

Indeed it is, and the usual parliamentary scrutiny will apply, but I was talking specifically about the role of the fair work agency. There will be that role, and no doubt as more detail emerges there will be more parliamentary opportunities to talk about the role and functions of the agency.

My hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles and for Birmingham Northfield talked about the broad support for the agency’s establishment, as indeed did the hon. Member for West Suffolk. I have a list of all the supportive witnesses at the oral evidence sessions, and it is a broad and impressive cast. It includes the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the British Retail Consortium, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the Food and Drink Federation, the Co op, Margaret Beels, and of course all the trade unions. There is support across the board for this single enforcement body.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. There are a few points about the creation of the agency that I would like the Minister to address. I am broadly supportive of synergies and of the rationalisation of public bodies, particularly to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money, but have the Government considered the cost of this new body and whether it will result in savings for the taxpayer? Will they consider locating it outside London so that it is more broadly reflective of the country at large?

As a regional MP—a north west Member—I am always looking to see where we can get more Government agencies out into the rest of the country. It is probably too early to say, but those kinds of decisions are being looked at.

At the moment, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs deals with minimum wage enforcement. Moving such a specific task across to another body will take some time, so there may well be a period during which HMRC continues to undertake that work, albeit that it is within the remit of the fair work agency. Such operational details will be discussed and dealt with in due course.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk made a point about the powers of individual officers. Initially, we envisage that officers will move into, effectively, their existing roles. It will be a matter for operational consideration in due course whether it is beneficial to extend people’s remits. It will not be required of anyone without sufficient training and safeguards in place, but as the agency develops, it may well be considered advantageous to broaden the role of enforcement officers. One of the rationales for the body is that there are often several aspects to an employer’s breach of obligations, so we want the fair work agency to be able to tackle these things as a whole. However, that is an operational matter that will be dealt with in due course. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 72, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 Legislation subject to enforcement under part 5

I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 4, page 127, line 29, leave out paragraph 3 and insert— “3 Section 151(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (employer’s liability to pay statutory sick pay).

3A Regulations under section 153(5)(b) of that Act (requirement to provide statement about entitlement).”

This amendment clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay which will be enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 170.

As we have discussed, the current enforcement system for workers’ rights is fragmented. By creating the fair work agency, we intend to bring enforcement into one place. We have been clear that we also want the fair work agency to enforce individual rights to statutory sick pay, because we want to upgrade the enforcement of workers’ rights and stand up for the most vulnerable in our workforce, including those who are unable to work owing to sickness. That is why part 1 of schedule 4 to the Bill, as introduced on 10 October 2024, includes part 11 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992—one of the main pieces of legislation setting out the statutory sick pay regime—in the body of relevant labour market legislation. Government amendment 169 further clarifies the obligations concerning the payment of statutory sick pay under the Act and regulations made under it, which will be enforceable under part 5 of the Bill.

However, there is a wider body of statutory sick pay legislation containing details about the entitlements bestowed on workers and the duties of employers. After further work, we noted that some of those provisions needed to be included under the fair work agency. That led us to amendment 170, which will add the following legislation to part 1 of schedule 4: regulations made under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay, which deal with claims for, and payment of, benefits; section 14(3) of the Act, which establishes the duty on employers to provide employees with certain information about their sick pay entitlement; and regulations made under section 130 of the Act, in so far as they relate to statutory sick pay. Those provisions will be considered relevant labour market legislation, which makes them part of the Secretary State’s enforcement function. We will proceed with them once the fair work agency is ready to enforce them effectively. Amendments 169 and 170 are therefore necessary for the fair work agency to deliver its remit on statutory sick pay.

Amendment 169 clarifies the specific obligations relating to the payment of statutory sick pay that are enforceable under part 5. Similarly, amendment 170 will ensure that those additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under part 5. This goes back to our old friend, drafting errors being corrected that should really have been sorted out before the Bill was presented to Parliament in the first place.

We will probably have this conversation a number of times. It is probably a little harsh to say that this was an error, but it would be fair to say that, given the complexity of social security legislation, not every provision was identified when the Bill was first introduced.

Amendment 169 agreed to. Amendment made: 170, in schedule 4, page 127, line 30, at end insert— “Social Security Administration Act 1992 3B Regulations under section 5 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations about claims for and payments of benefit), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.

3C Section 14(3) of that Act (duty of employers to provide certain information to employees in relation to statutory sick pay).

3D Regulations under section 130 of that Act (duties of employers), so far as relating to statutory sick pay.”—(Justin Madders.) This amendment ensures that additional obligations relating to statutory sick pay that are imposed on employers by the Social Security Administration Act 1992 are enforceable under Part 5 of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment 118, in schedule 4, page 128, leave out lines 11 to 16.

This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes those regulations from the list of legislation subject to enforcement under Part 5 of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 119, in schedule 5, page 130, leave out lines 16 and 17.

This amendment is consequential on NC20 and removes an enforcement authority within the meaning of regulation 28 of those Regulations from the list of persons to whom information may be disclosed under Clause 98 of the Bill. New clause 20—Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998— “(1) The Working Time Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1833) are revoked.

(2) The following regulations are also revoked— (a) the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003 (S.I 2003/3049); (b) the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea fishermen) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1713); (c) the Cross border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1660); (d) the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/58).

(3) In consequence of the revocations made by subsection (1) and (2)— (a) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule A2 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 207A applies)

(b) omit section 45A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection from suffering detriment in employment: working time cases); (c) omit section 101A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal: working time cases); (d) omit section 104(4)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (assertion of working time rights); (e) omit section 18(1)(j) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (which refers to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations among proceedings to which conciliation is relevant); (f) omit section 21(1)(h) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 (jurisdiction of the Employment Appeals Tribunal in relation to the Working Time Regulations); (g) omit the reference to regulation 30 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 5 to the Employment Act 2002 (tribunal jurisdictions to which section 38 applies); (h) omit the reference to regulation 28 of the Working Time Regulations in Schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 2006 (person to whom director etc may disclose information); (i) omit paragraph 141(h) of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (specific reserved matters), but this omission does not confer any jurisdiction on the Senedd or Welsh Government.

(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments under section 113(1) must be exercised to make such further consequential amendments as are necessary in consequence of subsections (1) and (2).”

This new clause revokes the Working Time Regulations 1998 together with other Regulations which give effect to the Working Time Directive in UK law, and makes consequential provision. Amendment 117, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert— “(3A) But if the provisions of section [Revocation of the Working Time Regulations 1998] have not been fully brought into force before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, that section (so far as not already in force) comes into force at the end of that period.”

This amendment is consequential on NC20 and provides that the revocation must have effect within a year of the passing of this Act.

I rise to speak to amendments 117, 118 and 119 and new clause 20, which stand in my name and in the name of my hon. Friends on the Committee. I make it clear that they are probing amendments; it will become clear over the next couple of minutes why we seek to probe the Government on the issue.

The amendments would repeal the working time directive within one year of the Bill’s coming into force. Our reason for tabling them is not that we intend to abolish entitlement to holidays, lunch breaks and so on—far from it, and nobody is suggesting that. However, the working time directive has had a troubled history. One example is the difficulties that occurred between the Commission and member states when the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that employers—all of them public health and emergency services—did not calculate time spent on call as working time, when they should have done. The CJEU consistently declared that practice incompatible with the directive, arguing that inactive time spent at the disposal of the employer must be counted in its entirety as working time. Then, in 2019, the Court ruled: “Member States must require employers to set up an objective, reliable and accessible system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured.”

The result of that judgment was never formally brought into British law, but as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it became part of retained EU law.

Last year, the Conservative Government legislated to clarify that businesses do not have to keep a record of the daily working hours of their workers if they are able to demonstrate compliance without doing so; to amend the WTR so that irregular hours and part year workers’ annual leave entitlement is pro rated to the hours that they work; to introduce an accrual method for calculating holiday entitlement for certain workers; to revoke the covid regulations—it seems odd that we are still saying that—and to introduce rolled up holiday pay for irregular hours and part year workers. Consultation requirements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 to allow smaller businesses to consult directly with employees would be another measure. That is just the start of how it might be possible to simplify the working time directive. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how well the working time regulations are working, and on whether any further changes might be made for the benefit of businesses to enable growth in this country.

The working time regulations have had a relatively long history in our legal framework. They provide vital rights: a maximum working week of 48 hours, rest breaks of 20 minutes every six hours, rest periods of 11 hours each day and at least 24 hours each week, and 28 days of annual leave each year. The regulations implement the EU working time directive; the then Government deliberately designed them to provide maximum flexibility for both employers and workers. For example, workers can choose to opt out in writing from the 48-hour week maximum. We believe that the regulations have benefited millions of workers and their families over the years. They afford workers a better balance between work and other responsibilities, as well as improvements in health and wellbeing.

A 2014 review by the previous Government of the impact of the working time regulations on the UK labour market found that since 1998 there had been a decline in long hours working in the UK and a general trend towards shorter working hours, which is probably not a surprise. The findings also suggested that the impact of the regulations was mainly through increased employment of workers doing shorter working weeks, rather than through a reduction in total hours worked. Annual leave entitlements have increased since the introduction of the working time regulations; many workers now enjoy a more generous leave entitlement than is prescribed by law.

Limitations on working hours and entitlement to a minimum number of days’ holiday can contribute to improvements in health and safety. Most employers accept that a minimum holiday entitlement contributes to physical and psychological wellbeing. Reductions in stress and fatigue caused by excess hours can provide many benefits, including less pressure on health services and better performance at work, with fewer accidents. By establishing minimum standards, the working time regulations also support a level playing field that discourages competition that relies on poor working conditions and a race to the bottom.

New clause 20 would revoke the Merchant Shipping (Maritime Labour Convention) (Hours of Work) Regulations 2018, which provide for adequate rest for seafarers and support the management of onboard fatigue and the wellbeing of seafarers. Revoking the regulations would negatively affect the ability of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to enforce safe and healthy working conditions for seafarers.

The new clause would also revoke the Fishing Vessels (Working Time: Sea fishermen) Regulations 2004, which require the UK to implement the International Labour Organisation’s work in fishing convention, which underpins the safe operation of vessels. Fishing is one of the most dangerous sectors in the UK, with 50 injuries per 100,000 workers compared with a UK average of 0.4. We believe that the 2004 regulations are critical to ensuring that workers take the appropriate hours of rest to prevent fatigue related incidents.

The new clause would also revoke the Merchant Shipping (Working Time: Inland Waterways) Regulations 2003. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency is in the process of conducting a post implementation review of those regulations. The initial responses to the consultation have indicated a generally positive view from stakeholders.

The new clause would also revoke the Cross border Railway Services (Working Time) Regulations 2008, which provide enhanced rights and worker protections for those engaged in cross border rail services, such as train crew for Eurostar services through the channel tunnel. The revocation of the regulations would erode those enhanced protections.

The Government believe that the minimum standards in the Working Time Regulations 1998 and other sector specific working time regulations have supported millions of workers and their families by enabling them to better balance work and other responsibilities. The Government have no plans to revoke the working time regulations or any of the other sector specific regulations.

I understand what the shadow Minister says about whether we consider the regulations to be beneficial to businesses, but he will know that there was ample time under his Government to undertake those reviews. Indeed, one was undertaken just over a decade ago, as I said. We have no plans to erode workers’ rights in this area; indeed, one of the fair work agency’s main functions will be to enforce rights to holiday pay, which evidence to the Committee suggests are not being enforced properly.

The shadow Minister says that he has no intention of revoking the working time regulations and that his amendment is probing, but I can only speak to what is before the Committee. If he had tabled an amendment seeking a review of the operation of the working time regulations, that might have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This feels to me like a dog whistle amendment, so I am pleased to hear that he will not be pressing it.

I am always pleased to delight the Minister in these debates. It was a probing amendment, and I can confirm that we will not be pressing amendments 117 to 119 or new clause 20 to a Division. However, I will briefly comment on the Minister’s response. I entirely respect him for it, but it was a full throated defence of the status quo.

Something that goes deep within my view of politics, of government and of public administration is there is always room for improvement in pretty much everything. I say that as much about measures passed by previous Conservative Governments as about those passed by current or past Labour Governments. I refuse to accept that something is as good as it possibly can be and is working as well as it possibly can in the interests of businesses and workers alike. There is some disappointment from the official Opposition that the Government do not seem to want to look again.

Does the shadow Minister not accept that his party undertook this exercise, which is why regulations were introduced last year to amend the working time regulations?

I fully and totally accept that, but it is our job as the official Opposition, here and now in January 2025, to press the current Government on further measures that could be taken to work in the interests of everybody in our country—workers and businesses alike. Perhaps I accept the Minister’s point; perhaps we could have tabled an amendment to call for a review. Who knows? Perhaps on Report we might. But the fundamental position that I come back to is one that does not just accept the status quo, but is always challenging, always reviewing and always seeking to make things better in the interests of everyone.

When the Minister goes back to the Department and prepares for the remaining stages of the Bill in the main Chamber and in the other place, may I gently urge him to consider in the round, with the Opposition’s support, whether there are tyres to be kicked and measures to be improved in the operation of the working time directive? May I also urge him to ensure—now that we are a sovereign country once more, having left the European Union—that this Parliament can make improvements should it so wish? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 4, page 128, line 13, at end insert— “( ) regulations 13 to 15E (entitlement to annual leave, etc);”

This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to enforce the entitlements to annual leave conferred by the Working Time Regulations 1998. Government amendment 85 will add to schedule 4 the additional holiday pay and entitlement regulations: regulations 13, 13A, 14, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E of the Working Time Regulations 1998. It will enable the fair work agency to take enforcement action in relation to incorrect payment or non payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement, ensuring that a wider range of complaints can be dealt with more effectively. I commend it to the Committee.

This is another example of a tidying up exercise that we really should not have to be discussing in Committee. It should have been sorted before the Bill was introduced.

Amendment 85 agreed to. Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Review of the effectiveness of enforcement of labour market legislation— “(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review providing for— (a) an assessment of the effectiveness of enforcement of, and compliance with, relevant labour market legislation requirements as specified in Part 1 of Schedule 4 of this Act; (b) an assessment of the performance and effectiveness of following bodies in enforcing labour market legislation— (i) Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority; (ii) Employment Agencies Standards Inspectorate; (iii) His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs; and (iv) Health and Safety Executive; and (c) recommendations on strengthening labour market legislation enforcement.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the review in subsection (1) not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed and before a new single labour market enforcement body is established.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of enforcement of labour market legislation and to report findings to Parliament before a new labour market enforcement body is established.

The UK’s labour market enforcement system is fragmented, as we know. The enforcement of core rights such as the minimum wage, the domestic agency regulations and the gangmaster licensing scheme is split between three different agencies, so workers often do not know where to go when they think they might not have received what they are due. That makes enforcement ineffective.

Clause 72 is a vital building block of the fair work agency. Clause 72(1) will place on the Secretary of State a responsibility to enforce a set list of labour market legislation. It introduces part 1 of schedule 4, which sets out the list of relevant labour market legislation that the Secretary of State will be responsible for enforcing— the national minimum wage, domestic agency regulations, the gangmasters licensing scheme, parts 1 and 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the administration of the unpaid employment tribunal award penalty scheme.

Creating the fair work agency is about more than simply moving things around. That is why we have also taken steps to enforce workers’ rights to paid holiday and statutory sick pay. We tabled two sets of amendments to part 1 of schedule 4 to ensure that the fair work agency delivers the policy intent in relation to enforcing holiday pay and statutory sick pay. As we have discussed, our amendment on holiday pay will ensure that the FWA can take action in relation to incorrect payment or non payment of a worker’s holiday pay and incorrect payment or non payment in lieu of annual leave entitlement; our amendment on statutory sick pay will ensure that all relevant statutory sick pay provisions that contain entitlements for workers or impose duties on employers are in scope of enforcement.

Part 2 of schedule 4 grants the Secretary of State a delegated power to make affirmative regulations to add new legislation to part 1 of the schedule. The Secretary of State can use the power to bring in scope legislation that relates to the rights of employees and workers, the treatment of employees and workers and requirements on employers, and legislation on trade unions and labour relations. It is a broad power but a necessary one: if we are to deliver the policy intent of genuinely upgrading enforcement, the fair work agency needs to be able to respond to changes in the labour market. We believe that a power to make affirmative regulations, which Parliament will of course have to approve, will ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny for any further changes.

New clause 23 is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary and would be counterproductive. It would impose a lengthy and redundant review process that largely duplicated the statutory duties that are already undertaken by the director of labour market enforcement. She already oversees the enforcement landscape and provides an annual strategy and annual report on the effectiveness of the activities of the bodies that will make up the fair work agency. New clause 23 would do nothing to add to those mechanisms. In fact, it would slow down the creation of the fair work agency.

I turn to clause 75—

We will come to that later.

Okay. I have nothing further to say, except that the shadow Minister’s new clause 23 is a duplication of existing requirements that would add nothing to the process.

I hear what the Minister says about slowing things down, but it would be remiss of me not to comment that if the Government had perhaps taken their time a bit on the drafting of the Bill, we would not be spending so much time in this Committee considering the absolute deluge of Government amendments that tidy things up that should have been right in the first place. Sometimes it is best not to rush things. Sometimes it is better not to dive in head first and just go for the first thing available, but to be cautious, to review and to fully understand all the implications that new legislation such as this will have in the real world.

That is what new clause 23, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, seeks to double check. It seeks to ensure that the Government are getting this right—not in our interests or those of anyone in the House of Commons, but in the interests of businesses and workers in the real world, trying to get on with their daily lives, get their jobs done and get their businesses growing and providing the growth and prosperity that we all want to see in the country.

As I have said previously, we do not have a problem in principle with the establishment of a new body to oversee the enforcement of labour market legislation. I have made that clear, and hon. Friends who have spoken have made it crystal clear. But we also made a challenge in the previous debate, and that is what new clause 23 is all about. It is about ensuring that we fully understand the scope, cost and effectiveness of this new body.

Any new body, be it a Government body or in the private sector—although the creation of new bodies in the public sector tends to be slower and often cost more than the private sector would manage—will take time and resources, and we would like to be reassured that this is a good use of time and resources. I repeat that our instinct is that it probably is. Our instinct is that it does seem to make sense, but we can never rely on instinct or on that which might look good on paper as the absolute cast iron test. It is about the real evidence.

We heard from the hon. Gentleman earlier in the main Chamber about sustainable aviation fuel; I wonder whether he might share with us the shadow ministerial equivalent that he seems to have discovered, because we are covering a huge amount of ground. I just say this to him. We did have the Taylor review, which looked at these matters, including the functioning of the individual enforcement agencies, so I am just wondering: does he think that something has changed, in terms of their effectiveness, since then? We have already had an assessment of the nature that he is calling for.

I think we will focus on the latter part of Mr Turner’s remarks.

Yes, Mr Mundell. I am genuinely struggling to find the connection between my questions in transport orals this morning on sustainable aviation fuel and this Bill. I will gladly offer to have a coffee with the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield to discuss my passionate view on synthetic fuel in the future, but it really is not relevant to this Bill.

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, about previous reviews, but new clause 23 is specifically looking at the creation of this new body and is about ensuring that that is the right thing to do and that the cost of it will actually bring the benefit that the Minister and other Government Members have explained that they believe it will. It is incumbent on all of us, whether we sit on the Government or Opposition Benches or for the smaller parties, that we challenge everything put in front of us. Any culture in any organisation that does not challenge what is put in front of it is often weaker for it. That is what new clause 23 is seeking to do.

Inherent in that, notwithstanding the Taylor review, is the aim to ask and double check whether the rationale takes into account how effectively labour market legislation is currently being enforced and understand what research this Government—not former Governments, but this one—have undertaken on what will be done more effectively or efficiently with the creation of this new body. We would like the Government to assess how effectively the labour market legislation that will be enforced by the new body is currently working in that fragmented sense that the Minister spoke about earlier, and how effective the enforcement of it is, before setting up any new quango.

Generally speaking, new quangos fill me with dread and fear, but this one may be worth while. However, we need the evidence. Will the Minister expand on how matters will change for businesses through the new labour market enforcement authority? What will feel different for them and what changes might they need to make as they prepare for it? New clause 23 tries to get to the heart of that.

I know from my surgeries and casework in Torbay that discrimination is sadly alive and well. I ask the Minister to reflect on some of the evidence from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which talked about the provision leading to fragmentation and the possibility of some of its standard work falling between two stools. What reassurances can the Minister give that the good work will proceed appropriately either through the fair work agency, or in a partnership approach with the Equality and Human Rights Commission?

I want to speak in support of new clause 23 and to ask the Minister whether he is familiar with Parkinson’s law. It states that the number of workers in any public administration will tend to grow over time, regardless of the quantity of work done. The corollary is that work expands to fill the time available for its completion.

Although Conservative Members are in favour of the creation of the fair work agency, there is a risk that, over time, it will seek to have more staff and more power, will consume a great deal more of taxpayers’ money and resources, and will impose more on employers’ time, without great result. That is why a review is necessary. We want to ensure that any new authority is lean and efficient. We also want the Government to take the same approach to regulations.

Unfortunately, the Bill is a hefty document. It will impose £5 billion worth of costs on employers, which will probably result in fewer people being employed, higher inflation and lower growth. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to ask the Government to reflect after 18 months and ascertain whether they can find anything in this weighty tome that they could do better or more efficiently.

The working time directive is immensely complicated and imposes burdensome record keeping on employers. In the past, it has resulted in retained firefighters in rural areas having to count the time when they sit at home, not doing anything, as working time. It has been a difficult and troublesome measure, and perhaps my party should have done more to simplify it when we were in office, but that is not an excuse for the Government to say, “Because you didn’t do enough, we intend to do nothing.” It is reasonable for us to ask the Government, at the end of 18 months, to take another look and see whether they can do anything to reduce the burden on businesses.

I am beginning to wonder whether the Opposition’s support for the fair work agency is as strong as I thought. They now appear to want to make sure that creating it is the right thing do, despite its featuring regularly in Conservative manifestos and despite the support of the breadth of stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee. The current Director of Labour Market Enforcement made it clear in her evidence to the Committee that the creation of the fair work agency would make her role much easier and more effective. She spoke about the recommendations in her most recent report: “The ones that relate to having a better joined up approach, to greater efficiency and to better sharing of information among bodies are the things that I think the fair work agency will do a lot better.” ––[Official Report, Employment Rights Public Bill Committee, 28 November 2024; c. 153, Q159.] I think that almost half of the recommendations from her most recent report contained an element of that.

On Parkinson’s law, which the hon. Member for Bridgwater referred to, I am not sure whether that is actually an Act of Parliament; I suspect it is not. But it is fair to say that, while we are consolidating existing bodies—there are no specific plans at this stage to increase the workforce—we know from the evidence that this Committee received that there are still huge issues with payment of the minimum wage. Some 20% of workers on the wage floor reported that they were receiving less than the minimum wage; 900,000 workers reported that they had no paid holiday; and 1.8 million people do not receive payslips. There are huge gaps in enforcement at the moment, which is one of the reasons why the fair work agency is needed.

While the shadow Minister might want to seek reassurance that setting up the new body is the right thing to do, we believe that the issue has actually been pretty settled between both the main parties for a long time that it is the right thing to do. Requiring a report within 18 months—before the fair work agency can actually be set up—is simply going to delay that work by 18 months. He has also added into the amendment the Health and Safety Executive, which will not actually be part of the fair work agency, so that, again, would create some complications.

However, I assure the shadow Minister that there will be a regular review of the fair work agency’s performance. I did start to stray into clause 75 in my earlier speech, and I did that, Mr Mundell, because that clause actually deals with the requirements for the agency to provide an annual report and enforcement strategy, which will be our way of measuring the effectiveness of the fair work agency.

I understand that the shadow Minister wants reassurance that this is the right thing to do, but I suggest that there is more than enough evidence already that it is; his amendment will simply delay our arrival the destination that I thought we had all agreed was the right one. I ask him not to press the amendment.

For clarity, the question on new clause 23 will be put at a subsequent point in the proceedings.

Question put and agreed to. Schedule 4, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Clause 73 Enforcement functions of Secretary of State Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 74 stand part.

Clause 73 specifies which functions are considered enforcement functions of the Secretary of State for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. It defines enforcement functions widely and then carves out certain functions that are not enforcement functions.

Clause 73(1) specifies that the enforcement functions of the Secretary of State include the following: any functions granted under part 5 of the Bill; functions in the relevant labour market legislation that they are responsible for enforcing; and any other functions that they perform to support enforcing labour market legislation.

Clause 73(2) goes on to set out exceptions. It lists specific functions that are not enforcement functions for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill. These are generally functions that relate to the arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation, and the overall governance of the fair work agency. These overarching governance functions include: appointing officers under clause 72; delegating functions under clause 74; setting up the advisory board under clause 75; publishing the annual reports and enforcement strategies under clauses 76 and 77; providing for transfer schemes to move staff into the Department under part 1 of schedule 7; and powers to make subordinate legislation.

The effect of clause 73 becomes clear when it is read in conjunction with clause 72. First, the enforcement functions that are listed in clause 73(1) can be performed by enforcement officers appointed under clause 72. Under clause 72(4), the powers of an enforcement officer include the power to exercise any enforcement function. Those powers can be limited further by the terms of the appointment of those officers.

Clause 74 gives the Secretary of State flexibility about how they carry out the functions of labour market enforcement. It provides the option to delegate functions to another public authority. Clause 74(1) gives the Secretary of State the power to make arrangements with the public authority so that it can exercise the delegable function. It also enables the Secretary of State to make arrangements to appoint a public authority’s staff as enforcement officers. The Secretary of State can delegate the enforcement functions listed in clause 73(1), all of which have been highlighted already. Those functions relate to arrangements for state enforcement of labour market legislation or the overall governance of the fair work agency. The Secretary State can also delegate powers relating to the licensing of gangmasters under sections 7 or 11 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. The arrangements the Secretary of State makes with public authorities can also include an agreement to make payments in respect of the performance of any function by either the public authority or their staff.

Clause 74(5) means that delegating an enforcement function does not strip the Secretary of State of responsibility or control in enforcing labour market legislation. The Secretary of State can still carry out functions even when they have arranged for another public authority to do that on their behalf.

The Bill is about bringing enforcement and employment legislation into one place in order to make enforcement more effective and efficient by ensuring the better use of resources. It is about creating the right powers to carry out investigations and take enforcement action where necessary. However, it does not set out a specific approach to implementing that more joined up enforcement, because operational flexibility will be the key to the success of the fair work agency. The clause helps to provide that flexibility by enabling the Secretary of State to delegate certain functions to other public authorities or to make arrangements for staff of other bodies to be appointed as enforcement officers. Both clauses are integral to the effective functioning of the fair work agency in the future.

On the face of it, the clauses are not problematic: they are quite clear, and it is important that those things that are considered as enforcement functions are clearly defined. That is all well and good—until we get to clause 74(5), which states: “Arrangements under this section do not prevent the Secretary of State from performing a function to which the arrangements relate.”

Therefore, a body with certain powers—admittedly in the Secretary of State’s name—is created; essentially, a quango is put in place, and people are given the clear job of carrying out the enforcement functions in the Bill. However, if the Secretary of State is not prevented from performing one of those functions, what is the mechanism by which they can overrule the quango they themselves set up to perform them? Of course, the ultimate buck must stop with the Secretary of State, but it is a pretty established convention that where a quango is set up and has powers delegated to it—I think of Natural England within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many other quangos—it is very rare for a Secretary of State to intervene, overrule and perhaps come to a different conclusion from that quango.

We will not oppose the clauses, but I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on the circumstances in which he believes clause 74(5) would come into effect, to make clear the procedures a Secretary of State would need to follow to bring that subsection into effect.

I broadly welcome the proposals in the clauses, and I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of the issues outlined by the shadow Minister.

I hear what the shadow Minister says. He is possibly over egging the pudding or taking us on a ride on the ghost train in terms of what clause 74(5) means. It simply means that if the Secretary of State delegates powers to another body, they are still the responsible person for the overall operation. This is not about overruling different bodies; it is about where the final responsibility lies. I hope I have put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest to some extent.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 75 Advisory Board Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I know you have been eagerly awaiting this clause, Mr Mundell. It concerns an important part of the fair work agency, and something that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson touched on earlier. The agency has a big job on its hands to restore trust among workers that they will get the rights that they are entitled to and that Parliament has laid down. It also important that the agency is trusted by businesses, and that they know they will be treated fairly and that if they follow the law, they will not be undercut by those who seek to avoid it. That is an important job for the fair work agency and it is important that we get it right. It must reflect the concerns of businesses and workers.

The Low Pay Commission has served the country well since the last Labour Government created it to advise on the national minimum wage. That is because it is a social partnership, comprising equal voices of workers, businesses and independent experts, and can reflect the perspectives of all those bodies when making recommendations. We want the FWA to replicate that success.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to create an advisory board for the fair work agency. Subsection (2) specifies that the board must consist of at least nine members appointed by the Secretary of State. Subsection (3) provides that board members must hold and vacate their position in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. Subsection (4) provides for the advisory board to have a social partnership model, requiring equal representation of businesses, trade unions and independent experts.

We know this is a complex area that is constantly changing, but we believe that the model and approach that has proved so successful with the Low Pay Commission should be replicated here. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

I hear what the Minister says in his explanation of the clause. Often, advisory boards are perfectly good and useful bodies, but I return to my earlier point that where a power rests with a Secretary of State, the accountable body to which any Secretary of State must submit themselves is the House of Commons, where they are a Member, or the House of Lords, in the rare case that they sit in the other place. Parliament is the advisory body—the critical friend—that the Secretary of State should submit themselves to.

However, accepting that an advisory board is going to be established, I want to ask the Minister about its make up. While the Bill seems to be quite clear, there are some gaps, and some unanswered questions that the public, businesses, employees and the trade union movement will no doubt wish to have answered.

Probably the clearest definition in clause 75(4) is that in paragraph (a): “persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of trade unions”.

I think we can all understand that that means representatives of the trade union movement.

There are 10 of them over there.

There is my first question, prompted by my hon. Friend: does that include right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament who themselves are members of trade unions? Could that be the case?

We are less clear on paragraphs (b) and (c). Paragraph (b) states: “persons appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of employers”.

That is a far less easily defined body of people. On the one hand, I can hear some potentially arguing that that is the representative bodies that gave evidence to the Committee, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. That would be a legitimate answer, until somebody came forward and made a compelling case that, as an individual employer, they should be considered to sit on the board.

While I have utmost respect for all the umbrella bodies and representative bodies that seek to represent British business interests and the many employers of all different sizes around our country, the evidence we heard demonstrated that sometimes the representative bodies say something a little bit different from what individual employers say. The gentleman from GAIL’s gave us some powerful and compelling evidence. Will the Minister make it clear which individuals he envisages will sit on the advisory board to represent the interests of employers? Will they come from the representative bodies or individual employers? Will the Government put in place some other test to identify those individuals?

Paragraph (c) is even more opaque. It concerns

“persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be independent experts.”

For a starter for 10, I would argue that the word “independent” will need to do a lot of heavy lifting. For example—

Will the shadow Minister give way?

I will be delighted to in one second, when I have finished my train of thought.

Can someone be classed as independent if they are an academic or a university professor, perhaps with considerable knowledge of and expertise in employment law and matters relating to the Bill—someone we should all respect—but also a member of a trade union? Does their membership of a trade union count towards whether they are independent? Would that be at odds with paragraph (a)?

I apologise for interrupting the egging of the pudding—we were definitely in the “over” area of the egging. Does the shadow Minister accept that despite what we have heard, and despite the picture that he is trying to create, this model works? It is not novel; we have the Low Pay Commission. It is an established fact. Despite the many layers and convolutions that we see being built in front of us, we are actually considering something quite straightforward here.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for what appears to be his support for the British egg industry. I encourage him to eat as many British eggs as possible and to support our farmers.

Egg cellent!

We are not going down this route, thank you.

I always bow to your advice, Mr Mundell. I will try to save the Minister the embarrassment of having that recorded in Hansard.

Let me try to return to my point. While I accept that advisory boards of Government Departments often follow this formula, we have a particular definitional problem with this one. The problem is whether, in the example I gave before the intervention of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles, the independence of a seemingly independent expert—most reasonable people would say a university academic, professor, doctor or whoever would normally fall into that category—would be influenced if they were a member of a trade union, and whether in that case their membership of the board would be compliant with the provision for an “equal number” of independent experts and those representing the trade union movement on the board.

This is an important problem for the Minister to acknowledge. He must be very clear to the Committee whether the word “independent” in paragraph (c) would disallow anyone who is a member of a trade union from being a member of the board under paragraph (c), for fear of contradicting paragraph (a).

I refer the Committee to my membership of the GMB and Community unions. The shadow Minister is keen for us all to stress our trade union membership, and we do so at the start of every sitting. He makes the point about trade union membership potentially impacting independent experts, but he will be aware that many university professors are funded by private limited companies to support their research, just as some Opposition Members are supported by private limited companies and employers for campaign purposes, none of which is declared in this Committee. Would he not say that might impact those professors’ independence too? Would that not need to be declared to ensure that the numbers are balanced?

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. I believe in freedom; I have no problem with any hon. or right hon. Government Member being a member of a trade union. The point here is clarity and transparency. We have a Bill in black and white in front of us that refers to equal numbers but fails to define whether a member of a trade union could sit as an independent expert or would have to be categorised under subsection (4)(a) as representing the interests of trade unions. This is a matter of information on which the Committee and the general public deserve to have clarity before we allow this clause to become part of primary legislation in our country. As in all walks of life, there will be points of debate on that. I want to hear from the Minister’s own mouth whether he deems it to contradict the “equal number” provision. We could dance on the head of a pin all day, but when we are seeking to pass legislation, clarity is very important, and I look to the Minister to give it.

I am concerned about the heavy weather that colleagues on the Opposition Benches are making of this. For me, this measure is about driving a positive culture in employment, and the board’s balance is entirely appropriate. I welcome the clause.

I have a number of concerns about the establishment of the advisory board for the enforcement of labour market rules. I do not believe that such an advisory board is necessary and I am convinced that its creation would represent an expensive and bureaucratic exercise that would be redundant at best and a tool to disguise the Government’s intentions behind a veil of unnecessary consultation at worst. Let me explain why.

Let us first address the central issue: the need for advice. It is not as if there is a shortage of expert opinions on labour market matters; far from it. If the Secretary of State is seeking guidance from trade unions, he need look no further than the extensive and loud representation of trade union interests on the Benches behind him. There seems to be no shortage of trade union representatives in key positions, be it MPs with close ties to the unions or those with—

Does the hon. Member accept that there is a difference between “member of” and “represents” when it comes to trade unions?

Yes, I do. Indeed, “funded by” trade unions is another distinction. The point I am making is that this advice is available for free. There is no need for the Secretary of State to commission a board and pay representatives of trade unions to give him advice. The notion that three members of trade unions are needed on the advisory board seems, to put it bluntly, quite redundant. The Secretary of State can obtain that advice from any number of trade unions, their experts, or any of the MPs that sit on the Government Benches, who will all freely give it. Let us not forget that there are already plenty of independent experts contributing to various public bodies and providing high level advice to the Government—there is certainly no shortage of them dotted throughout Whitehall.

If the Government require business perspectives, they certainly need not search too far for that advice either. If they wanted to, they could listen to the CBI or, if they preferred, to the Federation of Small Businesses, which provide ample insights and recommendations on policy matters relating to labour and employment. Those bodies represent businesses large and small, and have extensive networks of experts available to advise on any issues regarding the labour market. The problem—I suspect the Federation of Small Businesses would agree—is that the Secretary of State does not listen to them, so what difference would it make if he were to put one of them on a board of nine or 12? Do we need more voices from the same sectors giving advice?

Who might we see the Secretary of State appoint to this board? I am sure Sir Brendan Barber would get a look in, or perhaps Baroness Frances O’Grady. I wonder what Len McCluskey is up to these days—I am sure he has vast experience in employment rights matters.

Mr McCluskey is now a constituent of mine.

Mr Mundell, you are as fortunate as Mr McCluskey.

I am sure that those are just the independent experts that the Secretary of State will be considering appointing to this board. This highlights another crucial point: the Government designation of independent experts is incredibly vague. The Government define “independent expert” as anyone who is neither a trade union representative nor an employer representative. There is no requirement in the Bill for someone to have any particular expertise; they just must not fall into one of those two categories. Nowhere does it say that that expert cannot be a member of a trade union; nowhere does it say that they cannot be a former leader of a trade union; nowhere does it detail what qualifications or experience these experts are expected to bring. Let us not forget that these experts will be paid substantial sums of money—potentially hundreds of pounds per day—and the Government want us to take it on trust that they will be appointing the best people for the job.

As is often the case with such bodies, it is not a risk, but a total certainty that the advisory board will be appointed disproportionately to represent one end of the political spectrum. I suspect the Government will make every effort to ensure that those appointed align with the views they already hold—or, if we have a board of nine, that at least eight of them are firmly in the camp of the Labour party. The most likely outcome in my view is that this board will be packed with individuals whose perspectives on labour markets are perfectly aligned with Government policy and with the trade unions that this Government represent. It might be more straightforward for the Government simply to ask the TUC for instructions on how to go ahead, rather than to go through this cumbersome and expensive process. It would certainly cost the taxpayer less, and I would argue it would be more honest too. The fact is that this board’s purpose seems more to provide a cover for a Government agenda that is already in place than to genuinely provide diverse input. It looks like an expensive way to present the façade of consultation without delivering anything meaningful at all.

If the idea of this surplus of readily available advice was not bad enough, we have not started to talk about the cost of setting up this quango and the board. Having served on two public bodies, I know that advisory bodies are expensive and time consuming ventures that require significant administrative resources in terms of staff, time and finance. Not only do the members of those bodies need to be compensated—perhaps the Minister will advise us whether they will be paid £300 a day, or £400 or £500 a day—but there is also the cost of setting up the selection process, conducting interviews and managing the day to day operation of the body. We are talking about at least nine members being appointed—probably more—which will consume considerable amounts of civil service time and taxpayers’ money. The selection process alone will involve a long list of procedures: advertising positions, longlisting, shortlisting, interviewing, and ultimately appointing the individuals—all, inevitably, to end up with the appointment of the nine people that the Secretary of State wanted to appoint in the first place.

What will this board ultimately do? It will advise the Secretary of State on drafting a strategy. We all know how these things go: the result will be a glossy document full of attractive photographs, distributed widely to people who will never read it, and it will have little or no practical impact on the ground. It will be yet more time and money wasted by this Government. We do not need more reports or strategies; we do not need an advisory board. Labour market rules are already there and they need to be enforced. The person responsible politically is the Secretary of State. He should take responsibility for the political decisions he makes in enforcing those laws, and not hide behind an advisory body.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dr Rupa Huq, † Martin Vickers

† Aldridge, Dan (Weston super Mare) (Lab)

† Dollimore, Helena (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co op)

† Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

† Fookes, Catherine (Monmouthshire) (Lab)

† Hack, Amanda (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)

† Hardy, Emma (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Hayes, Tom (Bournemouth East) (Lab)

† Hazelgrove, Claire (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)

† Hudson, Dr Neil (Epping Forest) (Con)

† Kirkham, Jayne (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co op)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)

† Maynard, Charlie (Witney) (LD)

† Paffey, Darren (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)

† Pakes, Andrew (Peterborough) (Lab)

Ramsay, Adrian (Waveney Valley) (Green)

† Reed, David (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

Simon Armitage, Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 9 January 2025

(Morning)

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

I have a few preliminary announcements to make. Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the time available, I hope we can take those matters formally and without debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub Committee for the Bill.

Ordered, That— 1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 9 January) meet— (a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 January; (b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 January; (c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 January; 2. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 16 January. —(Emma Hardy.) Resolved, That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Emma Hardy.)

We shall now begin line by line consideration of the Bill. The selection and grouping list for today’s sittings is available in the room. It shows how the clauses and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list show the order of debates. The decision on each amendment, and on whether each clause should stand part of the Bill, is taken when we come to the relevant clause.

A Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments within that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they will need to let me know in advance. I am sure that is clear to everyone.

Clause 1 Rules about remuneration and governance

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert— “(1A) The Authority must use its power under subsection (1) to issue rules which require— (a) the interests of customers, and (b) the environment, to be listed as primary objectives in a relevant undertaker’s Articles of Association.”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert— “(ca) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following— (i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers; (ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational; (iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and (iv) environmental interest groups.”

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 8, at end insert— “(e) preventing a relevant undertaker from employing any individual who has been employed by the Authority in the preceding three years.”

Government amendment 2.

Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 4, line 35, leave out from “force” to the end of line 40.

Clause stand part.

Happy new year to all colleagues. It is good to be in this place and it is a great pleasure to serve under your guidance as Chair, Mr Vickers. I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her engagement, and to the Committee Clerks and the Minister’s team for being immensely constructive throughout this process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Witney will speak to amendment 22, and I will make remarks on amendment 18, which, with your permission, Mr Vickers, I will press to a vote if the Government are not minded to accept it. I will also voice my concerns about amendment 2 and I give notice that we will vote against it.

Among the challenges that we face is the complete and utterly justified lack of trust in the water sector—water companies in particular, but also the regulatory framework. Amendment 18 was tabled to ensure that some of the people appointed to the boards of water companies, whatever their structure otherwise, have a connection to the benefit and interests of the consumers within the region; will benefit the residents within the areas in which the undertaker—the water company—is operational; and are experts and campaigners on environmental and sewage policy matters.

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have people in their communities equivalent to the ones I will briefly mention. People from groups such as the Clean River Kent campaign, the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust and the Save Windermere campaign, in addition to citizen scientists and others who represent local interests and have great expertise, ought to be on the boards of the outfits that run our waterways in future, and that should be in the Bill.

The amendment would bring the expertise and accountability that we are seriously lacking, and it would build trust, which our water companies are also lacking. We think that the case for it is self evident, because those bodies and others around the country self evidently have the expertise, authority and tenacity to add huge value and to ensure that our water companies deliver for the communities they are meant to serve, not just their shareholders.

Government amendment 1 seeks to undo an amendment added by my hon. Friends in the other place. Our concern is that if the Government insist on it and we do not have a much tighter timescale, that will basically undermine the regulation and leave it open ended so that we cannot be certain that we would be able to enforce the things that the Bill seeks to do in a timely fashion. To ensure that the Bill does what it is supposed to do, we should not cut the water companies any slack.

I rise to explain amendment 22. On 11 July, the Environment Secretary issued a press release on the reform of the water industry that stated: “Water companies will place customers and the environment at the heart of their objectives. Companies have agreed to change their ‘Articles of Association’—the rules governing each company—to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary objective.”

However, that commitment is not currently in the Bill. The amendment simply seeks to bring that commitment into this legislation.

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers.

On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I rise to challenge the Government on their plans in Government amendments 1 and 2. Before I go into the detail, I will make some general comments about the clause that are pertinent to the amendments.

The Opposition worry that the Bill, rather than taking original and new measures to tackle these issues, is purely an attempt to copy and paste the work done by our previous Conservative Government. In fact, many of the measures have already been copied from previous measures that we introduced in government.

In the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, we took evidence from the chief executive of Ofwat, who was clear that the bonus that the boss of Southern Water, Lawrence Gosden, received this year would not have been paid had the previous Conservative Government brought the measures in this Bill before the House. The Conservatives had 14 years to change the rules, but they failed to do so.

With the greatest respect, I sat on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the previous Parliament, and we took evidence from the chief executive of Ofwat on some of the key measures that the Conservative Government brought forward. Our Government gave Ofwat teeth and powers, and we need to make sure it uses them.

As detailed in the explanatory notes, Ofwat already has wide powers to set the conditions of water company appointments and licences. The Conservatives worked hard to strengthen its ability and power to do that since this issue came to the fore in order to drive the regulatory change that was vitally needed to tackle the scale of the crisis that came to light.

I again remind Members on both sides of the House that when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored; when we Conservatives left office, 100% of outflows were monitored. We found the scale of the sewage problem and were the first party to start to address it. The Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 gave Ofwat the power to consider, when deliberating about dividends, the environmental performance of a company and its credit rating, whereby Ofwat could stop the paying of dividends if it felt that the firm faced financial risks as a result of its actions.

The hon. Gentleman said that 100% of outflows are monitored, but I am afraid that is not correct. In fact, 100% of the 14,000 storm outflows are monitored—he did not mention storm—but 7,000 emergency overflows are not currently monitored. On the other aspect that he just mentioned, Ofwat was entirely devoid of looking at the balance sheets of the companies under the Conservatives’ watch. That is the root of all our trouble, and it would be beneficial to acknowledge that.

If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard, he will see that in my speech on Second Reading and just now I said “storm overflows”. I gently remind the third party spokesman that in the coalition Government the Liberal Democrats had a Water Minister who did absolutely nothing on this issue.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will make some progress, if I may.

The hon. Gentleman has just referred to me—

I was referring to the hon. Gentleman’s colleague.

It is therefore worrying that although the previous Administration went to great lengths to ensure that water companies were financially resilient, this Government are doing quite the opposite with Government amendment 1. That amendment, which will leave out lines 4 to 8 of clause 1, would amend the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under the clause to specifically include rules on financial reporting. That could not more clearly delineate the Conservative approach that the Labour party so derided—it promised the British people that it would do things differently—from the actual approach that Labour has taken in power.

Government amendment 1 undermines not only the hard efforts of the previous Conservative Government in taking the issue seriously, but the efforts of the cross party consensus that secured the commitment to having financial reporting rules made by Ofwat in the Bill. That cross party coalition, which included my Conservative colleagues in the other place, forced the Government to ensure that the original commitment would be in place in the Bill. Labour voted against the commitment and is simply seeking to overturn a clear cross party consensus for Ofwat to be given powers to set rules on financial reporting.

Ensuring that Ofwat can view a water company’s financial structuring will help it to scrutinise and have an understanding of how the company is operating. It will also ensure that the consumers who have been let down by the water industry for far too long are protected. With close financial monitoring, water companies will face the necessary scrutiny to reduce the risk that ordinary consumers are left without a supplier. Financial mismanagement poses great risks, so every sinew must be strained to prevent it; financial reporting is key to ensuring that that takes place. The financial resilience of the water companies is not a hypothetical issue, but a paramount concern right now.

As recently as November, Ofwat’s monitoring financial responsibility report identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. Seven of those companies were placed in the elevated concern category, meaning that some concerns or potential concerns with their financial resilience have been identified. Three companies were placed in the highest category of action required, meaning that action must be taken or is being taken to strengthen the company’s challenges with financial resilience, and therefore they need to publish additional information and report on improvements at a more senior level with Ofwat.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his Government had 14 years to reform Ofwat, during which time they did absolutely nothing?

I respectfully disagree with the hon. Member. We passed the Environment Act 2021, we gave Ofwat and the Environment Agency more teeth and, as I have said, we were the first party to start measuring and collecting the data that meant we could act on this issue. Moving forward, we are trying to ensure that Ofwat and the Environment Agency use the teeth given to them by the previous Conservative Government to make our waters better. To suggest with Government amendment 1 that Ofwat should not be concerned with financial resilience rules quite simply sends the wrong message to the public, so I urge the Government to reconsider. The Opposition will seek to push Government amendment 1 to a vote.

Government amendment 2 would remove the provision from the Bill that requires the remuneration and governance guidance provided by Ofwat to be brought into force through a statutory instrument laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. It seems odd that, while in opposition, the Labour party claimed that it wanted Ministers to do more and to take accountability for the water industry, yet now that it is in government, it is trying to avoid having ministerial—and therefore democratic—accountability.

Again, I must thank my Conservative colleagues in the other place for their efforts and for working hard to ensure that this measure was in the Bill. They were led by my friend and colleague Lord Roborough, who tabled the original amendment on this issue in the other place and secured its majority support there. As he pointed out to the Government, and I want to reiterate, it is not just about accountability; the measure that the Government are trying to remove would give them increased power and involvement in the rules that Ofwat would set. The Government claim that they want to take a tight grip on failing water companies, so why would they avoid measures that allow them more say in doing just that?

I understand that the noble Baroness Hayman, whom I have a lot of respect for, as I do for the Minister, said in the other place that the Government do not believe a statutory instrument to be necessary, and that it could impede the flexibility of Ofwat to adapt the rules as required. His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that that reason is justification for avoiding a statutory instrument. If the Government are informed that the rules need to be amended, a statutory instrument is a basic and more timely measure, compared with many others at their disposal, for making regulatory changes.

As I said, many of the measures in this Bill are quite simply trying to copy those introduced by the previous Government. If the Labour Government believe that time is of the essence for implementing new rules for the water industry, why did they not opt to use statutory instruments to adapt what is already in place rather than pursue a new Bill with all the stages and procedures that that requires?

Given that the Liberal Democrats go to great lengths to display how tough they are on the water industry and how they want accountability, it is disappointing and shocking that they would table amendment 21, which would likewise remove that requirement for a statutory instrument. Why would they also want to support this Government in trying to avoid accountability when it comes to Governments taking action on the water industry and practices? Again, are they haunted by their own record of being in government and doing nothing on this issue? I strongly urge the Government to consider their position on Government amendment 2, which we will also seek to push to a vote. In addition, if it is not withdrawn, we will seek a vote on the third party’s similarly retrograde amendment 21.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I take the opportunity to welcome the measures in the Bill, particularly those in clause 1, and to thank the Minister for her really swift work. We know all too well the damage that has been done by water companies and agricultural pollution across the UK. That damage has only been exacerbated by years of Conservative failure, allowing for record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas.

In my constituency of Monmouthshire, we have the majestic rivers the Wye, the Usk and the Monnow. Armies of citizen scientists, co ordinated by the wonderful Save the River Usk group in Usk with Angela Jones, have been monitoring the river over the past few years. Sadly, it is getting worse and worse. The levels of phosphate pollution in the River Usk are the worst in all the nine Welsh rivers that are special areas of conservation—SACs.

This Labour Government have only been in office for six months, yet we are already taking more action to tackle the scourge of sewage than the Conservative party did—indeed, more than the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party did—when they were in government. Instead of obfuscation and delay, we are getting serious action to end the disgraceful behaviour that we have been discussing. That is especially evident in clause 1, which seeks to ban bonuses for water bosses unless high standards of protecting the environment are met. Water bosses must also involve consumers in decision making. In addition, the clause ensures that failing water bosses will no longer be able to be water bosses. This action is essential if we are to hold water company bosses to account and ensure that they act in the best interests of the public and the environment, rather than in the interests of their own pockets.

I am pleased that in Wales we have the not for profit water company Dŵr Cymru. Sadly, however, that status has not stopped the company from leaking sewage. In 2023, we had 2,383 sewage dumping incidents in Monmouthshire, which is 2,383 too many. In 2022, chief executive Peter Perry took home £332,000 and a further £232,000 in bonuses, while in the latest financial year Ofwat had to step in and stop the company from paying out £163,000 of bonuses from customers’ money.

I am sure that I am not alone in recognising the injustice of such bosses’ being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses while polluting our environment. It is clear to me that significant Government action and regulation is needed, and the clause delivers it. It finally ensures that the polluter pays. I support it wholeheartedly.

I am pleased to see you in your place, Mr Vickers.

I am not going to speak to the Government amendments; I merely repeat the very good arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. At this stage, however, I will just express a couple of concerns that I have about amendment 18, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

I understand the rationale or the intention behind amendment 18; we all want the water companies to pay closer attention to the interests of their consumers. I note in passing that they already have a statutory duty—a consumer focused statutory duty—but the actions taken by the Conservative Government over the past 14 years to ask questions about the state of sewage discharges and to get information about them, so as to take effective action to bring them to an end, bring with them an additional need.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale highlighted a loss of trust in the water undertakers, and I agree with him on that. There has been a significant loss of trust as their poor behaviour, which was uncovered by the Conservative Administration, has been met with considerable outrage—justifiable outrage—by the Government and by members of the public.

However, I fear that there will be some significant unintended consequences associated with the drafting of amendment 18, relating to the legal obligations of a board member. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to those new positions being on the boards of companies. There are legal obligations that apply to all board members and I question whether the representatives of consumers and of the voluntary organisations that have been so active in this area over the past few years would really want to be exposed to the legal obligations of being a member of the board of a plc, because those obligations are significant and onerous.

It is fairly standard on boards today to have directors and officers insurance; indeed, all board members have it. What is the problem with the new people also having D&O insurance?

I am grateful for that intervention. However, it seems an odd way to proceed if it is recognised that there is a risk to voluntary members who join boards, exposing them to personal obligations, such as a fiduciary duty of care. There is also a legal duty of loyalty to the organisation, which such volunteers might find quite difficult to stomach. There is a duty of obedience to the organisation as well. It seems odd at this drafting stage to say, “We recognise that there is a risk, but don’t worry: you can take out insurance and you’ll probably be okay.” It seems odd to introduce an amendment in an imperfect form, rather than perfecting it.

First, it is up to each individual to sign up or not; they do so of their own free will. Secondly, this is standard insurance which almost all boards have in the UK and internationally nowadays, which protects board members. It would not be specifically for those board members; it would be for all board members. To say that that is a concern, and that we should not make this provision on those grounds, seems odd.

I have expressed my concerns. It would be perfectly possible to achieve the object, which I share, of improving the voice of the customer in water companies, or of improving the implementation of the existing obligation on water companies to take account of the consumer interest. I do not think that the current drafting is the best that we can do. I raise these concerns so that they may be properly considered.

I thank the Minister for all her work in introducing this Bill so quickly in the new Parliament. It is a Bill that my constituents in Hastings and Rye desperately need. As I have said many times in this House, our constituency of Hastings, Rye and the villages has suffered hugely at the hands of Southern Water. Litres of raw sewage has been pumped into the sea. Our town centre has been flooded twice, leaving homes and businesses under sewage water, and our taps have run dry twice in less than a year. We in Hastings and Rye felt the impact of 14 years of Conservative failure to crack down on water companies’ bad behaviour.

I agree with many of the hon. Lady’s points. Many of our constituents are feeling the same effects, but does she not agree that the reason why the Bill has been introduced so quickly in this Parliament with so few new ideas in it is that most of the work was done by the previous Government?

I think Opposition Members are slightly confused about the record of the Government of the past 14 years, of which both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives were a part at different points. My constituents in Hastings, Rye and the villages would find the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the last Government fixed the crisis in our water companies very bizarre indeed. I draw his attention to the powers that this Government are introducing to ban bosses’ bonuses when they fail our constituents. The last Government left thousands of outlets unmonitored, and when there were monitors, they were reporting to the water companies themselves. What this Government are doing differently is not allowing the water companies to mark their own homework; we are saying that monitors should report directly to Government, not the water companies.

The hon. Lady says that it was the last Government who allowed the water companies—the undertakers—to mark their own homework. Does she not recall that it was actually the Labour Government in 2008 who specifically changed the rules to allow water companies to do just that in relation to their environmental performance?

I am yet to hear an apology from the Conservatives for their failure to put monitors on any outlet in my constituency, their failure to make those monitors report to Government at all, and their failure to address the severity of the sewage scandal that has caused so much disruption for my constituents, for local businesses and for so many people up and down this country.

I pay tribute to campaigners in so many of our constituencies. Many are in the Public Gallery and they have done so much work exposing this scandal for what it is. We would not be discussing the scale of this scandal were it not for their hard work. In my constituency, Clean Water Action Group campaigners go out regularly of their own accord and out of their own pockets to test the water to expose what Southern Water is doing in our community. I pay tribute to them.

What we are discussing today is a measure to ban bosses’ bonuses, because it is so important that we do not see what we have seen over the last 14 years of Conservative Government—the continued failure to prevent Southern Water from rewarding bosses with bonuses. Laurence Gosden, the chief executive of Southern Water, received a bonus last year when we had seen repeated failure in Hastings and Rye under Southern Water’s watch. As I said earlier, the chief executive of Ofwat confirmed to the Select Committee that had the measures in the Bill been put in place last year by the Conservative Government, the bonus would not have been paid. Laurence Gosden only received that bonus because of the failure of the Conservatives to act when they had 14 years to do so.

I was also shocked to hear that the legislation that the previous Government drafted meant that there was only a tiny set of reasons for which bonuses could be banned. Under the last Government, to ban a water boss’s bonus there would have to be criminal failure. I do not know about other Members in this House, but my constituents who go to work, some of whom receive bonuses, would find it crazy to set the bar for banning bonuses at breaking the law, rather than not doing a good job and meeting customers’ needs. That speaks for itself in terms of the absurd record of the last Conservative Government.

It is absolutely right that this Labour Government have acted to ringfence the water companies’ money for investment in the crumbling pipes in my constituency of Hastings and Rye, and are stopping that money being diverted into bosses’ bonuses and rewarding failure.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will make some progress, because I know that we need to make progress in the debate.

In conclusion, I thank the Minister for her work on bringing the Bill before the House so quickly. I know that this is just the start of the change that we need to deliver on our water companies. This Government are acting where the previous Conservative and coalition Governments failed, and are working to clean up our water system.

I have a question for you, Mr Vickers. This is my first Bill Committee and I am trying to understand how everything works. There are six amendments to clause 1, and our task is to do line by line scrutiny. My ambition is to understand why the Government support or reject each of those amendments. At the moment, in our debate of clause 1, we are swimming quite happily between those amendments. I would love your advice, Mr Vickers, as to how we work to understand what the story is on each amendment in turn, because I am not clear on that.

There will be an opportunity to force any amendment to a Division, if the hon. Member wishes. We are attempting line by line scrutiny—I think it is more like a debate on Second Reading, but that is by the way. Does that answer your question? The Minister will respond.

Perhaps, since I am standing, I will make the other two points I want to make.

We have touched on Government amendment 2 already, but I think it is important. I was very pleased to see the wording coming in about bonuses. Proposed new section 35B(3) of the Water Industry Act 1991 says: “Rules made for the purposes of imposing the prohibition mentioned in subsection (2)(a) (“the pay prohibition”)”.

That is the ban on bonuses. While the explanatory statement says that it is to prevent the need for a statutory instrument—which the Liberal Democrats support and seek to do in further amendments—the impact of the Government’s change is also to remove the requirement for the rules to be published by Ofwat within six months. That we find very odd.

I take it in good faith that the Government are keen to have the measures implemented, so we do not understand why they would take the timeline out. The Government want to ensure that it happens, but as currently stated, they are removing the timeline. Taking it on good faith that Ofwat will publish the rules is less strong than keeping in that commitment to six months.

I will correct the hon. Member for Epping Forest on our amendment 21. Our amendment relates to the same aspect of the Bill as Government amendment 2. However, we want to retain the need for Ofwat to publish the rules on bonuses within six months but remove the option for that to be kicked into the long grass by requiring the Secretary of State to lay a statutory instrument to bring them into effect. By taking out that provision, we remove that risk. That is the purpose.

As a new Member, it is a privilege to serve on a Bill Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—I hope I will get all of it right. I felt particularly moved to speak on these amendments and clause 1, given some of the earlier comments. I was a bit worried that we had been transported by the Opposition back to a previous Conservative age, because we seem to be being told that water customers have never had it so good—as one of their predecessors said—because of all the action that was taken.

There has been a lot of talk about teeth. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Bill is about the dentistry that is needed to put more teeth into the water sector. When she responds, will she identify whether the clauses that the Government have tabled help to address some of the very real anger that my constituents feel about the way they have been ghosted and treated by the big water companies and the behaviour of some of the senior leadership? Representing a seat with Anglian Water, which I think applies to some other Members present, I place it on the record that there is real frustration at the performance and actions of such a large company when at the same time as more than 3,000 hours of sewage were being dumped into rivers around my area, the fens and John Clare county, we saw the Anglian Water chief executive receiving £1.3 million in a package of pay and bonuses, despite that poor performance. The anger and the desire and drive of this Government, but also the public, to see action is palpable, so I very much welcome the Bill and I seek clarity on that. It is absolutely right, as the Government have outlined, that we have a fast Bill to get these teeth and this emergency dental treatment delivered quickly, so that we can come back and put the braces on for the rest of the water sector—[Laughter.] I think I am running out of places where that analogy can go; it is getting very dangerous.

When we get the Cunliffe report and others, we will look at some of the bigger issues for the water sector, but I am very concerned by that £1.3 million. I serve as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye that when we directly asked Ofwat whether it had the dental tools to challenge and put the surgery on to the water companies, Ofwat was very clear that it did not. I specifically asked the chief executive and leadership of Ofwat about another bête noire of the debate, which is Thames Water. Up until March 2024, in those three months, the chief executive gave themself a £195,000 bonus. Since 2020, we have seen £41 million given to water company chief executives in bonuses and incentives, so can the Minister reassure this Committee that the clauses that the Government have put forward will help to restore trust and put in place initial measures so that we can get on with this, end the delay, take action and start to put right the problems that the Government have inherited, and then look at the wider issues when we get the report later in the year?

I will just have a quick canter through three things that I should have talked about earlier. My apologies, Mr Vickers, and thank you for your indulgence. I will speak to amendments 21 and 19 and new clause 26 briefly.

I reiterate the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Witney about amendment 21. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest, but I think he has misunderstood. As my hon. Friend said, our amendment seeks to ensure that we do not run the risk of kicking into the long grass the taking of action against bonuses by sticking that provision anywhere other than in the Bill. We were not planning to divide on it, but we will be happy to be the ones voting in favour of immediate action rather than kicking it into the long grass, if that is what he wishes to do.

I do not want to bore anybody about the coalition, but it has been mentioned—give me 20 seconds on it, Mr Vickers. The privatisation of the water industry was where all this went wrong. All the parties that have been in government in the 35 years since then share some responsibility. Just for the record, it is worth stating that DEFRA had no Liberal Democrat Minister in it at all for the majority of the coalition period. For 18 months, my great friend Dan Rogerson served in that position. That was the time during the coalition, by the way, in which we undid some of the foolish capital costs that were made at the beginning of the coalition. It is the opposite of the truth to say that we did nothing; we actually did the only thing that did happen during that time. It is also worth bearing in mind—people might remember—that we were in the EU then and properly regulated, and things were different. That is the end of that defence.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Oh, go on.

His recollection is perhaps different from many people and the public at large regarding the Liberal Democrat record on water. His party seemed to jump on this bandwagon once the Conservatives were the party that actually started measuring the scale of the problem.

Returning to amendment 21, the hon. Gentleman has the word “Democrat” in the name of his party. I do not know why they are so scared of having democratic and ministerial accountability by having a very simple clause in the Bill that would provide for a statutory instrument being laid so that the Secretary of State for DEFRA would have some accountability for that. I take on board the point about the first part of paragraph 5 in terms of the first six months of the Bill, but with the amendment would remove two thirds of that clause, which was put in with cross party consensus in the other place. I am surprised that they are scared of democratic accountability.

Well, that is bizarre. With total respect for the hon. Gentleman, he completely misunderstands. We are seeking to put this on the face of the Bill and not kick it off to a statutory instrument. That seems the opposite of anti democratic—or, indeed, democratic.

Let us move on to the other issues I would like to briefly mention. New clause 26, which is in this group—

Order. We have agreed to discuss new clause 26 separately.

In that case, I will speak to amendment 19, which is about revolving doors. Amendment 19 seeks to prevent a revolving door between water companies and the regulator. In July 2023, the chief executive of Ofwat stepped down to very swiftly pick up the role of interim chief executive of Thames Water. An analysis by The Observer in 2023 found 27 former Ofwat directors, managers and consultants working in the industry they helped to regulate until shortly beforehand, with about half of them in very senior posts.

Some work that the Liberal Democrats did in the last 18 months found that the director for regulatory strategy at the country’s largest water firm, Thames Water, was previously an Ofwat employee. Meanwhile, a senior principal at Ofwat moved directly from Thames Water, where they worked on market development. We also found links between Ofwat and Southern Water, Northumbrian Water and South West Water, including directors who work on regulation. The amendment tries to prevent that revolving door, which clearly brings in a potential conflict of interest. It also builds the quite justified absence of trust. I can feel an intervention brewing—go for it.

I am not against the principle of this—in fact, I am strongly in favour of it—but I have some practical questions. I wonder whether this would bump up against individuals’ human rights and restraint of trade arguments in the courts. I must confess that I was previously a barrister. That was a long time ago, so I have dangerously little knowledge now, but it was certainly the case that the courts would habitually not enforce a restraint of trade clause on a contractual basis that was in excess of 12 months. I know that this would be legislation, but to have such a wide ranging blanket prohibition for such a long period against all employees, irrespective of the role they undertook and the role that they might in future undertake with a water company, might be challenged successfully under human rights legislation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered that in his drafting.

I remind Members that interventions should be short—much shorter than the last two. I have been very generous.

I appreciate that, Mr Vickers. I am very grateful for the helpful and constructive intervention the hon. Gentleman just made. Look, this is not an amendment we are seeking to press to a vote, but it is an issue that is clearly very serious in terms of the quality and safety of regulation. We are perfectly happy for the Government to use all the legal might they have available to find a way of amending the Bill on Report to deal with the issue in a way that builds confidence and prevents obvious conflicts of interest.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This is an important topic and Committee, but before I talk about that, I wish gently to remind the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the Conservative party was in power for 14 years. I know the general election defeat was historic—quite enormous—but I do not think the bump to the head should have caused such an enormous loss of memory about what was achieved, or not achieved, over the past 14 years. Residents of Bournemouth East are incandescent about the state of water infrastructure and the sewage that they are enduring as a seaside town. It is no surprise that as a consequence, when I was campaigning in the general election and knocking on doors since, people raised this hot topic with me.

I want to draw particularly on the views of four constituents who have been in touch, knowing that I am on this Committee: Jane in Southbourne, Ray in Boscombe, Denise in Strouden Park and Kat in Littledown. They are deeply concerned that over the past 14 years there has been such underinvestment in water infrastructure, to the point where it crumbles and as a consequence we have so much sewage in our rivers and seas. It is shocking to them, and to me, that £41 million was paid out in shareholder dividends and bonuses since 2020. That is an enormous sum of money to be taken away from investment in our water system. It is also shocking that bonuses can go to CEOs as they pollute wilfully, seemingly without any consequence.

I strongly welcome the Government moving forward so rapidly with the Bill, particularly its requirement that the regulator can limit or stop bonuses, and can hand out significant consequences in cases of malpractice, including the option of jail time. When I knock on doors and talk to residents, they do not think it is right that crimes can be committed, and that someone can have such disregard for our nature and water system, and that that goes unpunished.

As a fellow Member from a coastal town, I echo my hon. Friend’s point about the anger and frustration on the doors from residents in Weston super Mare. Over the past decade the quality of water on the three main beaches has got worse and worse, and the bathing water at all three is now classified as poor. The anxiety among every sector of the community is really high, and political point scoring aside, the situation is dire. This week raw sewage was spilled on Uphill beach because of the crumbling infrastructure. I urge the Government—I am pleased we have grasped the nettle—to take on the big challenges.

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention. It is great to see him championing his constituency, and it goes to show why Labour won in so many seaside and coastal towns. The people of those towns and cities trusted Labour to bring forward a Bill such as this as quickly as we have done, and this is just the start of change. As we have heard, more legislation will come forward, but so that we do not delay and wait for the full package, the Minister is bringing forward this action rapidly to respond to the urgent case that is being made on doorsteps all around our country, particularly in our seaside towns.

I have constituents who are livid about the fact that while infrastructure has crumbled, no investment has gone in, and money has gone out the door in bonuses and shareholder payment dividends, bills are rising. That is not just water bills—bills on a whole host of things contribute to the significant cost of living crisis that so many in our country have felt. I welcome the efforts of this Government, and I congratulate the Minister on all the hard work that she and her officials have been undertaking. I very much look forward to seeing further development of our programme of investment.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and if I may I will start by wishing everyone a happy new year. I thank members of the Committee for the engagement with the Bill they have shown, and I also thank all the environmental groups, everyone who submitted evidence, and Members in the other place for the work they did on the Bill.

I am pleased to be back debating this vital piece of legislation. As I set out on Second Reading, the Bill will drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry as part of wider efforts to ensure that water companies deliver for both customers and the environment and, as has been mentioned in the debate so far, act on the real anger and mistrust we feel towards our water sector at the moment.

However, the Bill is one part of the Government’s ambitious and long term approach to fundamentally transforming the water sector. As Members will be aware, in October 2024 the Government announced an independent commission, which will be the largest review of the water sector since privatisation. The commission has a broad scope and will consult experts in areas such as the environment, public health, engineering and economics, as well as customers and investors. It will look closely at financial resilience as one of its key areas—I know we all care about that.

I reassure members of the Committee on the timeline; the commission will report to the Government by quarter 2 of 2025. The UK Government and the Welsh Government will then respond and consult on proposals that they intend to take forward, and we expect those to form the basis of future legislation.

Does that mean the beginning or the end of Q2?

We expect the commission to report to the Government in June. I reassure the hon. Member that when I respond at the end of every session, I will go through each and every amendment in turn.

I turn to Government amendments 1 and 2 to clause 1. The Government have carefully considered all non Government amendments made in the other place and how they fit within the wider plans for reform of the water sector, including the amendments tabled by Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell. I thank them, and indeed the other place, for their careful consideration of the Bill, particularly for the constructive way in which they worked with the Government during the Bill’s passage through the Lords. That collaborative approach enabled the Bill to be strengthened, for example, through the introduction of new requirements relating to the implementation of measures in pollution incident reduction plans. However, the Government have determined that the amendments from Lord Roborough and Lord Cromwell are not necessary and should be removed from the Bill.

Government amendment 1 concerns financial reporting. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, it was amended in such a way that required rules made by Ofwat under clause 1 to include reporting requirements on company finances. The Government strongly agree with the need to ensure water company finances are closely monitored, especially given the current financial issues experienced by some companies. However, having considered the Lords amendment in detail and having had further discussions with Lord Cromwell about the intent behind his amendment, we feel that it is duplicative of existing processes as well as conditions in water company licences.

Ofwat already has processes in place to monitor where a company may be heading towards financial difficulties. It is already a condition of water company licences that companies are required in their annual report to publish by a set date financial performance metrics, including interest on their borrowing, financial flows and analysis of their debt. Based on those reports, Ofwat sets out its observations on financial resilience across the sector in its “Monitoring financial resilience” report. Ofwat is also alive to the potential for financial engineering to occur outside of regulated companies and is thoroughly monitoring the financial position of all water companies. The Lords amendment would therefore duplicate existing requirements, with the potential to create confusion in what is already a complex regulatory landscape. This is important: we also retain concern about the potential for the Lords amendment to pre empt forthcoming reforms following the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe. On that basis, the Government have tabled Government amendment 1 to remove Lord Cromwell’s amendment from the Bill.

During the debate, we have heard a lot of words from the Opposition parties, but we had very little action during their 14 years in Government. We on the Government Benches have raised clear examples pointed out by Ofwat where it has not had the necessary tools to ban bonuses when it wanted to do so with Southern Water. While we are on that topic, I express my surprise that the hon. Member for Waveney Valley has not turned up to this sitting of the Committee.

I have to say that it is slightly disappointing that we do not have a full contingent for such an important Bill Committee, which matters so much to people up and down the country. There could be personal reasons, so let us reserve judgment, but it is a little surprising to me too.

The Minister said that she worries that the amendment from Lord Cromwell would duplicate things. Actually, it is quite a simple amendment that achieved a lot of cross party support in the other place. If it duplicates things, a bit of repetition is not a bad thing to ensure annual financial reporting by water companies. It would not create confusion: repeating this important matter on the face of the Bill would just create clarity, so we urge the Government to reconsider.

Just for the record, I am advised by the Clerk that Adrian Ramsay has sent his apologies, as he is ill.

I am pleased that we have that on the record. This is an important Bill, and I encourage everyone to attend.

I believe, first, that the Lords amendment is duplicative of the work that Ofwat is already doing and, secondly, that it will pre empt any forthcoming reforms from the water commission.

We have heard repeatedly that this is just the start of the legislative process to bring our water companies back to heel. Will the Minister please explain what she thinks the Bill lacks and what she hopes to do in the future to strengthen and add to it?

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to look into the future before we have had the water commission. To clarify—just so there is no misunderstanding—the commission will not amend this Bill but will produce another piece of legislation that looks at everything.

The review will be very wide ranging. We are talking in great detail about the regulators’ powers, and there are four regulators. I assume—I think the Government have made this clear—that the review will look at how water is regulated, right down to how many regulators there are and how they operate, so that is completely up for grabs. We are prejudging what may be in that review, but that will be for Sir Jon to work out for himself. I feel like this is something that may be covered in the review, but will the Minister please confirm that regulation is all up for grabs?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Information will be coming out shortly about how each and every Member across the House can contribute to that review.

Government amendment 2 seeks to remove the amendment that requires rules made by Ofwat under clause 1 to be brought into force by statutory instrument within six months of the Act’s coming into force. Alongside my amendment, I will also address amendment 21—I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling it—which is largely in line with the intention behind mine.

Although the Government understand the need to ensure the rules relating to remuneration and governance are subject to efficient scrutiny, this additional process risks compromising Ofwat’s independence, which must be protected. The necessary secondary legislation would be prepared by the Government, and therefore would represent significant Government interference in the independent regulatory process. That kind of interference has the potential to have adverse effects on investor confidence. The consultation requirement in clause 1 already provides the Secretary of State and other interested parties with the opportunity to raise major concerns with the regulator on the content of the rules. We are confident that Ofwat will continue to work constructively with the Government and other stakeholders to determine a robust and appropriate set of rules.

Will the Minister give way?

I will finish what I am saying. I might answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in my upcoming remarks—who knows?

The additional requirement for the rules to be confirmed for affirmative resolution statutory instruments could also risk delaying the introduction of the first set of rules. That is counter to the other aspects of Lord Roborough’s amendment, which requires Ofwat to publish the first set of rules within six months of Royal Assent. I reiterate that the Government expect Ofwat to have the rules in place as soon as possible. Indeed, Ofwat has already concluded its initial policy consultation on the rules, demonstrating its commitment to meeting the Government’s expectations. I highlight the fact that Ofwat today submitted to the Committee written evidence of its statutory consultation on the proposed timelines for introduction of the rules, demonstrating its commitment to getting this done as quickly as possible. I urge all hon. Members to have a look at that evidence.

However, we do not think it is appropriate to hold Ofwat to a six month deadline. While we are confident that Ofwat can deliver the rules in that timeline, we are mindful that there may be unforeseen complications in finalising the rules. Not allowing adequate time to account for such unexpected complications risks undermining the effectiveness of the rules, opening potential loopholes. For that reason, the Government largely agree with the intent behind amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. It is not appropriate to bring Ofwat’s rules into force via secondary legislation, which is why we have tabled an amendment to remove that from the Bill.

I will just express disappointment. The Bill currently sets a deadline of six months, which is not exactly a moment in time; six months is a long time to get something done. I respect what the new Government are doing by trying to go after the bonuses and hold people to account, but to take a step back and say, “Actually, we are going to weaken the Bill”, which is what amendment 2 is doing—the Government are taking out the deadline—is retrograde and a real mistake.

I strongly disagree that this amendment weakens the Bill or is retrograde. Instead, it is doing things effectively. If we were to put a six month deadline in the Bill and rush to get the rules done in that period of time and there were complications, we would risk leaving a loophole that could be exploited by companies that have exploited loopholes for an incredibly long time and become rather apt at doing so. With respect, I would rather do it properly.

The Minister says that she would like to do this properly. We all agree around this House on the scale of the problem, the public outrage at some of the things that have happened with water companies and the fact that we are trying to address and improve our water quality. I am therefore curious why both the Government and the third party are shying away from giving the Secretary of State and the Department the democratic powers and accountability to pass statutory instruments, which, as we all know, can be done very quickly. We have talked about dental analogies. I am an equine vet; I have rasped many teeth in my time. It would help ministerial oversight to see that the dental work is being done properly.

I am desperately searching for a dental analogy. I have already outlined to the hon. Gentleman that we tabled this amendment to protect the independence of Ofwat, protect investor confidence and ensure that rules under clause 1 are effective and in place as soon as possible. It is therefore necessary to remove Lord Roborough’s amendment. I again urge hon. Members to look at the written evidence supplied by Ofwat today. On that basis, and considering the arguments I have put forward for removing the six month deadline for the rules to be published, I ask the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale not to press amendment 21.

Turning to amendment 22, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, public trust in the water sector has been severely damaged and the number of serious pollution incidents is increasing. At the same time, companies are paying out millions in bonuses. I therefore fully support the intention behind the amendment and agree on the importance of ensuring that customers and the environment are put at the heart of companies’ objectives. That is why the Secretary of State announced immediate action to improve the performance of the water industry in his first week in office. That included an agreement that companies would update their articles of association to make the interests of customers and the environment a primary objective. I am pleased to inform the House that a number of companies have already made that change, and DEFRA is working to ensure that all companies implement it as soon as possible.

This is a Government of service, focused on improving people’s lives, and it is important that consumer interests are represented at the heart of decision making. That is why, under clause 1 of the Bill, Ofwat must make rules requiring consumer involvement in corporate decision making. Companies will be required to put in place arrangements to involve consumers in decisions that have a material effect on consumer interests. I trust therefore that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is reassured by the steps being taken by Government and he feels able to withdraw amendment 22.

There is a lot of additional work being pushed towards Ofwat. Could the Minister confirm whether Ofwat has the internal capacity to meet that workload? If not, is there a ringfenced budget in DEFRA to allow Ofwat to employ more people?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful question. Yes, we obviously have regular conversations with Ofwat to ensure that it is capable of delivering everything here. There is an impact assessment on the table in the room, if the hon. Member would like to look at exactly how that all works out.

Amendment 18, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, speaks to the representation of customer views and those of wider groups. The Government are clear on the importance of elevating the voice of consumers in water company governance and decision making. That is why—as I have mentioned—under the Bill, Ofwat will set rules requiring water companies to have arrangements in place for including consumers in company decision making.

In October last year, Ofwat published a public consultation on the rules on remuneration and governance and how they will apply. The proposed options put forward by Ofwat include giving a non executive director the responsibility for oversight of consumer interests on the board and providing opportunities for consumer panel representatives to meet with the CEO on a regular basis. Furthermore, companies already have a range of environmental obligations that they should be meeting, and experts in water and sewage policy should already be considering those obligations to inform board level decision making. I trust the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is therefore reassured by the Government and Ofwat’s approach and is content that amendment 18 is not needed.

I will now take a little time to discuss clause 1 itself and the importance of it standing part of the Bill. As hon. Members know, clause 1 provides Ofwat with new powers to set rules on pay and governance in the water sector and requires that Ofwat make rules on four topics. I have already spoken about one of these, consumer representation. The legislation also provides Ofwat with new powers to issue rules on remuneration and governance, and requires that Ofwat set rules that make the payment of bonuses contingent on companies achieving high environmental standards. As the independent regulator, it is more appropriate for Ofwat to determine the performance metrics to be applied when setting the rules for performance related pay.

In addition, Ofwat must also make rules covering the fitness and propriety of chief executives and directors. That means that it will be required to set standards of fitness and propriety that chief executives and directors must meet in order to be appointed by water companies or stay in post. People holding those senior roles will be held accountable against those standards and, if they fail to meet them, companies may need to take corrective action or ultimately remove executives from post if necessary. Ofwat’s initial policy consultation outlined some proposed standards of fitness and propriety that included ensuring that individuals have sufficient knowledge of the duties of water companies, are financially sound and have not been the subject of regulatory investigation. Collectively, those rules on remuneration and governance will help to drive meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of the water industry and form a central part of the Bill.

To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye about whether the rules go further than the previous Government’s, the short answer is yes. The legislation will provide Ofwat with legal powers to ban bonuses, whereas currently it can only set expectations, and it will require Ofwat to set rules prohibiting the payment of bonuses in certain circumstances. Executives will no longer be able to take home eye watering bonuses where companies fail to meet standards on environmental performance, financial resilience, customer outcomes or criminal liability. We will go further by requiring Ofwat to set rules requiring water companies to ensure that directors and executives meet the highest standards of fitness and propriety, and that customers are involved in company decision making that impacts consumers.

Finally, turning to amendment 19, also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I would like to reassure the hon. Member that both the Government and Ofwat take the handling of actual or potential conflicts of interest very seriously. Ofwat employees are already bound by a range of robust rules and processes that support the management of conflicts of interest, including when leaving the organisation. Failure to comply can result in disciplinary action. That includes the civil service business appointment rules, duties of confidentiality and the Official Secrets Acts.

The underlying issue here is a cultural one—I do not think I am alleging corruption. For example, one can look at fines outstanding. Ofwat set fines for, I think, four water companies; at the last check just before Christmas, many months later on, not a penny of the fines had actually been collected. There is a sense of a lack of urgency and a lack of understanding of the anger felt towards the water industry. When we have this revolving door, there may be no corruption at all, but there is a kind of watering down—no pun intended—of the culture of being a watchdog. There is a level of compliance, and it is apparent.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intention, which fits within the bigger picture of how we change the culture and improve trust in the industry. On these specific points, there is already legislation in place. However, I take his wider point that there is no trust and a lot of anger, and we need to do something around the culture of how these organisations work.

Given that existing measures are already place and Ofwat’s forthcoming fit and proper person rules should encompass conflicts of interest, the amendment is unnecessary. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it. I hope that hon. Members will support the Government’s amendments and that all members of the Committee are satisfied that clause 1 should stand part.

We would be content not to press any of the amendments bar amendment 18, which we will seek to push to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert— “(ca) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following— (i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers; (ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational; (iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and (iv) environmental interest groups.”.—(Tim Farron.) Question put, That the amendment be made.

1|0|2|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 4 to 8.—(Emma Hardy.)

This amendment removes the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under clause 1 to include reporting requirements on finance.

2|0|11|5|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 2, in clause 1, page 4, line 33, leave out subsections (5) and (6).—(Emma Hardy.)

This amendment removes the requirement for rules made by Ofwat under clause 1 to be brought into force by statutory instrument.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

3|0|11|5|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Pollution incident reduction plans

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 2, page 5, line 9, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert— “(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”

Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 5, line 27, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

Amendment 24, in clause 2, page 5, line 29, at end insert— “(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert— “(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”

Clause stand part.

I will speak to amendments 23 and 25 first, as they are connected, then amendment 24, and then amendments 9 and 6, which were tabled by those on the Conservative Front Bench. I think amendments 9 and 6 are both fine and helpful, and we would be supportive of them.

In amendments 23 and 25, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, we are referring to impact. There is reference in the Bill to an incident reduction plan, to reduce occurrences and to have reports about occurrences. Our concern is about much more than occurrences; it is about impacts. We know, for example, that a spillage into the River Kent, River Eden, Windermere or Coniston may last a certain amount of time, but we do not know about the volume. We may have a trickle over a day or a deluge over a half hour period.

It is important to understand the impact not only on marine life, fish stocks and biodiversity, but on things such as leisure activities. As an occasional wild swimmer myself, and as somebody who knows a lot of anglers, canoeists and sailors in my constituency, it seems wrong that we should not put front and centre, not just a greater awareness of and action on incidents, but a look at the impact—the measured impacts on biodiversity, wildlife, livestock, farmers and the tourism economy in places like the Lakes, which is the biggest visitor destination in the country after London. I would be very grateful if amendments 23 and 25 were taken on board by the Government.

Amendment 24 relates to nature based solutions and looks at incident reduction plans. As the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management put it: “Nature based solutions…can help address many of the water sector’s challenges while also providing significant benefits for people and planet, such as water quality improvement, flood risk reduction, carbon sequestration, climate resilience, nutrient neutrality, biodiversity enhancement, community engagement, and public health and wellbeing.”

Indeed, nature based solutions are also a vital source of funding and income for farmers. Examples include natural flood management techniques, such as wetland restoration, tree planting across catchments of areas of unproductive land—not of productive agricultural land, I hasten to add—and building resilience to flooding; the construction of treatment wetlands and reed beds to treat waste water and improve water quality; the creation and restoration of ponds and pondscapes; climate mitigation and adaptation; and the building of resilience to drought.

Finally, the multiple benefits delivered by working with nature also create opportunities for blended finance by drawing in private investors or gaining income from buyers and ecosystem services. That further increases taxpayer value for money at a time when the delivery burden on the water industry, and therefore customer bills, is at a record high. Investment in nature based solutions will help to ensure that water industry spending supports the delivery of the maximum environmental and social benefits.

Amendments 23, 24 and 25 are about assessing the damaging impact of pollution incidents in our lakes, coastal areas and rivers in my communities and across the country. Through amendment 24, they also try to provide practical solutions that will help to address those issues. They are meant to be helpful amendments and I hope that the Government will take them on board.

I rise to speak about amendments 6 and 9, proposed by His Majesty’s Opposition. I hope that they are self explanatory amendments that are quite simply about the core concept of accountability, which was at the heart of the previous Government’s mission to improve our water system. We must remember that at the heart of every failure that damages our waterways, it is the Great British public—those who rely on our waterways as consumers and as members of communities served by them—who are let down and denied the rights to pollution free water systems to which they are entitled.

Amendment 6, which would require water companies to publish their implementation reports accessibly online, gives the public a tangible and visible sign by which water companies can be held to account for the promises they make and the actions they say they will take. It is a vital step in trying to restore the trust that water companies may be seen to have lost in recent years with the public through their inadequate actions to deal with this issue, as people have seen and as hon. Members have articulated today on both sides of the House. It is very much about having not just words and promises but explicit standards to judge water companies by, and it would form a kind of contract between the companies and their consumers, who would then know what to expect from their individual company.

His Majesty’s Opposition have no objections to the principle of clause 2 and its requirement that water companies publish an implementation report, nor in the specific details that companies would be expected to produce in proposed new section 205B of the Water Industry Act 1991. In fact, we welcome the Government’s willingness to listen to the concerns from Conservative peers, including Lord Roborough, and peers from other parties in the other place to strengthen clause 2, including the requirement for implementation reports to be drafted by water companies in the first place and ensuring that the requirements for pollution incident reduction plans also include water supply system related incidents, not just sewage related incidents.

However, we believe that amendment 6 would go even further to strengthen that proposal and advance the accountability that we all want water companies to have. Requiring implementation reports to be published online in an accessible way sets out an explicit and clear definition to water companies of how they are expected to publish any such plans, as the clause requires, and demonstrates how water companies must comply with the law in unequivocal terms.

In stressing accessibility, amendment 6 would end the ambiguity that can sometimes exist for the public, which means that it is often too easy for companies to hide away behind protocol and procedure. By making such information available to consumers, we would ensure that there could be no hiding in murky waters on this vital issue and the concrete commitments to improving our waterways.

Water companies can also benefit from the chance to make reflections on their progress available in full sight of the public. In all walks of life, sometimes people’s efforts to make good on promises cannot come to full fruition for reasons beyond their control. If genuine reasons arise for not meeting targets, there can be full transparency for the public as to why, so they can understand more about the nature of the industry and the issues involved in protecting the quality of our water system. In other words, full transparency is in everyone’s interests.

A 2023 review commissioned by Ofwat about the importance of open data was clear that open data provide great benefits in a range of areas when it comes to the water industry. In terms of the environment, it highlighted that open data from sewage overflow monitoring were beneficial to the creation of the predictive analytics tools used in Wessex Water’s intelligent sewers competition, which helped to identify sewage blockages much earlier than they otherwise would have been. That demonstrates an explicit link between the work of recent years to require data monitoring in the water industry, such as on storm overflows—I reiterate that 100% are monitored thanks to the work of the previous Conservative Government—and improvements in the water industry’s tackling of pollution. That is in addition to the improved accountability and the responsibility that data publication places on water companies to get the issue right.

The report highlighted, however, that at the time there was a trend towards companies sharing data with their key partners, rather than making information completely and clearly available for unrestricted public access. The report therefore explicitly recommended that companies in the water sector should look at the data they had been sharing only with specific groups and partners, and take steps to make available those data where they can.

Amendment 6 would solve the problem of information reports before it could even arise—upstream—by unequivocally stating that water companies must publish implementation reports on their websites that would be accessible to all members of the public, not just those with the time and influence to ask for such data. We talked about citizen science: this will give those data to the people to analyse and hold water companies to account. The Conservatives will therefore be pressing amendment 6 to a Division.

I am conscious of time, Mr Vickers. Are you going to call stumps in about 20 seconds?

No. We can keep going until 1.30 pm.

On that note, I will move on to amendment 9, which would make it a requirement for pollution incident reduction plans to include how an undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks attributable to their water system. The Opposition tabled the amendment to strengthen the existing plans that the Government have put forward, so that no stone is left unturned in ensuring environmental protections from our water companies. The amendment ensures that water companies make it clear how they will work to reduce pollution incidents in national parks in a system that a water company operates in.

National parks are an area that the previous Conservative Government took great efforts to protect in their legislative programme on protected landscapes. We worked to encourage water companies to invest in peat restoration, and allowed teams at national parks to bid for investment that improved their water environments. The history of recent work on national parks goes beyond just the most recent Government, with the Glover review being published in July 2019. In a response to that review, the Conservatives highlighted their commitment to national parks and water quality, such as through developing the natural capital and ecosystem assessment, which combined data science, citizen science and earth observation technology to inform water quality improvements as a priority target; and ensured that capital and natural capital reporting were embedded into the management plans of protected landscapes.

Despite the effort and progress made by the previous Government, the new Government still need to make a concerted and ongoing effort to ensure that our rivers and waterways are truly as pristine in their content as they look from the outside. Studies have found chemicals and pollutants in waterways in national parks that simply should not be there. Of course, that is not just about environmental beauty or water quality; it affects our wildlife standards, animal health and welfare, and biodiversity. The creatures of the natural world that rely on those waterways are put at risk if the pollution from our national parks is not reduced. That is true not only of the animals that live in and around waterways, but of any animals that rely on them in their food chain for survival.

We Conservatives have taken great pains to improve the consideration of nature based solutions. I take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about nature based solutions. We all agree that it is important to use nature based restorative functions for things such as flood mitigation, through planting trees in the right place, re wriggling rivers and so on. It is important that we work collectively to do that, and the introduction of the environmental land management schemes in the previous Parliament was very much part of that.

With this amendment, we are trying to ensure that the water company pollution reduction plans, as required by the Bill, have the maximum effect, so I hope that the Government will consider accepting it. As I said to the Government on Second Reading, we want to ensure that the Bill is the best that it can be to deliver for the constituents of all Committee members and Members right across the House of Commons and the other place. We tabled it and other amendments in exactly that spirit: not as a hindrance or for the sake of party politics, but to make this Bill even better for the country that we serve. We will therefore be pressing amendments 6 and 9 to a vote.

I will speak primarily in support of amendment 6. I pay tribute to the former Member for Ludlow, the right hon. Philip Dunne, who throughout the previous Parliament was the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sat. The EAC’s work on water quality and the seminal report that we produced started this huge public interest in water quality and led to the legislative changes in the Environment Act 2021, among other things.

One of the key lessons we learned from the work that we did on the EAC was the need for transparency of data and information, which can unlock the power of citizen science. We visited the citizen scientists working on the River Windrush, who had difficulty analysing the data that was then publicly available but very hard to find to work out whether storm overflows were being used in the way the water companies were describing. Their very detailed, hard to do work exposed the shocking misuse of storm overflows.

As those citizen scientists understood, an event duration monitor is a very simple piece of equipment: it is either on or off. It is set on the outflow of the storm overflow tank. When it detects flow on that channel, it turns on, and when that flow ceases, it turns off. What it does not do, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly pointed out, is measure volume. It also does not measure what is passing. It says that something is passing or not passing, but it does not measure volume or quality. That leads me to support amendment 6, tabled by the loyal Opposition, and to question not the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendments—amendments 24 and 25 and those to clause 3, which I suspect we will talk a bit more about—but the effectiveness of having new machines that measure volume, in addition to whether it is on and off, but not quality.

A better solution may be the one that the Environmental Audit Committee recommended all those years ago—I stand to be corrected, but I think we wrote that report in 2021. It called for the upstream and downstream monitoring of water quality, typically in the outflow river, so that in addition to a signal that there has been an event, there is close to real time reporting of the comparative water quality upstream and downstream of a discharge outlet. That would simplify the technical requirements of having to install a whole load of new equipment, which other amendments from the Liberal Democrats anticipate, at an unknown cost and implementation speed. Instead, it would look at the actual real time impact on a particular water body.

Amendment 6 would require the publishing of the information on the undertaker’s website. I am surprised that that was not part of the Bill in the first place and, given that it was not, that the Government have not adopted the amendment. All it does is to apply consistency to the legislative programme. Section 81(2) and (3) of the Environment Act 2021—I know the Minister is familiar with it, but just in case she is not—require the publishing of event duration monitor data within an hour and in a format that is readily accessible by the general public. The loyal Opposition’s amendment is simply trying to ensure consistency between what we already require for EDMs on undertakers’ websites and this area.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeff Smith.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Dr Rupa Huq, † Martin Vickers

† Aldridge, Dan (Weston super Mare) (Lab)

† Dollimore, Helena (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co op)

† Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

† Fookes, Catherine (Monmouthshire) (Lab)

† Hack, Amanda (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)

† Hardy, Emma (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Hayes, Tom (Bournemouth East) (Lab)

† Hazelgrove, Claire (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)

† Hudson, Dr Neil (Epping Forest) (Con)

† Kirkham, Jayne (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co op)

† Mayhew, Jerome (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)

† Maynard, Charlie (Witney) (LD)

† Paffey, Darren (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)

† Pakes, Andrew (Peterborough) (Lab)

Ramsay, Adrian (Waveney Valley) (Green)

† Reed, David (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)

† Smith, Jeff (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

Simon Armitage, Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 9 January 2025

(Afternoon)

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Water (Special Measures) Bill

Clause 2

Pollution incident reduction plans

Amendment proposed (this day): 23, in clause 2, page 5, line 9, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.—(Tim Farron.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert— “(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”

Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 5, line 27, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.

Amendment 24, in clause 2, page 5, line 29, at end insert— “(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert— “(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”

Clause stand part.

No one was trying to catch my eye before we broke for lunch, so I call the Minister to respond.

Before I start my response to this group, I just want to note that there has been considerable discussion on the monitoring of the volume of discharges during this debate. In the interests of time, I will respond to those points when we debate amendment 13 next week, if that is agreeable to everyone. I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments relating to pollution incident reduction plans.

On amendments 23 and 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, we agree that companies should seek to reduce the impact of pollution incidents in their pollution incident reduction plans. That, of course, is the core purpose of the plans. That is why the clause requires water companies to set out the measures they will take to reduce the frequency and seriousness of the pollution incidents and their causes. The impact of a pollution incident on people and the environment will be taken into account when the undertaker determines how serious it is, as required in the pollution incident reduction plan. In fact, it would be impossible to determine whether something was serious without looking at the impact the pollution was having. These amendments are therefore not needed, and I ask the hon. Member not to press them.

I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for tabling amendment 9. The Government agree that national parks form a vital part of our environmental heritage and must be protected. For that reason, the Government have committed to strengthening the statutory purpose of national landscapes and national parks to give them a clear mandate to recover nature. We will also strengthen through new regulation the role that public bodies, including water companies, must play in delivering better outcomes for nature, water, climate and access to nature in these special places.

Ofwat made significant funding available to water companies in the price review for 2024 to support work to reduce pollution in national parks. As an example, Ofwat approved four storm overflow schemes related to improvements in the Windermere catchment, with potential to include 12 additional schemes via the large scheme gated process. We do not believe it is necessary to include a specific reference to national parks in clause 2. All sites, including national parks, are already in scope of the duty. Creating a statutory hierarchy of priority sites risks deprioritising other important areas such as bathing and shellfish waters. For those reasons, the Government will not support the amendment.

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for tabling amendment 24. The Government agree that nature based solutions are an essential tool for tackling the root cause of sewage pollution, while also delivering significant ecological benefits. That is why, in line with the Government’s strategic policy statement, Ofwat has allowed companies to increase the use of nature based solutions with £3 billion worth of green schemes in water companies’ final determinations for price review ’24. Although the benefits of nature based solutions are clear, we believe their use is better supported through drainage and sewerage management plans than through pollution incident reduction plans.

Pollution incident reduction plans are intended to set out the steps that companies intend to take to reduce the frequency and severity of pollution incidents. These issues are often best addressed by monitoring and maintenance measures such as burst pipe detection, checking pumps and re lining sewers. Drainage and sewerage management plans are intended to address the resilience of the whole sewerage network over a long period of time. That is why the Government have introduced a duty through the Bill for sewerage undertakers to consider nature based solutions in their drainage and sewerage management plans. That will ensure that nature based solutions are considered at the very start of the investment planning, increasing their development and potential future delivery. The amendment is therefore not needed, and I ask the hon. Member not to press it.

Regarding amendment 6, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Epping Forest, I agree that improving transparency and accountability is key to the success of pollution incident reduction plans. That is why clause 2 already requires water companies to publish the implementation report alongside the pollution incident reduction plan. Details of where and how to publish the plan and the implementation report, and in which format, may change over the years as technology and best practice evolve, so that is best addressed in the guidance that the Environment Agency is producing about how to fulfil the duty.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. The problem with the position she is taking now is that it is at variance with the Government’s position and with section 81 of the Environment Act 2021. If she is right about the efficacy of leaving it to the Environment Agency to publish such information, buried in its website or its regulations, should she not also amend section 81 of the Environment Act so as to have consistency?

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, which is that people need to have access, clearly and simply, to as much information as possible. My point is that if we put such details into law in the Bill, the way in which we want people to access such information may change—technology or best practice may evolve—and we will have to resort to altering legislation using statutory instruments. That is why I think it is better that we look to the guidance produced by the Environment Agency as the best way to present that information, while continually evaluating how we do so. I completely understand the essence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, however, because we all want information to be transparent and clear for everyone, and certainly not buried on a website.

To conclude, I will briefly speak to why clause 2 should stand part of the Bill. The occurrence of pollution incidents is unacceptably high and has not reduced in the last four years. Water companies must reduce pollution incidents as a matter of urgency. Currently, sewage companies in England produce pollution incident reduction plans on a non statutory basis. These plans vary in standard, content and frequency, and that makes them hard to scrutinise. It is particularly difficult to identify the progress that companies have made on the actions that they committed to in these plans. More transparency and greater accountability are needed.

That is why the clause will require both water supply companies and sewerage companies in England and Wales to publish annual pollution incident reduction plans to address matters such as the seriousness of pollution incidents and their causes. These plans will need to set out the actions that the water companies intend to take to reduce pollution incidents, and an assessment of the impact that those actions will have.

In addition, the Secretary of State will be able to direct water companies to include other matters in the plans as needed. Moreover, companies will be required to produce an accompanying implementation report detailing the progress they have made with the measures to which they committed in the previous year. Companies must clearly explain the reason for any failure to implement their plans and set out the steps they are taking to avoid similar failure in the future. This will create a high level of transparency, enabling the public and regulators to hold water companies accountable for making the improvements that they have committed to.

Chief executives will be personally liable for the production of these plans and must approve them before publication. If a company fails to publish a compliant plan and implementation report by the deadline each year, the company or the chief executive could be prosecuted for the offence. That could result in a fine and a criminal record. This emphasises that taking action to minimise pollution incidents should be at the core of the chief executive’s role.

We believe that this provision will ensure that the right people, with the right incentives, lead water companies through the changes necessary to drive down pollution incidents. Furthermore, regulators will be required to take companies’ compliance records in relation to implementation reports into account when carrying out their enforcement duties.

I hope that all hon. Members agree with me about the importance of clause 2, and I commend it to the Committee.

There are no further comments from us, and we do not seek to press to a vote any of the amendments that we have tabled. We are concerned that there is not enough detail in the Bill about the impact of pollution incidents on the wider environment, much as I am grateful to the Minister for many of the comments she has made. All the same, we will not seek to trouble the Committee with a vote at this stage, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In the interests of promoting transparency and clarity, we would still like to press our amendment 6 to a vote. To bolster, support and protect the precious integrity of our national parks, we would like to do the same with amendment 9.

Amendment proposed: 9, in clause 2, page 5, line 10, at end insert— “(2A) A pollution incident reduction plan must, in particular, state how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents in national parks that are attributable to its system.”— (Dr Hudson.) Question put, That the amendment be made.

4|0|5|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Amendment proposed: 6, in clause 2, page 7, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) An implementation report must be published on the relevant undertaker’s website in a form which is publicly accessible.”—(Dr Hudson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

5|0|5|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Emergency overflows

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 10, at end insert— “(e) the volume of discharge.”

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 8, line 13, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsections (1)(d) and (e)”.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert— “(c) be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.”

This amendment would ensure that information regarding a discharge from an emergency overflow must be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website. Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert— “(c) be uploaded and updated automatically, where possible; and (d) be made available on the undertaker’s website alongside searchable and comparable historic data.”

Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert— “(3A) The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required by subsection (1).”

With your permission, Mr Vickers, I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to speak to the bulk of these amendments. I will focus on amendment 17, which requests that we insert into the Bill a position of Minister with responsibility for issues relating to the coast. That is something that the all party group for coastal communities, chaired by the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington), is fully in favour of.

Coastal communities face a unique set of environmental and economic challenges, which are spread across Departments. It is therefore common sense to have a Minister to bring them together under one portfolio and champion those communities in Government. The specific needs of coastal communities were raised in the annual report of the chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, in 2021, and we particularly highlight those communities. In my own part of the world, we have the Lancashire over the sands part of my constituency and south west Westmorland, but there are also coastal communities in places such as North Norfolk, Devon, Cornwall and elsewhere. As I said, there is cross party support, through the APPG for coastal communities, for this proposal.

Let me make a quick reference to my own constituency. Among the challenges that the communities around Morecambe bay face is the pollution of the environment around them. In 2023 alone, one treatment works in Grange over Sands pumped sewage into the Kent estuary channel on 79 occasions for 73 hours. Across the water in Arnside, another pumped 42 times for 147 hours.

As well as the environmental and water related issues that affect coastal communities, there are economic, health and other issues of great importance to them. We believe that there is a strong case for having a person in Government whose specific responsibilities are to take care of our coastal areas, and that the Bill is an opportunity to establish that. My support for the other amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats can be taken as given, but I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Witney to make the case for them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I rise to speak in support of clause 3, which deals with defining emergency overflows and reporting requirements. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, I have the great fortune to live on the south coast and the great misfortune of being in the area where Southern Water is a local provider.

Order. We are debating amendment 13 specifically, so please restrict your comments to that. I call Charlie Maynard.

Amendment 13 is about volume. It would add volume to the list in clause 3, which includes “the location of the emergency overflow…when the discharge began…when the discharge ended.”

The Liberal Democrats seek to add the volume of discharge to that list, and that is common sense. As many Members have said, we want to know how much sewage is coming out, and we are looking for help from all Members to get the amendment into the Bill. If we are serious about solving the problems in our rivers, we need to know how much sewage is coming down.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for the conversation that we had over the lunch recess. One challenge with the measuring of volume is what we are measuring the volume of. The industry estimates that 97%-plus of volume from a storm event is water—it is just rainwater. How do these amendments address the measurement of what is being passed, and is this something on which we could co operate?

Let us talk about the spectrum of information here. We have got the number of spills, where we have no idea how long those spills went on. We then have EDMs—event duration monitors—which count the number of hours of pollution. There is then the volume of flow, and then various iterations around measuring dissolved oxygen, or whatever it might be. I do not want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We need to make progress. Thames Water is installing flow monitors all over its network, upstream of its sewage treatment works, but not downstream. That is because it is scared of actually having to count and have in the public domain the volume of sewage that it is dumping.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said, “If you have a coke bottle of sewage, and you don’t know how diluted it is, you still don’t want it in your bath.” Of course we want to know how diluted it is—that would be nice—but if we are serious about addressing these problems, we need to know how much is coming out of those overflows.

To quantify what has been going on over the last few years—I give the previous Government some credit—some 14,000 monitors have been installed in the last seven years, which is good news. The figure was less than 1,000, and 15,000 have now been installed on the storm overflows, but another 7,000 do not have monitors. Amendment 16 talks about where those locations are. We can have overflows at a sewage treatment works, at a pumping station or on the sewer network. I believe that everyone on this Committee wants to capture wherever that overflow is, which is what the amendment would do.

I will try to quantify some of the numbers, and I will talk about my favourite, Thames Water. Right now, Thames Water has 30 event duration monitors at inlet storm overflows at waste water treatment works. It has 183 EDMs on storm tanks at waste water treatment works and 137 EDMs at storm discharge overflows at pumping stations, and it has 320 storm overflows on the sewer network—not in a pumping station or at a treatment works. We are trying to capture all those areas, because we need to know what is going on. If we do not know what is going on, we cannot fix it.

Amendment 13 is on the volume of discharge. Amendment 14 concerns the same count, so I will not go into it in more detail. Amendment 15 relates to reporting on discharge from overflows and would add to existing stipulations about the form in which the information must be published. I will read it out: the information must “be uploaded and updated automatically”.

Let us get rid of human involvement. We are in 2025—all this stuff can, and should, be automated.

Professor Peter Hammond has done some great research, and I am incredibly grateful to Windrush Against Sewage Pollution, which has been one of the drivers of information and campaigning in this space. Well done to Peter, Ash, Vaughan and Geoff; I give them many thanks. Peter spotted that when Thames Water monitors its sewage, it does so at the wrong times of day, when the level of sewage is at its lowest. We want to automate that so that it is monitored all the time. That means less human interaction and lower costs, and it is much more achievable.

There is a map that shows whether sewage has been dumped in the last 48 hours, is being dumped currently or has not been dumped in the last 48 hours—Thames Water was actually one of the first to put that in the public domain—but it does not give the historical information. We need the historical information in there and it needs to be downloadable, so that any citizen scientist can come along, pull the data off and act on it. Without amendment 15, we do not have that. These are very nuts and bolts, practical things that we want to head along.

On the questions that the hon. Gentleman is asking around the type of monitors we have on sewage outlets, is he aware that the Environmental Audit Committee looked at this very issue in the last Parliament? It recommended the approach currently being taken by the Bill, which is to look at monitors upstream and downstream that look at the water quality. The Committee regarded that as the best way to assess this issue.

I am very happy with looking at monitors upstream and downstream. That is fine, but I want them all to be in, and I want them done quicker. In the last seven years, 14,000 monitors were put in. As per the House of Commons Library briefing on clause 3, we are currently being signed up to a much slower installation of monitors—it does not matter if they are EDMs or flow meters. The briefing states: “The reporting duty on discharges from emergency overflows would be phased in, with water companies expected to achieve 50% monitoring coverage by the end of the next price review in 2030 and 100% by 2035, the end of the following price review.”

Why would we go slower? That is a lot slower than what has been done over the last seven years. We should be moving much faster.

I find it rather depressing that I suspect this information came out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Why is there this desire to slow the whole thing down if possible? We have a huge problem, so why are we not moving faster to deal with it? Frankly—I am not looking at the crew opposite—the DEFRA mindset is profoundly depressing. That’s that.

Amendment 16 covers the installation rate. What we are trying to do there is get the rate much faster. We have asked for 12 months, and I will try to quantify this; I have a business background. How much do flow monitors cost? How much they cost matters. Flow monitors are £500 to £2,000 per unit. We have 15,000 across the country, so we are talking £85 million or whatever it might be. That is if we have £2,000 as the unit cost. If we take the higher level of the unit cost and say that each of them will cost £2,000 to install, it is quite a lot of money. We did it much cheaper in west Oxfordshire and Witney. Well done to the Witney flood mitigation group. It got 10 installed for a fraction of that, so that is doable. Let us just talk £84 million. Does that sound like a lot of money? Frankly, it does not to me, and I will try to quantify that. The £84 million is between 10 or so water companies. Thames Water alone has £17 billion of debt. We are talking about £84 million. It is a fractional number, and if we are serious about fixing our problems, we have to go there.

It is a great pleasure to speak to amendment 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). Today, there is a recurrent theme—transparency and clarity. We want cleaner waters and we want the data collection to be transparent and available to people so that they can actually monitor and analyse. The spirit of this amendment is, again, transparency and clarity.

Amendment 3 would, as the text suggests, make it a statutory requirement for water companies to publish the information that they have on discharges from emergency overflows on the home page of their website. Some water companies already go some way to discussing overflows of different kinds, including what they are and why they occur, but this amendment from my hon. Friend would go further by setting a clearer guideline for how transparent water companies must expect to be for every specific incidence of an emergency overflow that may occur.

We of course know that emergency overflows are those that occur particularly when technical faults or blockages in the water system arise and require overflows to help with their resolution, as opposed to storm overflows, where the system is overwhelmed by excess surface water or groundwater entering the network. The work of the previous Conservative Government tackled the issue of storm overflows—unlike any Government who had preceded them—including by, as I have said, getting 100% of reporting and monitoring of storm overflows, which was at 7% back in 2010. That was in addition to fast tracking £180 million of investment from water companies to prevent 8,000 sewage spills in 2024, and introducing requirements for further investment, over 25 years, of upwards of £60 billion.

Moving forward, however, we need to ensure that emergency overflows are treated with a similar parity of attention. We do not want the hypothetical situation to arise whereby the problem of storm overflows, which have had so much attention in recent years, is simply shifted to emergency overflows, and technical fault is used as an unnecessary justification for emergency overflows to occur. By requiring emergency overflow information to be published on the home page of each and every water company’s website, this risk is potentially alleviated.

Although the Government may argue that the risk is alleviated by clause 3 in and of itself, this amendment goes further in its specificity about the publication of data relating to emergency overflows. By requiring the home page to be used for publication of emergency overflow data, the requirement in clause 3 that the information be published in a way that makes it readily accessible to the public would be given a definition that the Bill in its current form lacks. In other words, amendment 3 would provide explicit clarity in the Bill for water companies about the requirements for publication of emergency overflow information, without the risk of dispute down the line about whether an individual company has complied with the measure’s requirements.

On that basis, I encourage the Government to support the amendment, as it clearly does not seek to frustrate their intentions to be stringent with the water companies about duties on emergency overflows. The amendment merely strengthens the existing conditions in the clause by providing further clarity and specificity. We urge the Government to consider it.

I will start with the Liberal Democrat amendment to add volume measurers to storm outflows. I hope I made it clear in my earlier intervention that I am sympathetic to the amendment’s objective, but I have questions about whether the route that the Liberal Democrats have gone down is the right one. Legislating for another piece of kit—volume measuring equipment, alongside the EDM—yes, would go some way to solving the problem, but it would not solve the real problem, which is that we need to know when a discharge is happening, the volume of the discharge, the level of sewage as opposed to water in that discharge, and the consequential impact on the watercourse into which it is being discharged.

I was grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye, who referred to the water report of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was one of the authors. We took a lot of evidence on the issue and we had a trip to Oxfordshire, to the River Windrush. We met the leading citizen scientists in the area and took evidence from them there and in our more formal evidence sessions in this place. The hon. Lady was right that the outcome of the combination of evidence we received was that the most appropriate form of technical solution was a measurer of water quality upstream and downstream, and for that water quality measurement to be published timeously. For that reason, section 81 of the Environment Act 2021 requires automatic publishing within 60 minutes of an event happening.

That leads me to a question. The hon. Member for Witney referred to Thames Water choosing when to measure, but with respect to him, the clause is about emergency overflows, not about standard monitoring, and under the existing legislation, Thames Water or any other water undertaker has no option as to when it measures—the EDM is triggered by the emergency event. It also has no option as to when it can publish, because it has to be within 60 minutes of the event being notified.

Yes, of course, the EDMs are automatic; I was talking about the spot monitoring by individuals.

With respect, that is a separate point, because we are talking about amendments to clause 3, which is about emergency overflows. I accept the point. As with so many of our discussions this morning and this afternoon, we are all trying to get the right outcome, but this is line by line consideration of the Bill, which is rather boring and technical, but it is where we try to tease out some of the drafting issues and what can be improved. I am not sure that the problem that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to resolve sits naturally in this clause.

Moving on to amendment 15, again I highlight my fear that, given that the clause relates to emergency overflows, the amendment leads to a legal duplication of section 81 of the Environment Act. I do not want to do the Minister’s job for her, but from my perspective, that is a reason why we should look carefully at amendment 15 before we accept it. Of course, when I say that I do not want to do the Minister’s job for her, that is only pro tem—in the future, I definitely want to do this job for her.

The Liberal Democrats have not yet spoken in favour of amendment 16, so I will leave that until such time as they decide to. The hon. Member for Witney can come back to it.

Finally, on amendment 17, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—

Order. Amendment 17 is not in this grouping.

Mr Vickers, may I revert to amendment 16? I am sorry; I thought I had mentioned it. I will read it out: “The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required”.

That point is 12 months, so that is holding people’s feet to the fire, but we have a massive problem. This is totally doable in terms of timeline. If the Government came back and said, “No, we want 36 months, not 12 months,” then fine, I have no problem with that, but I have talked about being depressed by the desire to slow things down, and about the House of Commons Library data on giving another 10 years to install these monitors. Why are we going slow? We all say to the public that we are really serious about it; let us be serious. I thought that I had covered amendment 16, but there it is again.

I now rise to talk about amendment 16. My primary objection here is the overarching one: I am not convinced that this is the right technical approach, for the reasons set out in the report of the Environmental Audit Committee, and also in the Environment Act 2021. However, if I am wrong on that, I am happy to support this amendment as a probing amendment and look forward to the answer that the Minister gives; but if it were to be taken to a vote, without further information about the practicality of being able to obtain the required tens of thousands of these machines, install them and have them operational and reporting in a 12-month period, I am not sure that I, as a responsible legislator, could support amendment 16. I would need further information on whether that was a practical option.

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughts on this set of amendments. I would also like to pay tribute to all of the citizen scientists—in fact, many Members have paid tribute to them—and the incredible work that they do as volunteers, going out there to discover the true state of many of our rivers, lakes and seas. I think we can all agree that it is vital to understand the scale and the impact of sewage discharges by ensuring that water companies install monitors on emergency overflows as soon as possible and by encouraging public access to emergency overflow discharge statements. As the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham said, I think this is about us all trying to move in the same direction.

Just before I turn to the amendments, I think there may be some confusion in the debate today about the different types of monitors and the different types of discharges being discussed. There is a big difference between fully treated waste water being released from treatment outlets and the discharge of untreated sewage from an emergency or storm overflow. I am therefore very happy to share a factsheet detailing the differences in the different types of emergency and storm overflows to help inform future debates.

On amendments 13 and 14, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows in near real time. Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, that will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred, and how long it has lasted for. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulator.

However, the monitors required to measure volume are much more difficult and costly to install compared with those used to monitor discharge duration. By comparing that with the cost of installing flow monitors at waste water treatment works, we estimate the cost of installing flow monitors on all 18,000 storm and emergency overflow sites in England to be up to £6 billion. Network overflows are not set up for flow monitors to be installed, which means that the majority of overflows would require complex works, such as pipework modifications, in order for monitors to record volume accurately. We do not think this added cost is proportionate to the additional value that volume information would provide, especially given that volume information alone does not provide a comprehensive account of the impact of a discharge. For example, a very small volume of very concentrated foul water could enter our rivers, which would be very damaging, or a large volume of diluted rainwater overflow. Volume cannot give an accurate assessment of impact. The measurement of water quality, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham has said, is required.

Would the Minister be willing to give information on the breakdown of that £6 billion? That would be very helpful. Also, I think we are all in agreement and of course we want to know the quality. As has been said, if that is the case, surely the plan is to go there. By all means, have flow meters with the quality meters installed, rather than not going there. I think the Minister was proposing not putting in flow meters and not putting in any quality meters either, or is she planning on putting in flow and quality meters? If so, when and how?

I am very happy to give a breakdown of the numbers that we have worked out. To reiterate the point I made before the intervention, that is why the Government believe that it is the measurement of water quality that is required. Water companies have been instructed to begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows and waste water treatment works from April 2025 onwards, so they have been told to put in those water quality monitors from April 2025. That will provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will see that amendment 13 is not needed and feels able to withdraw it.

The Minister said from 2025, which is great, but over what timeline? Is that the Library’s 10 years, or is that another timeline?

I want to make sure that I am not giving the hon. Gentleman inaccurate information, so I will find out the answer to his question and return to it, if that is okay. I do not want to give him the wrong information. The main point we are making is that it is not the volume that is having the impact; it is the toxicity. We think that, by focusing on measuring water quality, we can accurately see the damage being done to our environment by what is being discharged, and I think that is the point. If we are choosing where to put the monitors, we think that focusing on water quality and how damaging it can be is more important than focusing on how much there is.

We talk about citizen scientists and the hard work they have to do to uncover what is going on within the data. We are talking about putting lots of different monitors on lots of infrastructure up and down the country, which is going to spew out lots of different information that is going to be quite hard to dig into. Could the Minister give a view on whether there will be an approach to the standardisation of data, to make it easier to view for people?

The hon. Member is pre empting my responses to the next amendments on transparency, which I am just about to turn to. Before we move on from volume, I re emphasise the point. This is something that I looked at seriously because a number of colleagues have spoken to me about it, so I really do not want hon. Members to feel like it has been dismissed out of hand—I did look at this seriously. One of the other points made to me was about lots of the pipes being different sizes. If we are going to be able to calculate the volume, we have to be able to calculate the size of the pipe, which might require standardising the size of all pipes to work out the volume coming through them, so we can measure how much is coming out at one moment.

That is where we get to the £6 billion figure; it is not just the cost of putting the monitors on but ensuring that, if we are measuring the amount of sewage flowing past something, we can understand the size of it. The hon. Member for Witney is looking at me and I can see that I have work to do to convince him of this. I am probably doing a complete injustice to the person who explained this all to me, but I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a proper explanation. The upshot of the conversation was that this is going to be really expensive, and what we all want to know is: how damaging is what is coming out of those pipes to our environment? That is why we are focusing on water quality. [Interruption.] I have had inspiration from behind me and an answer to the question of when continuous water quality monitoring will be rolled out. They have requested to begin installing continuous water quality monitors at 25% of storm overflows and sewage treatment works outlets at price review 2024. The sites selected for the first stage of roll out have been prioritised to include sensitive sites such as chalk streams.

I do not want to steal the thunder of the hon. Member for Witney, but he has a good point on the speed of roll out of the installation of water quality monitors. The 2024 price period is for five years, I believe. That suggests installation in 25% of the monitoring areas over a five year period. If I am wrong on that, I would be very grateful if the Minister could correct me. What I am really interested in is how quickly the full network will be installed and what is preventing that from happening faster.

I feel as though we are comparing apples and pears here. The point I was making about the 25% at the next price review was around water quality monitors. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the monitoring on emergency overflows, and he was referring to the data on the speed at which they would be installed.

The Minister may be right, but it is important that we get to the bottom of this. From my perspective, the important data is the upstream and downstream of a discharge pipe water quality monitor being installed and activated. I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out during the course of the next hour and a quarter, either because she knows it off the top of her head or because her officials can give her the answer, the timeframe for those installations and the reasons why it is not happening faster.

I think the hon. Gentleman is probably moving on to amendment 16 with his point about the speed at which these were being rolled out. We were discussing amendments 13 and 14. That is where the confusion lies in this conversation. I will address the points about speed when we move on to amendment 16 —it is all to come.

I turn now to amendments 3 and 15, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale respectively. Clause 3 already requires companies to publish information on discharges in a readily accessible and understandable format. That includes information on the occurrence, location and start time of the discharges, which must be published within an hour of the discharge starting. To meet this requirement, water companies will install monitors that have telemetry technology to communicate discharges as they occur. To the point the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made, that information cannot be falsified. It is not based on someone coming; it is automatic communication.

Those requirements are the same as those for publishing storm overflow discharges, which is now a statutory duty enforced by Ofwat. Water companies have already published individual maps for their regions to show storm overflow discharges in near real time. In addition, Water UK launched a national storm overflow hub in November last year to centralise all discharge information from water companies on a single national map. We expect that a similar approach will be taken for emergency overflows. If further direction for companies on how to approach the duty is needed, that can be more appropriately addressed through guidance. Furthermore, validated historical information on discharges from emergency overflows will be available through annual returns published by the Environment Agency. Those will allow for long term trends in annual data to be analysed. If there are any specific requests from groups or organisations about how they would like to see information, they are of course welcome to communicate that to me.

We are here for another week or so. I take the point about apples and pears, but if the information is already in DEFRA’s hands, would it be helpful, if DEFRA can move fast enough—I do not know whether that is possible—to have a little grid circulated to Committee members about storm and emergency installation periods, whether that is quality, flow or EDM? With that data we could talk about it decently and honestly.

I think that might be really helpful. It has been an interesting but slightly muddled conversation. We were going to produce a factsheet to explain the difference between emergency and storm. Maybe we can include as much information as we can for Committee members by the end of Committee or before Report, if that does not put too much on my hard working officials.

On the annual data being analysed, the proposed amendments are unnecessary and I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. On amendment 16, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and which is about the speed of delivery, the need to deliver the installation of monitors on emergency overflows must be balanced with practical constraints and with due consideration for the cost of rolling out so many monitors, especially as those costs are ultimately passed to consumers through water bills.

Water companies have been instructed to install monitors at 50% of emergency overflows by 2030. This represents a doubling of the previous Conservative Government’s target of 25% of emergency overflows monitored by 2030. The Environment Agency will agree with water companies which emergency overflows will have monitors installed over the next five years based on priority areas, such as those that impact designated bathing and shellfish waters. As set out in the impact assessment, we expect the roll out of monitors at emergency overflows to cost £533 million over a 10-year period. We believe that pace of roll out strikes the right balance of recognising the urgency—this Government are doing double what the previous Government promised—while ensuring that companies have the capacity to progress other improvements and balancing customer bill impacts.

To speak frankly, it is very important to monitor, but it is also very important to fix the causes of some of the problems that we see. There is always a balance between monitoring and fixing the problem, and we believe that we have got that balance right.

Requiring a faster roll out of monitors could undermine the delivery of other improvements that water companies must make in price review 24—I would not want to be in a situation at the end of the price review where we monitor everything and fix nothing. That includes upgrades to wastewater treatment works and sewerage networks to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows. Where companies can move further and faster to achieve the roll out of monitors at emergency overflows, they will of course be encouraged to do so, but we cannot accept this amendment to require water companies to install all monitors within 12 months. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney for his detailed points and for the Minister’s replies to them. We will not seek to press the majority of the amendments to the vote. Nevertheless, we stand by all that we have said and we do wish to press amendment 13 to a vote. The reality is that duration monitors only do so much good. Asking for volume to be added to duration is not to the exclusion of quality. In fact, it is part of an attempt to try to get to the bottom of it. Again, off the top of my head, earlier last year there was a sewage overflow into Coniston Water from 22 August, which lasted just over a week, and a sewage overflow around Easter time in Windermere, which lasted a matter of hours. The former was more of a trickle—still unacceptable—and the latter was a deluge. The difference in terms of quality was significant as well as in terms of volume. We therefore ask that the Committee considers amendment 13, which we seek to press to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

6|0|2|11|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 3, page 9, line 1, leave out from start to “in” and insert— “a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”.

I have made my argument in favour of amendment 17, probably at the wrong time. I do not seek to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 3, page 9, line 38, at end insert— “141H Failure to report discharge from emergency overflows (1) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section 141F— (a) the undertaker commits an offence, and (b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2).

(2) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”.

This amendment would make it an offence for an undertaker to fail to comply with its duty to report discharges from emergency overflows. In my remarks on amendment 3, I highlighted the fact that parity of attention between storm overflows and emergency flows is critical to action in regulating the water industry. With that point in mind, I move amendment 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, which would make it a criminal offence for water companies and their chief executives to fail to comply with their duty to report on discharges from emergency overflows.

As I stated earlier, much was done to tackle the issue of storm overflows by the previous Conservative Government, including the passing of the Environment Act 2021, which we have spoken a lot about today. That introduced the statutory duty for water companies to publish storm overflow data in England every year and a storm overflow discharge reduction plan that created strict targets for sewage pollution and demanded water company investment in the necessary infrastructure to resolve issues.

Amendment 4 would address the need to ensure that emergency overflows are subject to the strict enforcement that we have seen exercised towards storm overflows in recent years. We have seen that an emphasis on strict enforcement can work in getting the reform that we all want to see the industry practise, and indeed in improving water quality. I note and welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Witney who welcomed the progress that we have made in that area on monitoring and trying to address these issues.

The Government have set out in the Bill plans to put in place a criminal offence for failing to co operate with or obstructing regulatory investigations. The amendment seeks to address a gap in those plans in a key area of public concern—a duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.

Despite significant steps, some water companies are not taking their responsibilities to protect our waterways seriously enough. This is a sector where the rewards for success have historically been high for shareholders and, as we have heard a lot about, for executives. It is time now for serious consequences for failure to protect our waterways and the public to sit alongside those rewards for success.

The duty to report discharges from emergency overflows is basic, reasonable and vital to public transparency. I come back to our points about transparency. There can be no defence from any water company that it does not understand that duty or why that duty matters. Given the Bill already puts in place the principle of a criminal offence for failure to fulfil a reasonable duty and establishes a criminal offence for failure to co operate or to obstruct a regulatory investigation, the amendment would strengthen the Bill’s intent that water companies’ conduct must be subject to criminal sanction and unlimited fines.

Of course, at the same time, however, as human error and technical fault can plague many walks of life and water companies are no exception, there must be a fair and reasonable opportunity for water companies and chief executives accused of violating their duties to show that they have genuinely tried to comply with the duties of reporting emergency overflows. Therefore, subsection (2) of amendment 4 provides explicit criteria that failure to meet the duties of publication for storm overflows does not result in a criminal offence when the company has done all it reasonably could to prevent the incident from occurring.

Members will wince because I am going to come up with some dental analogies. By giving teeth to the statutory duty of water companies to publish emergency overflow data, with the threat of prosecution for failure to do so, the message is sent beyond doubt that water companies must comply with the requirements being placed on them by the Bill.

It is by giving teeth to regulation on water pollution that we have seen progress on the issue in the last few years. We accept that more needs to be done, but I hope that Members across the House will acknowledge, as some have already started to do today, that progress has been made. We want to work together collectively to make sure that the teeth that have been given are sharp and big enough, and that enough of them are in place, to do the work that we want them to do.

The previous Government gave stronger powers of enforcement to Ofwat and the Environment Agency, including removing limits on the amount that water companies could be fined for violating water pollution laws and creating new powers that ban big bonuses and payouts to chief executives of water companies that have failed to do the right thing. We also drove through an increase in the number of inspections that water companies can expect to see—from 4,000 a year by April this year to 10,000 a year by April next year. Introducing a criminal offence for violation of emergency overflow reporting duties will enable us to expand upon that exact approach, which creates positive change in water quality. I commend the amendment to the Government and the Committee.

I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for tabling amendment 4, which seeks to make a failure to publish discharge data from emergency overflows in near real time a criminal offence.

I wholeheartedly agree that it is vital that regulators have a clear means of ensuring that water companies comply with this duty. However, clause 3 already ensures that the duty is enforceable by Ofwat under section 18 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which provides a range of tools—including significant fines—for Ofwat to bring companies into compliance. Changing the provision to a criminal offence might slow down enforcement, because criminal prosecution is typically slower than enforcement by section 18 of the 1991 Act.

In addition, we do not believe that in this case it would be proportionate to create direct criminal liability for a chief executive, particularly the potential sanction of imprisonment, because the large number of emergency overflows operated by companies, with each company operating in a different situational context, means that it is unreasonable to hold a single person to account for full compliance with the duty. By making changes such as introducing bonus bans and provisions to support prosecuting executives for obstructing the regulator, the Bill already strengthens provisions to hold executives to account for wrongdoing.

I thank the Minister for her comments. I can confirm that we will not push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 3, page 9, line 38, at end insert— “141H Restriction on the use of emergency overflows in areas used for aquatic sports (1) A sewerage undertaker must not permit a discharge from an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.

(2) In this section, an ‘area used for aquatic sports’ is a section of any body of water connected to and within a one mile radius of— (a) the clubhouse of a rowing club affiliated with British Rowing, (b) a Royal Yacht association training centre or the clubhouse of an affiliate member, and (c) the properties or facilities used by any organisation that the Secretary of State deems to provides water based sporting activities for the purpose of teaching, training or leisure.

(3) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section (1)— (a) the undertaker commits an offence, and (b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (5).

(4) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.

(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”

This amendment creates an offence for a sewerage undertaker to use an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports. I will try not to mention teeth in this part of our proceedings, but I cannot promise. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of amendment 10, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield —this is sounding like “Groundhog Day”, isn’t it? The amendment has a simple principle: that waters used for aquatic sports should be subject to the same protections as those used for bathing. It establishes that there should be clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives when they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the waters in which people practise aquatic sports.

Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but the impact of overflow discharges into our waterways and rivers is potentially creating an existential risk to some sports clubs up and down the country. We have heard reports of increased incidences of illness among participants as a direct and indirect consequence of exposure to pathogens and bacteria from sewage outflows in the waterways where they practise their water sports. That is a significant cause for concern for our rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs.

Many clubs take their duty of care very seriously indeed. They are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their participating members. Training sessions, competitions and regattas are all facing potential cancellation, and participation in those sports risks becoming less attractive and less available to people. We can all agree that actively participating in sport and physical exercise is so good for not only our physical health, but our mental health. Any deterrents discouraging people from being involved in some sports are deeply regrettable.

The amendment is trying to put the safety of the waters used for aquatic sports on the same basis as those where people bathe. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use. The amendment sets out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge from an emergency overflow within a one mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The consequences for water companies and their chief executives for failure to comply with this duty are set out clearly and are consistent with amendment 4, also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.

I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for proposing amendment 10, which seeks to make it an offence for sewage undertakers to use an emergency overflow in areas used for aquatic sports. I will mention how much I enjoyed meeting the Clean Water Sports Alliance just last week to hear about its fantastic work to get us all up, out and active, although I have so far resisted the temptation to don a wetsuit and join in.

I agree that it is vital for us to reduce the impact of sewage pollution, so that our children and their children can make the memories that we did enjoying our waterways. However, we do not believe that the amendment is necessary. It risks duplicating existing requirements to limit pollution for emergency overflows, as well as protections for bathers that are already in place. Emergency overflow discharges are permitted only in very strict circumstances and as a last resort, such as in the event of mechanical breakdown or a downstream blockage. That factsheet on the different circumstances might help.

Should an emergency overflow discharge occur outside permit conditions, the Environment Agency is able to take robust enforcement action, including fines and criminal prosecution. The measures in the Bill will increase transparency around emergency overflow discharges, shining a light on where they should not be happening.

I want to point out something that is probably blindingly obvious, because I want to support the hon. Members for Epping Forest and for Beaconsfield. When emergency overflows happen in rivers near places where people may engage in aquatic sports, that is one thing and it is unacceptable, but it is worth bearing the lakes in mind—I will pick Windermere for an example. A drop of water that enters the north end of the lake takes nine months to pass through the River Leven and out into Morecambe bay. The consequences of an overflow in a lake—in the Lake district or elsewhere—are so much greater than in other waterways. I also have 30 outdoor education centres in my constituency, many of them on lakes. They are much more affected by overflows than any other form of spillage, which is why I think the amendment is worth pursuing.

As I say, I wholeheartedly agree with the intention behind the amendment, but I note that later on we will be discussing the importance of chalk streams as well. The amendment would create a hierarchy between what is important and what is not. My argument is that emergency overflows are a problem wherever they are, and they should not be used unless it is, as the Bill says, an absolute emergency.

Measures in the Bill will increase transparency around emergency overflow discharges, shining a light on where they are happening. Although emergency overflow discharge should occur only very rarely—when it says on the tin; it should be an emergency—it is not possible to eliminate them altogether, as they are important safety valves to protect businesses and home in time of emergency. Removing or blocking emergency overflow outlets could lead to excess effluent waste water being released elsewhere, including through manholes. That would have significant safety implications.

Significant protections are in place for designated bathing waters both inland and on the coast. The Government consult on and designate our bathing waters. The Environment Agency monitors them to ensure that the health of bathers is protected, and to assess what action is needed to improve water quality. Once designated, water companies are required to investigate and improve bathing water sites, including with upgrades and improvements to overflows where needed. As part of the storm overflow discharge plan—those are obviously different from emergency overflows—by 2035 water companies will have improved all storm overflows that are discharging near every designated bathing water. We have also recently consulted on reforms to the Bathing Water Regulations 2013, including expanding the definition of “bathers” to include other water users.

A Government response to the consultation will be issued in due course, and if reforms are taken forward in future, that could mean that more bathing sites, including those used by aquatic sport users, will be subject to improvements. As such, we do not believe that the amendment is required.

I thank the Minister for her comments and for acknowledging the importance of the safety of the waters in which people practise water sports. I also thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for supporting that concept—we must try to keep these waters safe. I confirm, happily, that we will not be pushing the amendment to a vote.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 25— Duty on sewerage undertakers to monitor overflows at sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network— ‘(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 94— (a) after subsection (1)(b) insert— “(c) to make provision for the accurate collection of data relating to its performance in fulfilling its duties under paragraphs (a) and (b).”

(b) after subsection (2) insert— “(2A) In performing its duties under subsection (1)(c), a sewerage undertaker must— (a) install volume flow meters in all locations where sewage overflows occur, including sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network for which it is responsible; (b) establish appropriate required capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station; (c) publish information on the data and calculations used to establish such required capacities; and (d) install all required monitoring tools within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”’

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak about the importance of clause 3. Monitoring and reporting on discharges from sewage outlets provides important transparency around the frequency and duration of sewage discharges, to support enforcement action and policy development and to direct investment to reduce discharges. English water companies have installed monitors at 100% of storm overflows. Near real time information on storm overflow discharges in England is available on company websites and the national storm overflow hub, which provides a national map of all storm overflows. However, emergency overflows are currently not fully monitored, and data from emergency overflows is not published in near real time.

There are 7,000 emergency overflows in England, and it is vital that we better understand the frequency and duration of those discharges so that action can be taken to reduce the harm they cause to the environment. The clause will close the monitoring gap across sewage outlets by requiring that discharges from emergency overflows be published within an hour. The near real time information on discharges from emergency overflows will be independently scrutinised by the regulators, making it easier and quicker to investigate and punish wrongdoing. That information must also be published in a format that is both accessible and understandable to the public. If there are any specific requirements regarding that information, we can of course pass that to the Environment Agency.

To support implementation of this measure, we have instructed English water companies to install monitors at 50% of emergency overflows by 2030, and 100% by 2035. During implementation, monitors will also be independently certified to ensure that they are correctly installed and maintained at emergency overflows. I hope the Committee agrees that that duty is essential to meet our manifesto commitment of ensuring independent monitoring of every sewage outlet.

I turn to new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. We agree that it is vital to understand the scale and impact of sewage discharges. That is why clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows in real time. I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member has to say about the issue. I will respond to and provide reassurances about the amendment in detail in my closing speech.

I will keep this short. I am looking forward to the factsheet, but the Minister will note that new clause 25 focuses on overflows, not emergencies or storms. Frankly, it does not make much difference to a bug, a bunny or a bather whether they get whacked by an emergency overflow or a storm overflow—they are still getting whacked by the sewage. Trying to unify things and get all the issues into one table would be really helpful.

We have already been denied one amendment about flow; I recognise that and will not go on. But quality and flow are important. I am afraid that I find the Government’s position—“We really need to focus on quality, so let’s not talk about flow or install flow meters”—to be spurious. I mean no offence, but it feels like a real let down that we are not going there now. I do not see any reason why we cannot; respectfully, I think the Government are being flim flammed by the £6 billion figure.

We talk about sewage treatment works, pumping stations and so on. I have mentioned them already but really want to push the point home because we want to be capturing every overflow, wherever it is. Too often, people talk about works but forget pumping stations and the overflows on the network itself. We look forward to seeing that being covered in the legislation: overflows, works, pumping stations and the network. We will not press the new clause to a Division.

rose—

I call Darren Paffey.

Thank you, Mr Vickers—so keen was I to support the clause that I tried to speak to it too early. I appreciate your forbearance.

Clause 3 has my full support. As I mentioned, I live in an area served by Southern Water. The citizen scientists on the River Itchen have done such good work that they regularly and consistently show that there are unacceptably high levels of faecal matter in the river, even when there has been no storm or emergency. The fleshing out of the requirement for monitoring so that there can be greater accountability is hugely welcome.

Furthermore, my area is entirely relevant to new clause 25 because of the aquatic sports, particularly during the pandemic. A great wild swimming group use the river, and there are also paddle boarders, canoeists and kayakers. I have the greatest respect for them: they go where I would not be willing to at the moment because the levels of illness that people have reported. The stench of what goes into the river also affects local schoolchildren, who cannot play outside. There are all kinds of reasons why the clause will deal with the issues being experienced in my constituency.

We want bathing water status in the area, but that is almost an impossibility at the moment because of the water quality. Again, clause 3 will guarantee the openness, monitoring and forcing of accountability in the area. I welcome the clause and thank the Minister for bringing it forward. The Bill takes action and makes achieving that status much more likely. People in my constituency and beyond, across not only Southern Water’s area but the country, will welcome it too.

Does my hon. Friend share my horror at our current situation, in which constituents are getting ear and eye infections from swimming in the sea or rivers? One constituent of mine even attributes their deafness in one ear to an infection they got in the sea. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill is desperately needed for our constituents?

I share my hon. Friend’s shock and disgust at not only what people are suffering, but the entirely avoidable reasons why people are becoming ill. There are so many benefits to what the clause and the wider Bill can achieve, not just on the issues that Members on both sides of the House have mentioned in relation to trust in our water companies and the use of public money, but for public health. How much more public health benefit could people across all our constituencies experience if they were able to engage with aquatic sports or just enjoy the park areas that surround so many of our rivers, beaches and waterways? I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful that her point adds even more weight to why this clause is absolutely necessary.

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate on clause 3. I reiterate my promise to provide a factsheet and information about the numbers we have used. We have had an interesting debate about the different types of monitors. To clarify, we have emergency overflows, storm overflows, water quality monitors, event duration monitors and volume monitors, which we have discussed. We will make sure that the factsheet provides clarification so that we are all on the same page and understand the debate clearly.

Putting all that to one side, I think we ultimately all agree that it is important to better understand the frequency and duration of discharges from all the emergency overflows. We all think we need to improve transparency and inform investigations by the regulators into potential non compliance.

Combined with the equivalent duty for storm overflows, which has just come into force, clause 3 will ensure that all sewage overflows on the network are monitored. That will enable regulators and, importantly, the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from any overflow has occurred and how long it lasted. Water companies will use that information to prioritise investment to mitigate the impact of the most polluting overflows, as guided by the regulators. We have discussed our concerns about volume monitors being more difficult and costly to install. I gave a rather garbled explanation of the difficulty owing to the pipework in the majority of overflows requiring modification. As I said, I will provide further information on those numbers.

Such a large programme of work would take much longer than 12 months. We do not think that this added cost is proportionate to the additional value that volume information would provide, especially given that volume information alone does not provide a comprehensive account of the impact of a discharge—measurement of the water quality is required for that. To repeat a point, I do not want to be a Minister in a few years’ time who has perfected the art of monitoring and done nothing to deal with the causes. That is why the water companies will begin installing continuous water quality monitors for storm overflows, as set out in the price review ’24, to provide further information on the impact of sewage discharges on water quality.

New clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, would require capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station to be calculated. That is unnecessary because that information is already included in environmental permits and available from the Environment Agency’s public register. The new clause also proposes a general duty for water companies to collect data relating to their performance operating a sewerage system. We do not believe that that broad duty adds any meaningful requirement on water companies beyond their existing duties through the environmental information regulations.

On that basis, I commend clause 3 to the Committee and ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his new clause.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 Nature based solutions

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 4, page 10, line 4, leave out— “use that is to be made of”

and insert— “priority that is to be given to”.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause stand part.

New clause 5—Licence conditions about nature recovery— “In the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 17FB insert— ‘17FC Nature recovery (1) It is a condition of all licences granted under section 17A (water supply licences) that relevant undertakers must give due consideration to nature based solutions targeted at reducing flood risk and pollution incidents, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area.

(2) The Authority must not take any action that discourages or prevents a relevant undertaker from making an investment in accordance with subsection (1).’”

This new clause would make it a condition of all water companies’ licences to consider nature based solutions to flood risk, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area, and prevent the regulator from discouraging or stopping such investments.

You will be delighted to hear that I will not say very much about this, Mr Vickers. Amendment 26 relates to nature based solutions for these broader issues, and many of my points were covered under amendment 24. I simply want to point out the value of nature based solutions. They are cheap, they are low input, they provide potential income for farmers and other land managers, they are environmentally friendly in and of themselves, and they involve very light engineering to install and maintain. They are also less complex, not labour intensive and much quicker to achieve and install, as well as having very clear ecological benefits and alleviating pressure on more conventional forms of sewage treatment. I make those points just to add to the importance of prioritising nature based solutions to tackling sewage treatment.

I understand that this will not be put to a vote, but I want to add my support for nature based solutions and to draw to the Minister’s attention an experience I had with Anglian Water. It had a village sized water treatment works just over the border in north Norfolk at a place called Langham. The chalk stream that the sewage works discharge into is the Stiffkey, which runs through my constituency and then just over the border. To its great credit, Anglian Water co operated with a local landowner and created a wetland. I would have thought it would be the easiest thing in the world to have the treated sewage discharge into a secondary processing unit—it was, from memory, about two acres in size, so it is quite a large wetland with meandering going through it—and then exit back into the Stiffkey.

The Environment Agency eventually allowed this to take place, but it is worth highlighting that its initial response was, “No, you have to apply for a new licence to discharge effluent into the river.” That was because it was coming not from the pipe, which was semi treated, but from a new entrance into the stream via the wetland. The “computer said no” attitude of the Environment Agency was quite extraordinary, because it was not going to get any worse with the discharged water going through a wetland before entering the stream, and yet it took several months. It was a very significant constraint, and it called into question whether or not the project would go ahead.

I would be grateful if the Minister could take that away with her and ensure that the Environment Agency sees the development of wetlands as a really positive step forward. I know its senior leadership does, but that message should go right through the organisation so that the time and delay of bureaucracy, and the requirement for new applications for licences, do not get in the way of what we all wish to achieve.

I rise to speak to new clause 5, tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. We are talking about practical nature based solutions to flood risk. I welcome the comments made about nature based solutions, not least from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who talks passionately about the importance of nature based solutions for flood mitigation and that side of things.

I noted that during the election campaign, he waxed lyrical about Windermere, which is a beautiful part of his constituency. I know that he was an active participant with the leader of his party in water sports as well, although I note that he was a lot more competent at staying on the paddleboard than his leader. I welcome his comments on the importance of protecting and preserving our water spaces, but very much encourage the Government to facilitate landowners, land managers and farmers to do nature based solutions to mitigate flood issues.

New clause 5 would try to ensure that water companies consider practical, nature based solutions to flood risk. That would also make water companies try to improve water quality and nature restoration in their catchment areas, so there would be a double win. In Government, we Conservatives set specific, legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability in order to try to reduce nutrient pollution and sediment pollution from agriculture to the water environment. We also set out how to reduce water pollution in our environmental improvement plan. Nature recovery was carried out under us, and opportunities to do that with nature based solutions should be seized on as we move forward.

I want to be fair to the Government and welcome their movement on this issue throughout the Bill’s passage in the other place. I thank the Minister for her engagement and Baroness Hayman for the collegiate way in which she worked with colleagues. There is a spirit of consensus when we talk about the importance of nature, nature recovery and using nature based methods to try to help in these situations. I welcome the Government’s approach in the other place, which has led to the measures we are discussing in clause 4.

I welcome the work done in the other place by my Conservative colleagues, and I will name check, in particular, Lord Gascoigne. However, we again believe that despite the movement from the Government, there is still room for further movement and improvement—I hope that the Minister will consider some of this—to ensure that we benefit from the power of nature based solutions to water related problems.

Everyone in this room will be acutely aware that flooding is becoming a much more regular phenomenon across the United Kingdom—I see Government Members nodding their heads. We all have experience of representing constituencies where flooding is becoming increasingly apparent, with extreme weather events and the impact of climate change. We had a statement on flooding on Monday from the Minister, and we talked about the issues that people face. I reiterate my sympathy to those who have been affected by flooding. As I said during those exchanges with the Minister—a bit of repetition is not bad on this particular subject—we must not underestimate the mental health impacts of flooding. I pay tribute to people on the frontline, in the emergency services, the Environment Agency and local authorities, as well as the volunteers who do so much to help people in these challenging times—not least, as the Minister and I said in the Chamber this week, during the flooding and extreme weather that we have seen in recent days and weeks. Sadly, I think our exchanges will go on and on, but I think we can agree on constructive measures to try to mitigate the impacts of flooding and on using nature to help with that.

Nature based solutions can have a significant impact on flooding, such as the recreation of bends in rivers, re wiggling rivers and the creation of wetlands that slow the flow of water. Although this is not the amendment’s specific purpose, I quickly suggest that the Government look at financially supporting farmers who implement such nature based solutions. This was introduced through the environmental land management scheme. It would help if the Government took that forward and acknowledged farmers, land managers and landowners who are doing the right thing to try to help their communities and also restoring nature in the process.

I must ask the Government to clarify their formal position on nature based solutions. I see lots of nodding heads, and it would be great to get clarity on that from the Minister. If the Government are not content with this proposal from His Majesty’s Opposition, why do they not believe that it complements clause 4 in some way? We would like to hear what the Government feel about it. We have chosen to table new clause 5 because we believe that it does complement clause 4.

At present, clause 4 mandates that nature based solutions be considered in drainage and sewerage systems and their drainage and management plans. Our new clause, however, strengthens that by directly connecting the need for nature based solutions to the very conditions of holding water licenses. This is an important distinction, as it follows a process of reform that has led to the improved position in the sector in recent years.

We all agree that more needs to be done, and there are still drastic things happening. We are hopefully acknowledging that some progress has been made, but we need to hold water companies’ feet to the fire in making more progress, such as through the licensing law changes in paying dividends to shareholders, which we have already discussed today. Further still, we have widened the scope in which nature based solutions must be considered to include flood risk. As I mentioned, that can be vastly improved on, including by using nature based solutions, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned.

Even more so, proposed new section 17FC(2) of the Water Industry Act 1991 explicitly states that Ofwat cannot take any steps that discourage any water company from investment in nature based solutions. By making such an explicit statement, we are ensuring that the regulator does all that it can to advance the nature based solutions that can make a real difference. Given all that, we encourage the Government to look at the new clause closely, and if they are not keen to support it, to explain why not and what they are going to do with nature based solutions. We feel that this particular constructive amendment is complementary to the clause. We would like to hear from the Minister, but notwithstanding that, we will be likely to take this to a vote.

I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during this debate and the careful consideration of the amendments tabled to clause 4. We are in danger of having a bit of a love in with so much agreement in this room.

I turn first to amendment 26, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I was genuinely really pleased to see clause 4 added on Report in the Lords, as a result of the collaborative cross party approach to strengthening the Bill so that it further encourages greater use of nature based solutions by water companies, and I appreciate the kind comments from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epping Forest. This is why clause 4 requires sewerage undertakers to address, in their drainage and sewerage management plans, the use that is to be made of nature based solutions in their networks.

Sewerage undertakers already have existing obligations under section 94A of the Water Industry Act to address the sequence and timing for the implementation of measures proposed in their drainage and sewerage management plans. We believe that these obligations sufficiently require sewerage undertakers to address the relative prioritisation of the proposed measures in their plans. Nature based solutions are one of a diverse range of potential solutions to complex drainage and sewerage issues. Clause 4 will ensure that sewerage undertakers highlight the proposed role of nature based solutions within their network. It is right that undertakers have due flexibility to consider the full range of solutions available to them and to work with stakeholders to identify the right solutions.

As much as I love nature based solutions—and so does everyone in the room, it appears—I am sure we all accept that it is not appropriate to prioritise nature based solutions ahead of other available options in every circumstance. We believe, however, that the provisions in clause 4 will have sufficient positive effect in supporting greater exploration and development of nature based solutions without posing operational challenges for the sewerage undertakers. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale to withdraw his amendment.

Moving to new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest tabled, I take this opportunity again to agree and emphasise that the Government think that nature based solutions are critical to ensuring that we have a resilient and sustainable sewerage system. I am therefore delighted to inform the House that we have recently seen the regulator doing just that. In its final determinations for the 2024 price review, Ofwat has set out an allowance of £3 billion for water company investment in nature based solutions and biodiversity. That includes £2.5 billion to reduce storm overflow spills through green solutions.

However, the Government have noted the concerns and amendments in the other place, which is why we introduced our amendment to place a new requirement on sewerage undertakers to support the greater use of nature based solutions, which now forms clause 4. Clause 4 will ensure that nature based solutions are considered from the start of investment planning and decision making as a solution across multiple risks, including pollution, flooding and drainage. I trust that the hon. Member is therefore reassured that his new clause has already been provided for. On that basis, I ask him not to push his new clause to a vote.

Although I have outlined some of the merits of clause 4, I will briefly reiterate why this Government consider the clause to be an essential part of the Bill. Nature based solutions are vital to protecting the environment and the wider water system, as well as delivering co benefits including protection from flooding for the public and enhancing the natural environment. I concur with the comments made about flooding by the Opposition spokesperson. Clause 4 will drive further exploration and development of nature based solutions, and will require undertakers to be transparent as to how they have deployed, or propose to deploy, nature based solutions within their drainage and sewerage networks. Compliance with that duty will be monitored by Government and regulators.

Sewerage undertakers will also be required to conduct public consultations on their drainage and sewerage management plans, which will allow the public to scrutinise the plans and propose changes. Therefore, to help realise the Government’s desire to see further development of nature based solutions by sewerage undertakers, I commend clause 4 to the Committee.

I will add to the words I have already said, but not by very many, I promise. The simple bottom line of our proposal is that nature based solutions offer great value for dealing with sewage. As has been mentioned on both sides of the Committee, they also have a significant impact on flood prevention. I am bound to crowbar this in, but it is a reminder that among the things that we should be enormously grateful to those who work our uplands—our hill farmers—for is that their work, if we support them properly, prevents people who live in towns, villages and cities from being flooded.

Another part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs brief is the environmental land management scheme, and how we can look to further support those working in the uplands—our land managers and our upland farmers, both tenants and owners—to be able to deliver those nature based solutions to protect millions of homes and avoid billions of pounds of damage, as well as being part of the solution to dealing with sewage.

We will not seek to press the Committee to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Impeding investigations: sentencing and liability Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Vickers, for the opportunity to speak on the importance of clause 5. The clause strengthens the penalty for obstructing the investigations of the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Obstruction of investigations by the regulators is already an offence, but that has not stopped companies blocking the regulators’ investigations.

In 2019, the Environment Agency prosecuted a number of individuals at Southern Water for removing evidence from the possession of officers. I am sure Members will agree that such behaviour is unacceptable. Currently, the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s investigatory powers—under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995—is punishable only by a fine, and can only be heard in the magistrates court. There is also no mechanism for prosecuting executives where obstruction of those powers occurs under their guidance.

The offence of obstructing the Drinking Water Inspectorate is already triable in the Crown court. That too, however, only carries a maximum penalty of a fine. I am sure Members will agree that it should never be preferable to accept a fine rather than face the full consequences of lawbreaking, and where lawbreaking occurs with their involvement, executives should be held accountable. Clause 5 makes the offence of obstructing the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales’s powers under section 108 of the 1995 Act triable in the Crown court. It expands the maximum penalty for obstructing Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and Drinking Water Inspectorate investigations to be up to two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.

Clause 5 will address a notable justice gap and further deter the offence of obstruction. In turn, it should better enable our regulators to carry out their investigations uninhibited and hold water companies to account accordingly.

Will the Minister give way?

I am just about to finish. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that clause the clause can stand part of the Bill.

I think this is technically now a speech rather than an intervention. I am supportive of the content of the clause, but I have one technical question: if we choose to move a penalty from a fine to imprisonment, there has to be a person to apply that penalty to, rather than a body corporate. The question that obviously arises out of that is: is it the intention of the Government to apply the penalty to the controlling mind, or to a member of an organisation who may be several layers below that of the controlling mind? Who is it intended that the criminal offence should be applied to, and how will the Government ensure that there is no misunderstanding and uncertainty based on the current drafting? It is not at all clear.

We will assume that that was an intervention, and I will give the Minister a chance to respond.

Individuals can already be prosecuted, under section 110 of the Environment Act 1995, for obstructing Environment Agency investigations. However, that legislation does not allow executives to be prosecuted where obstruction has occurred with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect. The Bill will remedy that omission by adding a consent, connivance or neglect provision to the Act, meaning that executives or other relevant officers may face imprisonment if obstruction occurs as a consequence of their actions.

The Opposition have no formal objections to the clause, but I do have a couple of clarifying questions. I realise I am getting into territory with which I have no familiarity. I am not a lawyer; I am a veterinary surgeon. When we are changing offences to make them more criminal, there are implications for the courts and for individuals. Although expanding the options available to the court when sentencing offenders who have not followed the rules is welcome, how have the Government ensured that the offences are clear, so that those who commit them face the full punishment if and when required?

In terms of modelling the potential impact downstream, what work have the Government done to look at the situation retrospectively? If this provision had been law over the last few years, how many offenders would have been caught by it and potentially imprisoned? I realise that that is quite a technical question, but I wonder if the Government have looked at that at all. When we bring in laws, we need to ensure that we are aware of their implications and know how the legal and judicial system can exercise them. However, we have no formal opposition to the clause.

Likewise, the Liberal Democrats have no objection at all to this clause. I cite from memory that in 2021-22, there were just under half a million spillage incidents in this country: a total of 16 were prosecuted, eight with a fine of more than £50,000. I think what the Minister was getting at before was that very often, it is worth taking the hit. First, organisations get away with it, but even if they do not, they pay a pittance compared to the cost had they invested properly in the infrastructure. It is right to take these things seriously. However, prosecutions with potential imprisonment and loss of liberty may be as few and far between as prosecutions relating to fines, unless we make sure that the whole process is more rigorous than it has been so far.

We are supportive of the clause and I need say nothing further.

I want to raise one minor point. Public confidence in us restoring our water systems is the reason we are here, scrutinising this Bill. Feargal Sharkey—a main campaigner who many people up and down the country listen to—recently wrote an article saying that no water boss would ever go to prison as a result of this legislation. Will the Minister comment on that to give confidence to people watching this proceeding?

I am obviously a bit of a fangirl of Feargal Sharkey, not least because of his musical career before entering the field of environmental campaigning.

We do not expect this measure to materially impact on court case numbers. The intention is to deter offending. Not all cases will go to the Crown court, but it is right that that is a possibility. Obstruction of the Environment Agency’s emergency powers, under section 108 of the Environment Act 1995, is already triable in the Crown court. The EA will consult on updating the enforcement sanctions policy to ensure that that is absolutely clear. Although this is not a new offence, we are talking about changing the maximum penalty because of the justice gap that I have mentioned. Previously, it was punishable only by fine and heard only in the magistrates court, and we are moving it to be punishable in the Crown court and including a prison sentence.

I am pleased that there is lots of agreement on the importance of the clause. We are talking about something very serious: obstructing the Environment Agency or the Drinking Water Inspectorate in going about and collecting the evidence that they require. This is a serious matter, and it deserves a serious penalty. I thank hon. Members for their views on the clause, but nothing that has been said detracts from the importance of addressing the justice gap. I am pleased that there is agreement, which has, on occasion, has been exploited by water companies. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 Civil penalties: modification of standard of proof Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Regulators can currently impose civil penalties where they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence has been committed. The civil penalties are imposed by the regulators, rather than through the courts. The criminal standard of proof is appropriate for severe offences—for example, where there is a major impact on human health, on quality of life or on the environment. A high investigatory burden is not proportionate for minor to moderate offences that have a lower impact. Clause 6 will allow these offences to be enforced more quickly, cost effectively and proportionately by enabling penalties to be imposed using the civil standard of proof, which is “on the balance of probabilities”.

The penalties will be in addition to existing enforcement options that can be imposed only using the criminal standard of proof, including prosecution and unlimited variable monetary penalties, which will remain unchanged. Of course, the most serious cases will still require criminal proceedings. The Government will consult on the specific offences for which the civil standard of proof may be used and on the cap for the new lower standard of proof for variable monetary penalties. There are no plans to remove unlimited penalties for severe offences. Parliament will then debate and vote on secondary legislation before any changes are made.

The clause will strengthen the power of the water industry regulators, driving improved performance in the sector, and I commend it to the Committee.

I note that clause 6 would grant the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers the power to introduce secondary legislation concerning fixed and variable monetary penalties, as confirmed by the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It would likewise change the condition of imposing these penalties from “beyond reasonable doubt” to “on the balance of probabilities”.

Although His Majesty’s Opposition have no problems with the clause, we believe it would be beneficial for the Minister to make some clarifications to aid the reading of the clause in the future. First, how often does the Minister think that secondary legislation may be required for the fixed monetary penalties? During the last Government’s period in office, we knew that sometimes penalties needed to be adapted to get regulation of our water industries right. As I discussed in previous debates, the Conservative Government saw fit to amend the amount that water companies could be fined for violating the water quality rules.

As was also mentioned earlier, Baroness Hayman in the other place highlighted the importance of flexibility in changing rules on the water industry. The Opposition agree that flexibility is important, but for there to be flexibility, there also needs to be consistency, and awareness and monitoring of the issue so that we know exactly what flexibility is needed. Could the Minister therefore comment, now or in due course, on whether the Government will be continuously updating and monitoring to ensure that monetary penalties are having the desired outcome, that they remain aware of any potential issues and that they can determine whether they need to modulate and change things?

Does the Minister support the use of secondary legislation to increase scrutiny? As we have already discussed, the Government have sought to avoid the responsibility of accountability at ministerial and Government level by using statutory instruments for things like Ofwat’s remuneration and governance guidance. Can they not see that a bit of a discrepancy remains? If they are willing to use available powers to make change but not enhance powers, they might need to do that on other issues that we have discussed. Barring those comments and clarifying questions, we have no formal objections that we wish to raise.

I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for his contribution to the debate. I think the point my hon. Friend, and friend, Baroness Hayman made in the Lords is that we do need some flexibility, and that it would be inappropriate to set out the details of implementing these powers in the Bill, because that would result in a fixed power that would not be adaptable to the industry’s circumstances. We would like to be able to continue to adapt it.

I think the shadow Minister is trying to make sure that we set things in the right way and at the right level. That is why Ofwat will be doing a consultation. We want the level to be a deterrent rather than something that water companies can easily dismiss, but it needs to be set at the right level. It is important that that is done properly and through consultation.

I am grateful that everybody supports the clause. By strengthening the powers of the water industry regulators, we will drive improved performance in the sector.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jeff Smith.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 14 January at twenty five minutes past Nine o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

WSMB01 Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC)

WSMB02 Worshipful Company of Water Conservators

WSMB03 Mike Owens

WSMB04 BedsGOVET

WSMB05 C D Cutcliffe

WSMB06 End Sewage Convoys and Pollution Exmouth (ESCAPE)

WSMB07 Wildlife & Countryside Link

WSMB08 Havant Climate Alliance and Havant Friends of the Earth

WSMB09 38 Degrees

WSMB10 Mayday!

WSMB11 Sarah Reisz

WSMB12 Geoff Crawford

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Christopher Chope, Graham Stringer, Valerie Vaz, David Mundell

† Bedford, Mr Peter (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)

† Darling, Steve (Torbay) (LD)

† Fox, Sir Ashley (Bridgwater) (Con)

Gibson, Sarah (Chippenham) (LD)

Gill, Preet Kaur (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co op)

† Griffith, Dame Nia (Minister for Equalities)

† Hume, Alison (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)

† Kumaran, Uma (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)

Law, Chris (Dundee Central) (SNP)

† McIntyre, Alex (Gloucester) (Lab)

† McMorrin, Anna (Cardiff North) (Lab)

† Madders, Justin (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Business and Trade)

† Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

Murray, Chris (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)

† Pearce, Jon (High Peak) (Lab)

† Smith, Greg (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)

† Tidball, Dr Marie (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)

† Timothy, Nick (West Suffolk) (Con)

† Turner, Laurence (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)

† Wheeler, Michael (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)

Kevin Maddison, Harriet Deane, Aaron Kulakiewicz, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 9 January 2025

(Afternoon)

[Sir Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Employment Rights Bill

Clause 75

Advisory Board

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

I have some good news to share. The Clerks reported on Tuesday that we needed to replace two bulbs so that the Hansard reporters could see more clearly. At least one of them has now been replaced. I think they are looking for a second pair of ladders for the second one. It is important to keep abreast of productivity in this place.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am sure that the whole Committee is grateful for that illuminating update. I will keep my comments brief.

The words that we have talked about at great length—“appearing to the Secretary of State to represent” employees, workers or employers—are a standard form of language that has appeared in industrial relations legislation, and indeed non industrial relations legislation, since the 1960s at least. Similarly, the wording about an “independent expert” unsurprisingly follows a Whitehall pro forma. Very similar language appears in the Levelling up and Regeneration Act 2023, so its inclusion should not be a matter of contention for the Committee.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. As always, I will start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following the reference to illumination, I hope to shed light on the advantages of a fair work agency.

We have heard a fair amount of criticism from the Opposition Benches about the suggestion that we set up an advisory board. The shadow Minister asked whether a Member of Parliament could apply to be on it. I do not think that it is entirely clear whether they could. I do not know whether the prohibitions on second jobs for MPs have that scenario in mind, but I imagine that it could fall within the prohibition relating to advising on areas of policy. I also hope that all Members are fully engaged in their day to day work of representing their constituents and will not feel it necessary to apply. Indeed, we will play a role here in scrutinising the work of the fair work agency. Given the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, he will not be making an application, in any event.

On the point that academics could also be members of a trade union and could therefore fit into more than one category, anyone in a free society is entitled to join a trade union should they wish to do so. We would not want to make it a condition for job applicants to have to state their trade union membership—that is a slightly McCarthyist road to go down—but members of the Low Pay Commission are already required to declare any interests, including membership of trade unions or political parties. There is an opportunity for transparency in that sense.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield says, the pro forma definitions in the Bill are not novel interpretations. They are tried and tested definitions—I would like to say “trusted” as well, but it is clear that the hon. Member for Bridgwater does not trust us to operate them in the way they have operated in the past—of how people are appointed to such bodies. As has been noted, they have worked successfully for the Low Pay Commission for a quarter of a century.

The shadow Minister was accused of over egging the pudding, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater broke enough eggs in his criticisms to feed us all for the next month. I think he suggested that we did not need an advisory board at all, which suggests that he does not believe it important that the voice of business have input into the work of the fair work agency. He also said that we did not need more reports, which is one of the roles of the advisory board, and yet only a couple of hours ago he voted for a report into the application of the fair work agency. What he was getting at is that if we have to have this, we need to be assured that there is no jiggery pokery about who will be appointed to it.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. The point I was aiming to make is that there is no shortage of free advice from trade unions, employers and independent experts, so there is no need to set up a board to pay people to give advice that is freely available. The Secretary of State should simply take political responsibility for the choices he makes, rather than having advice collected together by a board and passed back to him.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but this is about how we intend to deal with industrial relations and the workplace in future—the tripartite arrangement, where we get everyone in the room, so they can agree or put different points of view. As has been demonstrated successfully by the Low Pay Commission, that results in the right balance, which is good for the economy and good for workers. It results in settlements that everyone can agree with.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. To follow up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater makes about the advisory board, what is the Minister’s view of ministerial accountability? Will there be transparency on the board’s recommendations and on being held to account for decisions? Over the past several years, Governments of all colours—Conservative, coalition and Labour—have tended to create boards, advisory panels and so forth and have felt obliged to follow the advice that they give. They almost want to derogate from their responsibility. What is the Minister’s view of the advice given by the board? Does he believe that robust ministerial responsibility should still exist, so the Minister could, or should, take decisions that are against the board’s advice? I guess I am asking what the transparency is on the board’s advice to the Minister.

That is a perfectly reasonable question. It is dealt with in the clauses, which we are about to debate and which address the requirement for the board to set out an annual report and strategy. That will inform the Secretary of State of the direction of travel of the fair work agency. Again, this is not an unusual arrangement. If we believe, as we do on the Government Benches, that the fair work agency needs an advisory body—I cannot recall any person or organisation who submitted evidence to the Committee suggesting that that was not an appropriate idea—the logical conclusion of what the hon. Member for Bridgwater suggests is that the Bill should name every single person on it. That is not a practical way to proceed.

I suggest that a huge mountain has been made out of a small molehill. This is an established practice that has worked well and has been seen to work well, and it has support from many stakeholders. It is entirely in line with what we seek to achieve.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 Labour market enforcement strategy Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 77 stand part.

Clause 76 will require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a labour market enforcement strategy every three years, which should give an assessment of levels of non compliance with labour market legislation, as well as what activity is undertaken to address that. Subsection (4) will require the Secretary of State to consult the fair work agency’s advisory board when preparing or revising the enforcement strategy, to benefit from its expertise. Subsection (5) will require the strategy to be laid before Parliament, allowing parliamentary scrutiny in the usual manner. A labour market enforcement strategy is a critical tool to maintain accountability and focus on enforcing labour market legislation. It can help to tackle workplace exploitation by prioritising enforcement in sectors in which workers are at higher risk.

Clause 77 sets out the requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report about the enforcement of labour market legislation. Subsection (3) will require the Secretary of State to consult the fair work agency’s advisory board when preparing the annual report, to benefit from its expertise. Subsection (4) will require the annual report to be laid before Parliament, allowing parliamentary scrutiny in the usual manner. Clause 77 will promote accountability by requiring an annual report on the fair work agency’s enforcement actions and will allow Parliament to monitor progress in protecting workers’ rights. It will ensure that employment standards are not just set, but actively maintained across the UK. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Clauses 76 and 77 are relatively straightforward. Quite rightly, as is standard in similar legislative provisions, they state explicitly that both the strategy, every three years or so, and the annual report, every year, should be laid before Parliament. That is welcome: it is standard and is in no way under question.

If the Minister is agreeable to it, I would like him to confirm that Members of both Houses will be given the chance to question and debate the documents—certainly the strategy, which is an important document on a longer timescale—rather than their just being laid before the House. Although it would be unusual to specify that in the Bill, will he confirm that when the first strategy is published under clause 76 or the first annual report is published under clause 77, his expectation is that Ministers will be willing to make an oral statement so that the House can properly question it and scrutinise the Secretary of State, or whichever Minister draws the short straw and presents it to the House?

When documents are simply laid before the House, sometimes these things get overlooked. Select Committees sometimes have too much work in their programme to squeeze in a scrutiny session around the publication of such documents; sometimes the House of Commons sees only a written statement. It would be sufficient if the Minister confirmed that his desire is to see these documents not simply laid before Parliament, but actively debated, at least through the means of an oral statement.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. On behalf of my residents in Torbay, whether they are employers or workers, a strategy to know how the Government are looking to drive this agenda forward can only be welcomed.

I think there is broad support for these clauses. The shadow Minister requests that I commit to an oral statement, but he will be aware that I am not in control of the business of the House. I hope that we would want to ensure that all Members have the opportunity to ask questions, but he will know that a number of other mechanisms—sorry, I am sounding a bit like the Leader of the House now—are available to Members to ensure that particular matters are debated.

I am enjoying the Minister’s audition to be Leader of the House of Commons, a role that I am certain he would do exceptionally well. As I am sure he well understands, although the business of the House is for the business managers and the Leader of the House to negotiate through the usual channels, all I am really asking of him is an in principle commitment to offer an oral statement at the Dispatch Box. Whether it gets approved or selected by the usual channels is a different matter. An indication of the intent of the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade to offer an oral statement so that these strategies and annual reports can be scrutinised across the House would be important and welcome.

I thank the shadow Minister for destroying any career prospects that I might have had. I certainly believe that the first publication would be of sufficient magnitude for an oral statement to the House. As a Minister I would certainly want to give such a statement, although whether it happens is outside my gift, as the shadow Minister knows. As we do not know when it will happen, or indeed whether either of us will be in the same role by that point, I can probably say no more. Perhaps I will be doing something else, or nothing at all. Who knows? I certainly think that the first publication of the strategy would warrant an oral statement, but for the reasons that I have outlined, I cannot make a cast iron promise.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 78 Power to obtain documents or information

I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 78, page 83, line 6, leave out “to ascertain” and insert “the purpose of ascertaining”.

This amendment makes a minor drafting correction.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 90.

Clause 78 will confer a power on the Secretary of State—although in practice it will be delegated to enforcement officers—to require a person to provide documents or information relevant to an investigation. This is a vital power, and a common power for enforcement agencies to have. It is right that its use be clearly defined. Clause 78(3) defines “enforcement purpose” in relation to the power; Government amendment 86 will make a small drafting correction so that the definition is consistently drafted. This is a technical change, but one that will make sure that this key power is easy to interpret and understand.

Government amendment 90 similarly clarifies the definition of “enforcement purpose”, in this case for the powers of entry in clause 79. As drafted, the Bill has identical definitions of enforcement purposes in clauses 78 and 79, with clause 79 relying on the definition in clause 78. However, these are different powers and the wording on enforcement purposes in clause 78 does not neatly match the provisions of clause 79. It is right that the wording of the definition of “enforcement purpose” in clause 79 should better reflect what the clause says. This amendment therefore clarifies the definition to tailor it to powers of entry. This is, again, a technical change, but one that will make sure that this key power is easy to interpret and understand. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Government amendments 86 and 90, as the Minister says, will clarify the purposes for which the power conferred by clause 79 to enter premises and inspect documents may be exercised, with a number of conditions. I would be grateful if he clarified whether a warrant will be required to enter business premises and exercise the powers in clause 79. If not, why not? It is a pretty broad power for enforcement officers that they can enter premises for “the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to exercise any enforcement function”.

I would be grateful if the Minister provided some practical examples of what that means. It seems a pretty broad power to be able to go in simply to see whether there is anything to look at; it seems at odds with statutory precedent.

Amendment 88 is a minor drafting correction. I will not rehearse the usual arguments.

The shadow Minister asks about the requirement for a warrant. The Committee will shortly come on to a clause that deals with that point. I believe that the purposes for which the power is to be used are also set out elsewhere in the Bill.

Amendment 86 agreed to. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Improving the enforcement of workers’ rights is important and depends on access to the right information. Clause 78 introduces a power to obtain documents and information. The power will be conferred on the Secretary of State, but in practice it is a function that Secretary of State will delegate to enforcement officers.

Creating the fair work agency involves bringing together different agencies with different information gathering powers. Multiple overlapping powers would be confusing and slow down enforcement. The powers of some current enforcement bodies have not kept pace with the times. For example, the employment agency standards inspectorate’s powers are activated only when they enter a premises. That makes no sense in today’s business world where many businesses are operated online and remotely, and documents are stored electronically. It is high time that we brought the legislation into the 21st century.

Clause 78 gives enforcement officers the power to require a person to provide documents and information relevant to an investigation. The person will receive a notice from the officer to provide the relevant documents or information that the officer deems necessary for their purpose. This is a common power for enforcement agencies to have, and it synthesizes and updates the powers that existing enforcement bodies already have.

I broadly accept the Minister’s argument on bringing legislation into the 21st century, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge changes in the way that documents are stored or the fact that certain businesses operate online in a way that they simply did not when the existing legislation was passed. We do not seek to object to that element.

When expanding any power of any enforcement officer under the state, however, there is always a concern to best ensure that the checks and balances that any reasonable person would expect are there. The Bill will undoubtedly become an Act, so I gently ask the Minister how, when these powers are delegated by the current or any future Secretary of State to the enforcement body, the practical application of the use of those powers—particularly those that are a step into the unknown regarding online and electronic document storage—will be assessed and reviewed to check that the right delegations are in place, and that there is no overstretch or unnecessary steps to demand documents that may not be required.

We can all imagine a situation in which, because documents are held in electronic form, some enforcement officers might desire to be over zealous and ask for far more than they need. I do not see a safeguard to ensure that enforcement officers ask only for things that they categorically and absolutely need within the function of the duties that this or any future Secretary of State delegates to them.

It is important that we hear from the Minister about getting the balance right and supporting people’s rights, while not being too invasive to businesses. I look forward to hearing from him.

Fair points were made by the Opposition spokespeople. Clearly, the Secretary of State is ultimately responsible to Parliament for the operation of the fair work agency and the use of powers by enforcement officers. I expect that will ensure that there is oversight at least on a parliamentary level. On an operational level, there will also be an opportunity for the advisory body to be involved.

On the modernisation of the rules, I understand that that applies only to the employment agency standards inspectorate, because the other bodies already have those powers. It is not a dramatic extension of the existing powers that are already in place.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 78, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 79 Power to enter business premises in order to obtain documents, etc

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 79, page 83, line 11, leave out “business”.

The effect of this amendment and amendment 89 is that the power in clause 79 may be exercised to enter any premises, including premises used as a dwelling, for the purposes of inspecting or examining documents on the premises, etc. However, NC8 provides that, in the case of a dwelling, the power is not exercisable without a warrant.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 88, 89, 91, 94 and 96.

Government new clause 8—Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant. Government new clause 9—Warrants. Government new schedule 1—Warrants under Part 5: further provision.

I will speak first to amendments 87 to 89 and new clause 8, which are necessary because they represent a vital step forward in ensuring effective enforcement while respecting fundamental rights. Clause 79 enables enforcement officers to enter business premises to carry out inspections. This is a fundamental and necessary clause for the fair work agency to operate. A workplace inspectorate that could not inspect workplaces would not be of much use.

Clause 79 as initially drafted excluded dwellings from that power of entry but, as hon. Members will be aware, a significant number of businesses are now run from private dwellings, particularly within the gig economy and online marketplaces. These amendments therefore expand the scope of the power to cover dwellings that are used as business premises, but it is right that we introduce adequate safeguards for this power, because it in effect allows an arm of the state to enter family homes and disrupt private life. Therefore, there will be a requirement for enforcement officers to obtain a warrant from a justice before entering a dwelling.

We believe this approach strikes a balance between ensuring robust enforcement of labour market legislation and modernising the law to include best practice safeguards. Without this amendment, enforcement efforts would be hampered. Many violations occur in business premises that double as private dwellings. By granting access through a warrant based system, enforcement officers can efficiently investigate breaches without undermining public trust. The proposed safeguards mirror those in other enforcement frameworks, ensuring consistency and fairness.

This amendment is a necessary evolution of enforcement powers. It ensures that enforcement officers can effectively combat labour market abuses wherever they occur, while upholding and protecting the rights of individuals by ensuring that safeguards are in place.

I now move to amendments 91, 94 and 96, new clause 9 and new schedule 1. The fair work agency is all about simplification, replacing multiple, complex approaches to enforcement with a single, simple system that—unlike this amendment grouping—is easy for employers and workers to understand. These amendments do precisely that by introducing a single process for obtaining warrants across the two powers that require them.

The detailed safeguards included in the new schedule reinforce the transparency, legality and proportionality of these powers, which is vital for public trust in enforcement processes. The amendments also improve the clarity and coherence of the Bill, making it easier to implement and understand. Together, these measures strengthen the Bill, ensuring that robust enforcement mechanisms are paired with the necessary protections for individuals and premises, and I commend them to the Committee.

This is a bumper grouping—amendments, new clauses and even a new schedule. I will start with new clause 8, which provides that an enforcement officer may not exercise the power conferred by clause 79, to enter a business premises for any enforcement purpose, to enter premises that are a dwelling without first obtaining a warrant. As in previous debates in this Committee about dwellings, the official Opposition agree that obtaining a warrant first should be necessary, so we are fine with that.

New clause 9 makes further provision about warrants under part 5 and enables warrants that authorise people to accompany the enforcement officer executing the warrant. It also provides that entry under warrant is unlawful unless it complies with the provisions in new schedule 1 relating to the execution of warrants, which equally seems sensible. The new clause also provides that those persons who are authorised to accompany the enforcement officer can exercise the same powers that the officer may exercise as a result of the warrant. Off the back of that quite niche point, could the Minister explain who the Government envisage accompanying the enforcement officer under those powers—for example, a warranted police officer? Who does the Minister envisage being part of that process?

New schedule 1 makes further provision about applications for the execution of warrants under part 5. Warrants must be executed within three months of being granted. That is fairly standard, so the Opposition find that to be an uncontentious point.

Moving on to some of the amendments in this group, amendments 87 and 89 provide that the power in clause 79 may be exercised to enter any premises, including premises used as a dwelling, for the purposes of inspecting or examining documents on the premises. However, new clause 8 provides that in the case of a dwelling, the power is not exercisable without a warrant.

We agree that a warrant should be necessary to enter dwellings, so I wonder whether the Minister can reflect on the potential inconsistency that could be interpreted to exist between those two clauses. It may be a drafting error—it may well be unintentional—but to avoid any uncertainty and to avoid legal challenge down the road, it would help to get some clarity.

Amendments 88, 91, 94 and 96 are all consequential on new clauses 8 and 9 and new schedule 1, which causes me to return to the old chestnut—why those amendments were not included in the Bill on introduction. But the fundamental question on the group is, how frequently do the Government expect such powers to be used? An indication of that would give the Committee a much greater understanding of expectations on the use of the powers—whether the Minister considers that they might be used very occasionally, or whether they will form the backbone of the way that the body operates. That is not quite clear yet.

I appreciate that in real life, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and there is a lot of trial and error and seeing how things work in practice. As ever, though, I would expect the Department, through its own consultation, conversations and experience with those fragmented enforcement bodies as they exist at the moment, to have at the very least an expectation of how often the powers that are provided for in these amendments, new clauses and new schedule would be used.

I am pleased that the shadow Minister recognises the need for these safeguards. As for who could accompany an enforcement officer, it would depend on the individual circumstances. It could be a police officer. It might be someone from social services. I had probably best write to the hon. Gentleman to set out in some more detail who that might apply to.

I am afraid that asking how often we expect the powers to be used is rather like asking, “how long is a piece of string?” I would say, though, that some of the recent reports from the labour market enforcement bodies, including even the Low Pay Commission, show that there are actually quite a lot of labour violations in domestic settings—far more than there might have been in the past. That trend may well continue into the future.

I did not quite follow the shadow Minister’s inconsistency point.

I am grateful to the Minister, and I would be happy to follow this matter up in correspondence if we cannot make it clear in Committee. The point I was trying to make was that new schedule 1 makes provision for the execution of warrants under part 5 being granted, which is standard, but as we get into some of the detail, amendments 87 and 89 provide that the power in clause 79 may be exercised to enter any premises, including premises used as a dwelling, whereas new clause 8 provides that in the case of a dwelling, the power is not exercisable without a warrant. It seems to create potential for an extreme legal interpretation, to put those two at odds.

Therefore, if there is a drafting way that the two could be married up, so that it could be made clear that a warrant will always and categorically be required to enter a dwelling, that would be welcome. Perhaps it will be enough for the Minister to simply do so verbally in this Committee.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Certainly that would be my understanding, but I will happily write to him to confirm that.

I now have some more examples of people who might accompany enforcement officers during a visit. I am told that it could be other enforcement officers; IT experts, as data might be stored on computers; or HMRC fraud investigators. As I have suggested, we will write to the hon. Gentleman with a detailed list so he has a better idea of what we are looking at.

Amendment 87 agreed to. Amendments made: 88, in clause 79, page 83, line 12, at end insert— “This is subject to section (Power to enter dwelling subject to warrant) (which provides that a warrant is necessary to enter a dwelling).”

This amendment is consequential on NC8. Amendment 89, in clause 79, page 83, leave out lines 28 and 29.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 87. Amendment 90, in clause 79, page 83, line 30, leave out from “purpose” to end and insert “means— (a) the purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to determine whether to exercise any enforcement function; (b) the purpose of determining whether there has been any non compliance with relevant labour market legislation; (c) the purpose of ascertaining whether there are documents on the premises which may be required as evidence in proceedings for any non compliance with relevant labour market legislation;”.—(Justin Madders.) This amendment clarifies the purposes for which the power conferred by clause 79 to enter premises and inspect documents, etc may be exercised. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 177 to 182 and 205.

Government new clause 49—Information relating to the intelligence services, etc.

On a point of order, Sir Christopher. It is my belief that you have not put Government amendments 91, 94 and 96 to the Committee.

The reason we have not done that is because we have not yet reached them. We have to do things in order. Government amendment 94, for example, is an amendment to clause 83, and we have not reached clause 83 yet. However, I am always very grateful for advice from hon. Members because nobody in this room is infallible.

I am sure if we had a Division on that, there would be some interesting comments. It can be difficult to keep up, but your understanding of the current grouping, Sir Christopher, is as mine, which is always an encouraging start.

Turning to clause 79, all the existing employment rights enforcement bodies have powers to enter premises and inspect workplaces to gather information to inform their investigations, but each body’s powers are different and some of them are now very out of date. Clause 79 therefore introduces a single power to enter into any relevant premises to obtain information or documents.

The clause has been drafted with the aim of continuing the current approach to enforcement and compliance, so in general, an officer will agree a time for their visit with the employer in advance and arrange the visit at a reasonable time during business hours. However, it allows an officer to turn up unannounced if they have reasonable grounds to believe that an employer may frustrate entry.

The clause gives power to an officer to inspect or examine any documents on the premises. The officer may also require any person on the premises to produce documents that the officer has grounds to believe are on the premises and are within their control or possession. If the person cannot provide the necessary documents, they will be able to provide them to the officer at a later time and date. An officer can also have access to, and check the operation of, any computer or equipment, as such devices may store information that is necessary for the purposes of an investigation. The clause also allows the officer to seize any documents produced on the premises that may be necessary for the investigation.

To enter a dwelling, as we have discussed, an officer will have to obtain a warrant from a justice. That reasonable safeguard protects the rights of all individuals to family life whilst allowing agents to carry out all the vital work they need to protect the rights of workers.

New clause 49 will restrict the exercise of powers in clauses 78 and 79 in relation to the intelligence services, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that using the powers would not be prejudicial to national security, the prevention and detection of serious crime and the economic wellbeing of the UK. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue a certificate of satisfaction before the powers can be exercised. Conditions on the exercise of either power may also be imposed if necessary. Subsection (5) also states that, other than as provided for in the clause, “nothing in this Part requires any person to…produce”

or disclose any document or information “containing intelligence service information”.

Government amendment 182 is consequential on Government new clause 49. Clause 108, as introduced, sets out that the enforcement provisions in part 5 generally apply to Crown premises and the parliamentary estate. Clause 108(5) enables the Secretary of State to prevent powers of entry from being exercised in relation to Crown premises when that is deemed necessary for national security reasons. Government amendment 182 amends clause 181 to provide textual consistency and to ensure that new clause 49 functions as intended.

The amendments strike a balance to ensure that the fair work agency does not inadvertently act in a way that could be prejudicial to key national interests that the intelligence services work hard to protect, while also enabling those services to be investigated like other employers. This is vital to ensure that there is not a two tier system of enforcement whereby some workers have less protection than others because of who their employer is.

I turn to Government amendment 181. Clause 101 imposes restrictions on the disclosure of intelligence service information, which is necessary to protect such information. It also defines “intelligence service information” for the purposes of that restriction. However, new clause 49 contains a slightly different definition, so Government amendment 181 amends that in clause 101 so that it is consistent with the definition in new clause 49(6)(c).

Government amendments 177 to 179 are technical amendments that are consequential on Government amendment 181. They make changes to the definition of “appropriate service chief” in clause 101(4). This is necessary as a result of the amendment to the definition of “intelligence service information” in clause 101 that is made by Government amendment 181. These technical amendments insert wording to clarify who the relevant service chief is in relation to information that has been received directly or indirectly from, or in relation to, each of the intelligence services. This addition is intended to capture information that may be obtained or held by third parties that relates to the intelligence services.

The amendments are part of a series of measures that are intended to balance the need to ensure that intelligence service information is protected, enabling the intelligence services to continue to do their important work, while also ensuring that the fair work agency can exercise relevant powers when necessary.

As we have already heard, part 5 of the Bill contains provisions that provide the building blocks that we will use to create the fair work agency. Several measures in the part, including some new clauses and amendments, are intended to specify how investigatory enforcement powers apply in relation to the intelligence services. They contain exemptions that are necessary to balance the protection of national security while ensuring that the fair work agency can still investigate when appropriate.

Clause 101 defines GCHQ and the intelligence services for clarity. If the amendments and new clauses are agreed to, those terms will be used more widely. The amendments are a technical change to ensure that the defined terms are repositioned to clause 112, which defines terms as they apply across part 5.

I cannot remember, Sir Christopher, whether you were in the Chair when the Committee previously discussed exemptions for the intelligence services, but it seems that we now have a different approach to such exemptions in the amendments that the Minister has just spoken to. I guess it is “Never Say Never Again.”

Ah!

There was always going to be a point when we returned to that.

New clause 49 would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to exercise enforcement powers in relation to people serving in the intelligence services, unless it has been certified that there was no risk to national security. It would also restrict their ability to require others to provide documents or information relating to the work of the intelligence services.

Amendment 181 amends the definition of “intelligence service information” so that it is consistent with new clause 49, and amendments 177 to 179 are consequential to that. Amendment 205 defines GCHQ and intelligence services for the purposes of part 5 of the Bill—all very sensible—and applies the powers in clauses 78 and 79 to the intelligence services. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the exercise of the power will not be contrary to the public interest, or prejudicial to national security, the prevention or detection of serious crime, or the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom.

I am genuinely grateful to the Minister and the Government that these exemptions for the intelligence services are included in the amendments and new clause—as I said a couple of moments ago, that represents a very sensible route—but I wonder why they seem to have been added as an afterthought. Did nobody in government consider the importance and the sensitivity of documents held within the intelligence services before the Bill was first presented to the House of Commons?

The shadow Minister was quite right to refer back to our earlier debate on flexible working. Today, he certainly is the man with the golden pun, but this set of rules is slightly different: it still allows the intelligence services to be dealt with, whereas I think his proposal would have excluded the intelligence services altogether. The requirement is just that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the inspections and powers are necessary. Of course, when dealing with highly sensitive intelligence documents, we would want such safeguards, so I am pleased that he supports our measures.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 79, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 80 Supplementary powers in relation to documents Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 81 stand part.

The clause is a vital element of the fair work agency’s investigatory powers. It means that enforcement officers can copy documents and require that information is produced in a legible and readable format so that officers can take information away for analysis in slower time. The clause is necessary to ensure thorough inspection of the relevant information and documents for the purpose of the investigation, and it builds on powers that existing bodies have.

Clause 81 allows enforcement officers to retain any documents received under clause 78, or documents seized under clause 79, so that they have time to review documents properly to support their investigations and, if necessary, use those documents as evidence at trial. This reasonable and proportionate power is critical to allow the effective enforcement of employment rights. It is proportionate because if a photograph or a copy can be made of a document, that document is released back to the owner. I hope Members understand why the powers will be necessary so that the fair work agency can pursue its activities effectively.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not object to the thrust of the clauses, particularly the provision about not retaining a physical document if taking a photograph or making a copy of it is practicable. I do not want anyone to misinterpret what I am saying, but although I recognise the need for enforcement agencies to be able to acquire the evidence and documents they need to conclude their right and proper investigations, the question arises, how long may evidence be held by the enforcement agency, or indeed any part of the British state, particularly in cases in which a physical document has not been retained but a photograph or a copy has been taken of it? Clause 81 is pretty explicit about the retention of physical documents, but it is less clear on how long a copy or a photograph may be held by any arm of the state. I look for reassurance from the Minister that the rules will apply to copies as much as to the original documents seized, taken or willingly given to the enforcement officers.

I broadly welcome the way forward proposed in these clauses.

I hope that I can put the shadow Minister’s mind at rest. My interpretation of the provisions of clause 81(2) are that they would apply equally to the provisions of clause 81(3) and that copies would be retained only for as long as necessary for the purposes set out in subsection (2). I will write to him if my understanding is incorrect, but I believe that the legislation is fairly clear on that point.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 80 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 82 Powers of enforcement officers under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause refers to where provision is made for authorised enforcement officers to exercise relevant powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Those powers are crucial in equipping enforcement officers to effectively investigate labour market offences. The clause forms part of our broader strategy to consolidate fragmented employment and labour practices under one unified fair work agency, including replacing the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority with a strengthened enforcement body.

It is essential that these powers, which are currently exercised by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, are carried over to the fair work agency so that the agency can respond more swiftly and effectively to offences, ensuring that breaches of employment law are met with appropriate and immediate action. The integration will not only preserve the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s valuable work, but expand on it, reinforcing the Government’s commitment to protecting workers’ rights across the labour market. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

This is an uncontentious clause.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 83 Offences relating to gangmasters: power to enter premises with warrant Amendment made: 91, in clause 83, page 85, line 9, leave out “persons or”.—(Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on NC9.

I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 83, page 85, line 10, at end insert— “(aa) exercise any power conferred by section 79(2) or (4),”.

This amendment would enable an enforcement officer entering premises with a warrant under clause 83 to exercise the same powers to inspect, examine and seize documents as would be exercisable if the officer had entered the premises in reliance on the power conferred by clause 79.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 93 and 95.

These are minor amendments to ensure that there is consistency between the general power of entry in clause 79 and the power of entry under clause 83. They provide for a consistent approach, which will be easier and simpler to understand. This is a technical change, but one that will ensure that these key powers are easy to interpret and understand.

I heard what the Minister said, and these are indeed relatively minor amendments that do make sense. Amendment 92 enables an enforcement officer entering a premises with a warrant under clause 83 to exercise the same powers to inspect, examine and seize documents as would be exercisable if the officer had entered the premises in reliance on the power conferred by clause 79. Amendments 93 and 95 largely build on that. While we accept the spirit and the letter of the amendments, which all make sense, I cannot pass up yet another opportunity to wonder why they were not in the Bill in the first place.

I welcome the further clarity that the amendments offer.

Amendment 92 agreed to. Amendments made: 93, in clause 83, page 85, line 11, after “any” insert “other”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 92. Amendment 94, in clause 83, page 85, line 15, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment is consequential on NS1. Amendment 95, in clause 83, page 85, line 24, leave out from beginning to “may” in line 26.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 92. Amendment 96, in clause 83, page 86, line 3, at end insert— “(10) For further provision about warrants under this section, see section (Warrants) and Schedule (Warrants under Part 5: further provision).”—(Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on NC9 and NS1 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The clause is an essential measure that empowers enforcement officers to enter premises, including by force if necessary, when investigating unlicensed gang- masters activity under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. It carries over the existing powers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and brings them together with the other enforcement powers of the fair work agency. It enables officers to gather necessary evidence when there is a reason to suspect illegal labour practices and is a vital step in protecting vulnerable workers from exploitation. It ensures that enforcement officers can conduct thorough investigations to uphold fair labour practices without delay. As at present, enforcement officers will need a warrant to exercise this power.

The clause supports a co ordinated approach to labour enforcement by integrating the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority into the fair work agency. We are amending the clause as discussed and introducing a new schedule so that the process of applying for and executing a warrant mirrors that in clause 79, to create a single system of enforcement across the employment rights landscape. I commend the clause to the Committee.

As we made clear in the debate on the amendments to the clause, the official Opposition are broadly content, particularly given the explicit requirement for a warrant to enter premises, that we can support it.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 83, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 84 Power to request LME undertaking Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 85 to 87 stand part.

The labour market enforcement system was introduced by the Immigration Act 2016. It has proved an effective and flexible system to ensure that employers comply with the law. This set of clauses largely replicates the relevant provisions of the 2016 Act but replaces references to the enforcing authority with references to the Secretary of State, in order to reflect the transfer of functions to the Secretary of State. Clause 72(4) provides that enforcement officers may exercise any enforcement function of the Secretary of State.

Clause 84, together with clause 72(4), will ensure that enforcement officers appointed under clause 72 will have access to the powers they need. It gives the Secretary of State the power to request labour market enforcement undertakings, which are agreements made between the Secretary of State and a non compliant employer. They outline measures that the employer will take to maintain compliance with the law and set out the prohibitions, restrictions and requirements with which the employer has agreed to comply. Labour market enforcement undertakings are important to ensure effective enforcement of the relevant labour market legislation within the fair work agency’s remit. They are effective in securing timely compliance, fostering collaboration, providing tailored solutions and improving conditions for workers. Labour market enforcement undertakings encourage persons to take responsibility for compliance while reserving more punitive actions for cases where voluntary efforts fail.

Turning to clause 85, the power to request labour market enforcement undertakings will be a key part of the fair work agency’s enforcement powers. Labour market enforcement undertakings are voluntary measures agreed between an individual business and the Secretary of State and seek to correct non compliance to avoid the need for more extensive powers. Clause 84 gives the Secretary of State the power to request such undertakings, but clause 85 is crucial to ensure that the scope of the undertakings is clear. It does that by defining a “measure” in relation to an undertaking. It also specifies when those measures can be agreed as part of an undertaking and provides a delegated power for the Secretary of State to specify additional measures that may be included in an undertaking through affirmative regulations.

Clause 85 largely replicates existing legislation in the Immigration Act 2016, although references to the enforcing authority are again replaced by references to the Secretary of State, in order to reflect the transfer of functions and powers to the Secretary of State. The clause, together with clause 72(4), will ensure that enforcement officers appointed under clause 72 will have access to the powers they need.

Clause 86 closely follows section 16 of the Immigration Act 2016 and carries over elements of the labour market enforcement undertakings system, which has operated well since its introduction. The clause provides that the Secretary of State will be able to specify the time period for which an undertaking will last, with a maximum time of two years. That is sensible flexibility: the more serious or systemic the breach, the longer an undertaking may need to be monitored. Clause 86 will also allow the Secretary of State to release persons from an undertaking, and require a release where the undertaking is no longer serving its purpose. That, again, is sensible flexibility, which will allow the fair work agency to cease subjecting persons to undertakings where they comply with the provisions of the undertaking and show improvements, so that fair work agency officers can thereafter focus on higher risk employers.

Clause 87 replicates section 17 of the Immigration Act 2016 and provides for how the Secretary of State should give notice to an employer about labour market enforcement undertakings. It replicates the existing law with minimal change—the current system works well. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

I will focus most of my comments on clause 87, on the means of giving notice under the provisions of clause 84. I think we can all fully understand what clause 87(1) means by “(a) delivering it to the person, (b) leaving it at the person’s proper address, (c) sending it by post to the person at that address”.

However, there is some potential for confusion—and a need for greater clarity, be that in advice, notes after the Bill becomes an Act or perhaps more formally during the passage of the Bill—regarding what precisely we mean by “electronic means”. Subsection (8) states: “‘electronic address’ means any number or address used for the purposes of sending or receiving documents or information by electronic means”.

As Members of this House, we all sometimes have constituents who use all manner of extra means to try to get messages through to us, particularly with the growth of different social media channels and direct messaging. Most reasonable people still define “electronic means” as what is now probably the old hat electronic means: published email addresses and perhaps text messages via mobile phones, WhatsApp and similar messaging platforms. Some businesses have websites that make it quite difficult to contact the business by means other than a website contact form, or perhaps their only published contact details are via social media channels.

Without wanting to get too detailed and specific, I think it would be welcome if the Minister could—this afternoon would be great, but certainly at some point before the Bill becomes an Act—double check with the Department and his legal advisers whether things such as Instagram direct messages would count as “electronic means” under the clause. It is very easy—I am guilty; I have done it with some messages—to miss a message that does not come via the expected channels, such as published email addresses, postal addresses or whatever it might be. With social media channels—I have certainly found this with Instagram—it is sometimes very easy for legitimate constituent messages to find their way into junk folders, which are far less straightforward than our inboxes.

If the notices may be issued via those slightly less obvious electronic channels, can we have clarity on that? What safeguards will be put in place to get around the chance of a notice going into some sort of electronic trap—a junk folder, spam folder or whatever it might be—so that the enforcement body can have confidence that the notice it has served has reached the intended recipient? I suppose that these days the same point would apply to the postal method of delivering a notice—we all know that postal deliveries are not as frequent as they used to be—so if such notices are not going to be sent via some form of signed for or special delivery, how can there be confidence that any notice served under clause 87 has reached the business owner or the director against whom enforcement action is being considered? Clarity is key here.

I welcome the points made by the shadow Minister, and wait eagerly to hear from the Minister.

I am grateful for the general support. The shadow Minister has raised some fair questions and articulated the frustration we all feel when trying to deal with certain organisations. I know it is a Thursday afternoon, but I could talk for some time about how my satellite TV provider has proven quite elusive when I have tried to speak to an individual.

I think I can put the shadow Minister’s mind at ease on this issue. Clearly, the purpose of the undertakings is to encourage compliance, so an undertaking will not appear out of thin air, but will be the result of an ongoing conversation between the employer and the fair work agency. Clause 87(6) specifies that notices or undertakings can be sent by electronic means only if “the person has indicated that notices under section 84 may be given to…an electronic address”

and in a particular format, so there is already a safeguard in the Bill to ensure that those messages do not go missing. The whole purpose of an undertaking is that there is an agreement between both parties that there will be compliance, so it would not be in the fair work agency’s interest to send things to addresses or places where it was not confident that they would be received. It is all about encouraging compliance, and that is the purpose of the clauses we have just debated, so I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 85 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 88 Power to make LME order on application Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clauses 89 to 94 stand part.

Government amendment 189.

Clause 88 carries over provisions that are currently in section 18 of the Immigration Act 2016. It gives the appropriate court the power to make a labour market enforcement order following an application by the Secretary of State. Labour market enforcement orders are a critical tool in the existing enforcement of employment rights, and it is vital that this system can continue to operate when enforcement is brought together under the fair work agency.

Clause 89 sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may apply for a labour market enforcement order, and largely follows section 19 of the Immigration Act 2016. The Secretary of State may apply for an order if an employer refuses or fails to enter into a labour market enforcement undertaking, or does not comply with the measures in an undertaking that it has entered into. That is a common sense approach to enforcement, first allowing businesses to fix problems voluntarily, and ordering them to improve only if that does not work. That is the compliance first approach we want the fair work agency to take.

Clause 90 replicates section 20 of the Immigration Act 2016. It too grants the power to a court, where a person has been convicted of a labour market offence, to make a labour marker enforcement order. That is a reasonable measure, which protects workers by introducing an additional safeguard in relation to rogue employers. The labour market enforcement order may impose measures in accordance with clause 91 to ensure compliance with relevant legislation. This provision is substantially unchanged from the Immigration Act.

Clause 91 largely replicates section 21 of the Immigration Act 2016. It lays out what measures may be imposed in a labour market enforcement order. It also carries over from the Immigration Act 2016 a power for the Secretary of State to specify such measures in regulations. That is an existing power, and it makes sense to keep it to allow for flexibility in enforcing employment rights legislation. The measures are specifically designed to prevent or reduce the risk of the respondent failing to comply with any requirement imposed by or under relevant legislation, thereby protecting workers.

Clause 92 also carries over provisions from the Immigration Act 2016. It specifies that labour market enforcement orders can be granted only for a maximum period of two years and cannot be imposed on those under the age of 18. It also allows for courts, when making an order, to release individuals from undertakings for the labour market offence concerned, and from any other orders, to avoid individuals being subject to multiple undertakings and orders at the same time.

Clause 93 replicates section 23 of the Immigration Act 2016 and allows courts to vary or discharge labour market enforcement orders. Clause 94 carries over the appeals process for labour market enforcement orders from the Immigration Act 2016. The Bill clearly lays out which higher courts will deal with the appeal and what orders those courts may make, which is unchanged from the current regime. Clause 94 ports over the appeals process for labour market enforcement orders from the Immigration Act 2016. A clear appeals process is a vital and necessary way to enable the effective operation of the undertakings and orders system.

Let me turn to Government amendment 189. Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other existing legislation and ensures consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill, which is important because it makes our legislative framework cohesive and functional. The amendment makes an essential technical addition to the Sentencing Act 2020, updating it to include reference to the labour market enforcement orders that a court may impose on someone upon conviction of a labour market offence. The amendment ensures that our statutory framework can function effectively. The labour market enforcement order system is an existing system that works well. I therefore commend amendment 189 and clauses 88 to 94 to the Committee.

It is always good to see the Government copying and pasting from a piece of Conservative legislation, with the odd use of the replace function. I will focus my comments largely on Government amendment 189, which makes a consequential amendment to the Sentencing Act 2020 to include labour market enforcement orders in the list of orders that may be made on conviction by a criminal court but that are not dealt with in that Act.

I do not fully understand why the amendment was not included in the Bill on its introduction—it seems a straightforward and should have been in there from the start. But my central question for the Minister is, how does this compare with the current position on enforcement made on conviction by a criminal court? Can the Minister reassure the Committee that this is simply a tidying up measure that brings existing experience into line with the proposed legislation, or does he envisage the amendment making a material difference?

Let me deal first with the usual concern raised by the shadow Minister about why we have had to table an amendment. He has probably noticed that schedule 6 contains a considerable amount of other legislation. It is not that unexpected that not every piece of legislation affected by the Bill would be covered—that is really what this is about.

The shadow Minister also sought reassurance, and my understanding is that the amendment does not change the current powers of the courts in any meaningful way. If I am incorrect about that, I will of course write to him.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 88 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 89 to 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 95 Evidence of authority Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Enforcement officers need the powers to do their jobs effectively, and that is what we are providing through the Bill. Clause 95 introduces a key safeguard around carrying out the enforcement functions in part 5 of the Bill. It applies to any person proposing to carry out an enforcement function of the Secretary of State and to exercise any of the powers of an enforcement officer. It requires those persons—in practice, fair work agency inspectors—to provide evidence of their appointment when carrying out investigations or taking enforcement action. That evidence will be in the form of official identification, sometimes referred to as a warrant card, provided by the Department.

Existing enforcement bodies provide such evidence currently. For example, section 9(1) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 requires inspectors of the employment agency standards inspectorate to show evidence of their authority “if so required”. We have mirrored that approach in clauses 95 to 97. Persons acting to carry out the Secretary of State’s enforcement functions and use the powers of enforcement officers will have to provide evidence of their appointment on request. That gives businesses the opportunity to satisfy themselves that an inspection, which is an inconvenience and costs time and money, is genuine. The fact that the clause requires officers to provide this evidence only on request reflects the fact that the fair work agency’s inspectors are likely to be in correspondence with businesses before their premises visit.

The way in which we have drafted the clause is proportionate and reflects existing best practice. It balances having an important safeguard in place with ensuring that that does not create unnecessary operational burdens. I therefore commend clause 95 to the Committee.

As the Minister has said, the clause replicates existing best practice. It is perfectly reasonable that any enforcement officer turning up at any site seeking to engage in enforcement activity—be that under this legislation or in any other field—should have to prove on what authority they are acting. This clause is, therefore, uncontroversial.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 95 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 96 Items subject to legal privilege Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause provides a safeguard to ensure the protection of any document or information that is subject to legal professional privilege. Such documents or information do not have to be provided in response to any enforcement action by the fair work agency. As Members will know, legal professional privilege is a well established principle, and refers to a person’s ability to speak freely and frankly with their legal adviser to obtain advice. It is a key principle in the judicial system in this country.

Practically speaking, the clause means that no provisions relating to the enforcement of labour market legislation —those in part 5 of the Bill—can require a person to produce documents or information they are entitled to withhold on grounds of legal professional privilege in High Court proceedings in England and Wales. The same is true of documents or information a person is entitled to withhold in Court of Session proceedings in Scotland.

No provisions in the enforcement clauses can compel someone to disclose information they could choose to withhold on the grounds of confidentiality of communications. The clause defines communications for this purpose as any communication between a professional legal adviser and their client or as any communication made, connected with or for the purposes of legal proceedings. Protecting legal professional privilege helps to protect the administration of justice and the rights of individuals and other legal persons. It is a well recognised concept that appears in many other pieces of legislation. For example, section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 exempts from disclosure information subject to legal privilege.

The fair work agency will have strong investigatory enforcement powers. Those are proportionate and justified, and it is important that, where investigations do happen, defendants are able to communicate frankly with any legal advisers representing them. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

As the Minister said, the protection of legal privileges is well established in our legal system. It is important, and the clause is the belt and braces of ensuring that it applies to this legislation. In one respect, I could argue that I do not see why it is necessary to write the protection of legal privilege into the Bill, given how entrenched it is in our system. But it never hurts to have that belt and braces approach, and the Opposition object in no way, shape or form to the protection of legal privilege.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 96 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 97 Privilege against self incrimination Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 provides for another standard safeguard in our legal system: protection against self incrimination in criminal legal proceedings. The fair work agency has investigatory powers that enable the Secretary of State and the enforcement officers they appoint to require the production of documents and information to enable them to fulfil their functions. It is an offence under clause 104 for anyone, without reasonable excuse, to fail to comply with such a requirement.

The clause protects individuals from self incrimination by providing that any information they are required to provide under clause 78 is not adduced as evidence against them in criminal proceedings. However, the individual can still choose to voluntarily adduce this information as evidence in the proceedings.

The clause disapplies that protection for certain offences. It provides that the protection does not apply where the offences under trial relate to any of the offences listed in subsection (4)—providing false information or documents under clause 103 of the Bill, or breaching other statutory provisions about false statements and statutory declarations. It is vital, in the context of someone providing false information, to ensure that the right evidence is presented to the court. That, in turn, is crucial to enable the court to come to the right decision.

These protections and exemptions help to ensure the effective functioning and the fairness of our legal system. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

It is becoming almost uncomfortable how much we agree on the current set of clauses. However, these protections, particularly those against self incrimination, come with the correct, proper and, dare I say it, entirely standard exemptions listed, and the Opposition do not object to the clause.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 97 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 98 Disclosure of information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 99 stand part.

On clause 98, regulators and enforcement agencies must be able to work together effectively to share information and pool knowledge. For example, if the fair work agency identifies issues with health and safety in the course of its investigations, it should be able to let the Health and Safety Executive know, and vice versa.

Silo working is bad for workers, bad for businesses and bad for the taxpayer. Clause 98 is about preventing silo working. It authorises the two way sharing of information between the fair work agency and other bodies. It introduces schedule 5, which lists the public bodies with which information can be shared to enable them to exercise their functions. We have tabled amendments to the schedule to add the Pensions Ombudsman, as well as certain authorities in the devolved nations.

The clause also allows for schedule 5 to be amended by affirmative regulations. That provides the flexibility necessary for the fair work agency to respond to changes in the wider labour market and regulatory landscape. Effective information sharing is crucial for successful enforcement of employment rights across agencies. Without the clause, the fair work agency would be unable to receive and share vital information, undermining its ability to effectively enforce those rights.

Clause 99 ensures that the information sharing authorised in clause 98 is efficient and reflective of best practice. Although it is vital that the fair work agency can share information with other bodies, it is critical that personal information is protected. Information will be able to be shared under clause 98 without breaching any obligation of confidence, or other restriction on the disclosure of information.

Clause 99 ensures that information shared under clause 98 is shared in accordance with the relevant data protection laws and remains subject to relevant prohibitions on disclosure in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. It is crucial to safeguard the ongoing secure handling of information and to ensure that all parties can be confident that that information will be managed in the proper way.

The critical thing in what the Minister just outlined is that any information sharing must happen within the confines of our existing data protection laws. That is absolutely mission critical. Of course, everyone accepts that enforcement agencies must work with other enforcement agencies and that they need to work closely with other Government agencies at times, where there is a compelling need to do so. In that respect, our existing data protection laws will be the necessary safeguard, as well as the explicit recognition of the other agencies that might be conferred with. From that perspective, clauses 98 and 99 are relatively straightforward.

I ask that the Minister to keep a close eye on the Bill as it passes through Parliament, becomes an Act and is enforced, to check on what we commonly call mission creep and to ensure that the powers exercised under these clauses do not, for unnecessary reasons, become too commonplace. For example, some agencies may unnecessarily share a little too information, in a way that is not relevant to an enforcement activity. We can all get behind enforcement activities where proper due process is followed, but there can sometimes be mission creep, which can stretch into realms that a reasonable person would not say was acceptable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrasing in the clause is perhaps a little too ambiguous and could lead to the mission creep he mentions? If that were to happen, it could result in abuse of power.

My hon. Friend eloquently—probably more eloquently than me—gets across the point I was trying to make. Where the wording of legislation is open to wider interpretation, mission creep is often the unintended consequence. I have no doubt the Minister does not want to see that mission creep and wants safeguards in place. However, to my hon. Friend’s point, it would be good if the Minister explained to the Committee when he sums up—or committed to doing so on Report—what safeguards can be put in place to ensure that mission creep does not happen and that elements of information sharing not relevant to a direct, live enforcement investigation or prosecution are not allowed to be shared, as well as the impingements that that would bring on businesses across our country.

The shadow Minister makes a reasonable point. Of course, this will all be subject to data protection legislation and the safeguards contained therein. It is also the case that, if the Secretary of State wishes to expand the list of bodies with which information is shared, there is a requirement to amend that list by way of affirmation regulation, giving parliamentary oversight.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 5 Persons to whom information may be disclosed under section 98

I beg to move amendment 97, in schedule 5, page 130, line 22, at end insert— “The Pensions Ombudsman.”

This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to the Pensions Ombudsman for the purposes of the Ombudsman’s functions.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 171, 98 to 100, and 172 to 174.

This is a large grouping again, and I will turn first to Government amendments 97 to 100. Open, two way information sharing with the regulator is what clause 98 and schedule 5 are all about. These amendments add Scottish health bodies to schedule 5, which will support those bodies in fulfilling their functions. This has been agreed by Scottish Government officials and the bodies themselves.

Amendment 97 also adds the Pensions Ombudsman to schedule 5. Fair work agency inspectors may come across useful pension information that will help the Pensions Ombudsman in its duties, and it is right that they can share that information. The amendments stand to benefit the bodies concerned and the public by allowing the Secretary of State to share information obtained by the fair work agency that is relevant to the functions of those bodies.

Amendments 171 to 174 are about where the fair work agency, in fulfilling its statutory duties, is likely to obtain information that would be beneficial to other statutory bodies. Clause 98(5) gives the Secretary of State the power to disclose certain information to the persons specified in schedule 5. Amendments 171 to 174 add additional public bodies in the devolved nations to schedule 5. Amendment 171 adds the National Crime Agency, amendment 172 adds Social Care Wales, amendment 173 adds the Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority in Northern Ireland, and amendment 174 adds Welsh Ministers.

The amendments will enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of part 5 enforcement functions to be disclosed to those bodies for the purposes of their functions. The amendments stand to benefit those bodies and the public by allowing the Secretary of State to share information with those bodies that is obtained by the fair work agency and that is relevant to its functions, where the disclosure is relevant to the exercise of those bodies’ own functions. The amendments have all been agreed by the relevant bodies, and on that basis I commend them to the Committee.

As the Minister said, this is a relatively substantial grouping of amendments, and he outlined very clearly what they all seek to do. I will merely pose a couple of questions so that we can get into some of the practicalities of the amendments.

What purpose does the Minister envisage for the data that will be shared with pensions, healthcare and social care services? How do the Government intend to use the powers in those settings, and what safeguards will be in place? I think we all understand the need for information sharing with a lot of the organisations he outlined, but it seems strange to include healthcare, social services and —to many extents—pension operators. If he could give the Committee some practical examples of where he feels that is necessary, it would help us to consider the amendments more clearly before coming to a determination.

The shadow Minister lays down a challenge for me. On the Pensions Ombudsman—I will certainly write to him if anything occurs to me after consultation with officials—it is not unusual for an individual’s payslip or contract to indicate that pension deductions have been made, when they have not actually reached the appropriate pension funds. That may be one example of where such a reference could be made.

The shadow Minister will be aware from the Low Pay Commission’s recent reports that health and social care are the sectors where some of the worst labour market abuses are ongoing, so it is important that we are sighted of particular issues in those sectors. I will take further advice on any other specific examples I might be able to give him, and I will write to him in due course.

Amendment 97 agreed to. Amendments made: 171, in schedule 5, page 130, line 29, at end insert— “The National Crime Agency.”

This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to the National Crime Agency for the purposes of its functions. Amendment 98, in schedule 5, page 131, line 20, at end insert— “Healthcare Improvement Scotland.”

This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to Healthcare Improvement Scotland for the purposes of its functions. Amendment 99, in schedule 5, page 131, line 20, at end insert— “Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland.”

This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland for the purposes of its functions. Amendment 100, in schedule 5, page 131, line 20, at end insert— “The Scottish Social Services Council.”

This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to the Scottish Social Services Council for the purposes of its functions. Amendment 172, in schedule 5, page 131, line 20, at end insert— “Social Care Wales.”

This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to Social Care Wales for the purposes of its functions. Amendment 173, in schedule 5, page 131, line 20, at end insert— “The Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority in Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to the Health and Social Care Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority for the purposes of its functions. Amendment 174, in schedule 5, page 131, line 23, at end insert— “The Welsh Ministers.”—(Justin Madders.) This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill to be disclosed to the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of their functions. Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

I will not detain the Committee long. Schedule 5 is the list of bodies with which information can be shared, which obviously now includes the Pensions Ombudsman. As I have indicated, any further bodies would need to be added to the list by affirmative regulations.

We accept the list, but welcome the Minister’s commitment from the previous debate to provide clarity on the organisations on it. We need greater reassurance on those, but for the time being I will certainly not object to the schedule.

Question put and agreed to. Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 100 Restriction on disclosure of HMRC information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be crucial for the investigation and enforcement of many different employment rights beyond the national minimum wage, which HMRC is specifically tasked to enforce on behalf of the Secretary of State. However, much of HMRC’s data is understandably confidential, and it is therefore prudent to require an extra level of approval before information shared by HMRC is disclosed further.

The clause restricts the disclosure of that information without authorisation from the commissioners of HMRC. If information is inadvertently shared without approval, section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, on wrongful disclosure, applies. The result could be a fine and/or imprisonment for the individual committing the offence. The clause ensures information sharing best practice across Government and puts in place an appropriate safeguard around the sharing of HMRC data.

On the face of it, this is a sensible clause with appropriate safeguards around HMRC data. The only note of caution I would throw into the mix when involving HMRC in any investigation is that there are arm’s length bodies and then there are arm’s length bodies, and it is well known that HRMC can often prove very independent, if I may put it that way, when it comes to such investigations. I know—and this is relevant—from other work I do, including as chairman of the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all party parliamentary group, that there can sometimes be some difficulties and challenges in terms of HMRC’s ability to share data and its willingness to engage in a straightforward conversation, even with other enforcement agencies.

I encourage the Minister, prior to enforcement of this legislation, to work with his colleagues in the Treasury team—his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and, more importantly, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—to find the most straightforward way of getting an agreement in place with HMRC on these enforcement activities, because there are too many tales of woe from other areas, such as the loan charge, in which I take a particular interest on behalf of a number of constituents and which must be got right. HMRC is a body that many right hon. and hon. Friends have found it difficult to get straightforward answers out of under all sorts of Governments—blue ones, red ones and coalition ones—over recent years. I encourage the Minister to do that due diligence and work to ensure that, metaphorically speaking, all the ducks are in a row.

The shadow Minister raises some fair points. I commend him for the work he does on the loan charge, and that all party group is important. Certainly, HMRC’s functions in terms of the fair work agency will be focused on national minimum wage enforcement. I do not think that that is an area where we have some of the difficulties the shadow Minister referred to, but of course we will make sure. The intention in the clause is to make sure that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 101 Restriction on disclosure of intelligence service information

I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 101, page 95, line 11, leave out from “person” to end of line 12 and insert “to disclose information to an enforcing authority where— (a) the person is serving in an intelligence service, or (b) the information is intelligence service information.”

This amendment would provide that clause 98(2) does not authorise the disclosure of intelligence service information.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 176.

When carrying out investigatory and enforcement activity, the enforcement officers will need to obtain information relevant to the Secretary of State’s enforcement functions. That is why clause 98(2) permits the disclosure of information to the Secretary of State or an enforcement officer if the disclosure is made in connection with an enforcement function. But there is a need to ensure that certain categories of information are treated differently, given their likely sensitive nature or content.

One such category is intelligence service information. The chiefs of the intelligence services are under statutory obligations to make sure that information relating to their service is not disclosed unless to do so is in accordance with certain requirements. Clause 101 therefore sets out restrictions on the disclosure of intelligence service information, to ensure that the Bill is consistent with those obligations.

Clause 101(1), as introduced, refers only to persons serving in an intelligence service. After discussion with the intelligence services, it is clear that there is a need to ensure that intelligence service information held by third parties is also protected, so Government amendment 175 widens the restriction at clause 101(1) to ensure that clause 98(2) does not require third parties to disclose intelligence service information to an enforcement officer.

Government amendment 176 is consequential on amendment 175. Amendment 176 inserts wording into clause 101(1) to clarify that the restriction on persons serving in an intelligence service from disclosing information under clause 98(2) does not affect disclosures that such persons could make under intelligence service disclosure arrangements.

These amendments protect intelligence service information from disclosure. They are part of a series of amendments that aim to balance the need to preserve the work that the intelligence services do in protecting key national interests with ensuring that the fair work agency can exercise its functions where necessary. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

When it comes to protecting our intelligence services, it turns out that the Minister is not Dr No after all. [Interruption.] I think we will leave it there. The point that I have made so many times is that it is right to protect and exempt our intelligence services to ensure that they can get on with the work they need to do, with the right level of confidentiality, and that the vital work done to protect our country is at all times protected. Therefore, we welcome the amendments, but, as ever, we ask why it has taken until the Bill is in Committee to work out that position and the vital importance of exemptions for the intelligence services.

Amendment 175 agreed to. Amendments made: 176, in clause 101, page 95, line 13, leave out “such a person” and insert “a person serving in an intelligence service”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 175. Amendment 177, in clause 101, page 95, line 24, after “from” insert “, or relating to,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181. Amendment 178, in clause 101, page 95, line 27, after “from” insert “, or relating to,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181. Amendment 179, in clause 101, page 95, line 29, after “from” insert “, or relating to,”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 181. Amendment 180, in clause 101, page 95, leave out lines 32 to 36.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 205. Amendment 181, in clause 101, page 96, line 7, leave out “from” and insert “directly or indirectly from, or that relates to,”.—(Justin Madders.) This amendment amends the definition of “intelligence service information” so that it is consistent with NC49. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The clause ensures that intelligence service information is disclosed to the fair work agency only in accordance with intelligence service disclosure arrangements and cannot be shared by the fair work agency without authorisation from the appropriate service chief. In the course of investigating some employment rights abuses—for example, in cases of modern slavery or coercive employment practices—the fair work agency may make use of information provided by the intelligence services or come into possession of information relevant to the intelligence services. That information is likely to be highly sensitive in nature, and specific disclosure arrangements therefore apply.

The clause authorises a person serving in an intelligence service to make disclosures of information to an enforcement authority in accordance with intelligence service disclosure arrangements. It restricts the disclosure of intelligence service information by an enforcing authority without the authorisation of the appropriate service chief for the intelligence service from which the information was obtained. It is right that there are additional protections for this information, not least on national security grounds. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Yes, absolutely—there is no issue for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition with the protection of our intelligence services.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 101, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 102 Offence of failing to comply with LME order Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clauses 103 and 104 stand part.

Government new clause 50—Providing false information or documents: national security etc defence.

Clause 102 addresses the need for accountability and compliance with labour market enforcement orders. It creates a clear offence of failing to adhere to a labour market enforcement order without reasonable excuse, sending a strong message that non compliance will not be tolerated. The clause ports over the existing offence in section 27 of the Immigration Act 2016 and does not create a new offence. The clause is essential to ensure that labour market enforcement orders hold real weight and authority in our legal framework.

The penalties under clause 102 are designed to be fair yet firm, with varying limits for summary conviction in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and up to two years’ imprisonment or fine on conviction on indictment. The range of penalties enables the courts to respond proportionately to the severity of each offence, ensuring that justice is both accessible and effective across the UK. By maintaining meaningful penalties, we maintain a powerful deterrent against non compliance, which encourages individuals and businesses to uphold their obligations and respect labour laws. The approach we have taken in the clause emphasises both accountability and fairness, ensuring consistent enforcement across jurisdictions.

I turn to clause 103. For the fair work agency to enforce effectively, it needs to rely on the information it gathers. Providing false information slows investigations down and slows down justice for workers. The clause therefore carries over and consolidates offences from predecessor legislation to create a single offence of providing false information. The clause provides that an offence is committed when a person “produces, or knowingly causes or allows to be produced, any information or document”

that is materially false. It provides that an offence is committed when the person providing information is either aware that it is false when providing it or has not taken reasonable action to confirm its accuracy. The clause also sets out the penalties applicable in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is right that falsifying documents should carry a criminal penalty.

Clause 104 provides a vital tool in the arsenal of our labour enforcement officers. Employment rights enforcement is generally a civil regime, founded on consensual investigations. That is right and proportionate, but it is important that there is a clear course of action when individuals block or stymie investigations. The clause creates a single offence for anyone who intentionally obstructs an officer or fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with their lawful requirements. In doing so, the clause consolidates similar offences in the predecessor legislation for the current enforcement bodies.

Clause 104 is fundamental to ensuring that enforcement officers can perform their duties without interference, which is essential for effective labour market oversight. Obstructing officers’ work undermines these efforts, delaying investigations and weakening compliance. The clause directly addresses this issue by establishing clear consequences for those who intentionally hinder enforcement officers in the execution of their duties. The penalties in the clause are proportionate but firm, with tailored limits across UK jurisdictions. This approach ensures consistent consequences for obstruction, reinforcing compliance with employment rights law and protecting workers’ rights, fostering a safer and fairer labour market.

As we deliver this upgrade to enforcement, we need to ensure that there are safeguards in place to prevent action that might interfere with the work of the intelligence agencies and could be detrimental to national security. That is why we have tabled new clause 50, which provides a defence for individuals to the offence of providing false information in clause 103. The defence applies only where the Secretary of State has issued a certificate stating that they believe it necessary for the person to engage in such conduct for reasons of national security, preventing or detecting serious crime, or maintaining the economic interests of the country. The new clause sets out that such a certificate may be revoked by the Secretary of State at any time. This is a necessary exemption; it maintains the ability of the Secretary of State to carry out their enforcement function, while balancing national security interests.

I will focus the majority of my comments on Government new clause 50. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause provides a defence to the offence in clause 103 of providing false information or documents in response to a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State under part 5 of the Bill. The defence would apply if the Secretary of State certified that the conduct in question was necessary in the interests of national security, or for those other reasons that the Minister outlined.

I think we can all categorically understand the defence of the conduct being necessary in the interests of national security—that is uncontroversial. Likewise, when it is for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime—that seems relatively uncontroversial. It is slightly more open to interpretation, but is clearly put forward with good will. Indeed, the prevention and detection of serious crime is something that we all wish to see.

On conduct that is “in the interests of the economic well being of the United Kingdom”, again, on the face of it, that is something we all want to see; we all want the economic wellbeing of our great country to be protected. So, on the face of it, these measures seem sensible. However, that third defence—the economic wellbeing defence—seems incredibly broad and ill defined. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide a more detailed explanation of what exactly it means, and how the discretion of the Secretary of State would be circumscribed in deciding what matters genuinely relate to the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom and what do not.

If we put a bunch of lawyers in a room, they could come up with virtually any reason why something could fall within the interests of the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. I do not think that anybody—including the Minister, from the perspective of ensuring that his Bill works once it is an Act, or indeed of the national interest of the United Kingdom—would want to see such an ill defined phrase enabling a legal argument that virtually anything relates to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom. For example, would a fraction of a-per cent drop in growth be defined as relating to the UK’s economic wellbeing? I do not think that the new clause is sufficiently well defined to give the Minister the powers that I think he is looking for within the confines of this proposed legislation, or indeed to give the outside world the confidence that it needs to understand the full scope of what is going on here.

I understand the point that the shadow Minister is making, but this phrase seems to be well established in the relevant legislation. It appears in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and other legislation that establishes legal parameters around the security services, and appears to have first been used in this House by Douglas Hurd. I do not know whether the Minister will also respond to this, but does the hon. Member accept that these provisions appear to be carrying forward some well established and understood legal concepts?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a well established form of wording, and I do not think there is anything between our positions on national security. However, even if it is well entrenched in previous legislation, leaving “economic wellbeing” so ill defined presents an open goal to those who would wish to abuse that definition. Indeed, if we had proposed such a broad and ill defined Opposition amendment, I am sure that Government Members would start to use terms such as “wrecking amendment”, and so on, and to talk about opening up the legislation far too widely.

Although we are not opposed to the spirit and the letter of the bulk of new clause 50, it would be helpful, before this legislation goes any further, if the Minister gave a serious, detailed and clear explanation of what he means by the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, and a guarantee that this will not be used, potentially through misinterpretation, by those in the legal profession such that what the Minister wishes to achieve through this legislation could fall down and be found wanting.

The first thing to say is that the new clause came at the request of the security services, so it is not a whim on the Department’s part, and it applies specifically to the offence under clause 103 of providing false information. It would be rather rash of me to start talking about situations in which that might apply. I understand the hon. Member’s point about the wider economic test being quite broad, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, that is the established test in legislation. Given that we are talking about a defence to a specific offence under clause 103, I would suggest that the chance of this being frequently used, or indeed misused, is extremely remote, although as I say, it would be improper for me to speculate on the circumstances in which it might be used, given the sensitivities around the proposals.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 103 and 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 105 Offences by bodies corporate Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 106 to 108.

Clause 105 applies the offences in part 5 of the Bill to corporate bodies. It is a standard clause that can be found in predecessor legislation, such as section 27 of the Immigration Act 2016. The clause ensures accountability at both the organisational and individual levels, and practicality in legislation. It makes certain that those complicit in the offence can be held personally liable.

Clause 106 applies the offences in part 5 of the Bill to partnerships; clause 107 applies them to unincorporated associations. Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 107 specify that liability is attached to those who committed the offence with consent or who were negligent regarding the offence, as well as to the association. Unincorporated associations play a significant role in various sectors, including sports and community services. These two clauses ensure that all business structures are subject to enforcement. They are standard clauses that are found in predecessor legislation, such as section 30 of the Immigration Act 2016.

Clause 108 sets out how the provisions of part 5 of the Bill relating to the enforcement of labour market legislation apply to the Crown and parliamentary estate. Clause 108(1) provides that all provisions in part 5 are binding on the Crown. Subsection (2) defines Crown premises as any premises “held or used by or on behalf of the Crown”.

This means that fair work agency inspectors can enter and inspect Crown premises using powers set out earlier in the Bill. We believe this is right. The Crown employs individuals who are entitled to rights in scope of the fair work agency’s remit. The clause will enable officers to carry out investigations and gather information to ensure that the rights of Crown employees are as effectively enforced as other employees’ rights.

The clause also contains certain exemptions that we believe are justified. First, subsection (6) exempts the King’s private estates from the powers of entry. The King’s private estates are defined in the Crown Private Estates Act 1862. They are distinguished from Crown premises. They are not defined as premises used in connection with Crown business and employing staff. Secondly, subsection (6) also exempts “premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament”

from the powers of entry. The main premises we would expect the fair work agency to enter in relation to Parliament would be the offices of MPs and peers. The wording here ensures that the exemption is wide enough to exempt Members’ offices in the Palace of Westminster and those beyond it. This exemption reflects standard practice.

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to amendments we have tabled for national security reasons. Clause 108(5) of the Bill as introduced enables the Secretary of State to exempt Crown premises from powers of entry where they deem it necessary for national security reasons. The starting point of the current drafting is that powers of entry apply generally and need to be disapplied. The exemption applies only to investigations of Crown premises that would have national security implications.

Government new clause 49 restricts the exercise of powers in clauses 78 and 79 in relation to the intelligence services, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that use of the powers would not be prejudicial to national security, the prevention or detection of serious crime, or the economic wellbeing of the UK. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to issue a certificate before the powers can be exercised. Government amendment 182 amends clause 108(1) to provide textual consistency and ensure the new clause functions as intended. Our amendments strike a balance to ensure that the fair work agency is able to investigate the security agencies where necessary, while also ensuring that the powers are not used in a way that could damage the UK’s security interests.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 106 and 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 108 Application of this Part to the Crown Amendment made: 182, in clause 108, page 100, line 2, after “of” insert “section (Information relating to the intelligence services, etc) and”.—(Justin Madders.) This amendment is consequential on NC49. Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 109 Abolition of existing enforcement authorities Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Our aim is that the fair work agency will bring together existing state enforcement functions in one place. Delivering this aim means abolishing two existing bodies involved in enforcement of workers’ rights—the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement—and transferring their functions to the Secretary of State. Clause 109 does that.

The function of enforcing the licensing regime for gangmasters and the GLAA’s responsibilities for enforcing aspects of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 will be transferred to the Secretary of State and carried out by fair work agency enforcement officers. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement’s oversight and reporting functions will also be transferred to the Secretary of State. They are replaced by the new duties on the Secretary of State set out in clauses 75 to 77. Clause 75 requires the Secretary of State to set up an advisory board, and there are also the requirements on an enforcement strategy and annual report.

Abolishing these two bodies is a key part of streamlining the current system of employment rights enforcement, which is fragmented and ineffective. It is not about reducing functionality or enforcement capability. In fact, because of the reforms we are making, we hope that the fair work agency will be greater than the sum of its parts. Employment rights will be enforced more effectively and efficiently, which will be fairer for businesses and workers, and there will be greater clarity on where people need to go to seek help.

Broadly speaking, the clause is uncontroversial. We accept the need to streamline enforcement activities and put them under one roof, notwithstanding my comments about understanding the costs of putting that enforcement body together.

Since we are debating the Employment Rights Bill, I feel it is incumbent on me to pose a question to the Minister as we talk about the abolition, as opposed to the transfer, of existing bodies with existing employees. The term “abolition” has a clear legal meaning, unlike other language that could have been used with respect to the transfer of powers. Will any of the existing employees who engage in enforcement activity under the bodies being abolished by the clause receive redundancy notices? Are they being put out of work or moved to some other part of Government that is not directly related to this enforcement activity, or will all those employees be directly transferred at the discretion of the Secretary of State and deployed under the new agency?

This is an important test of the Bill. Here we have some of the first employees who will be affected by its new provisions. What will happen to those—no doubt very good—people who are currently working as part of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement? Upon the enactment of the Bill, they will be among the very first people in our country to work out what their employment rights are.

I welcome the shadow Minister’s commitment to workers’ rights; it seems that listening to me for several weeks has finally rubbed off on him. At this stage, it would be premature for me to say that we intend for any redundancies to transpire. The clear presumption, as we move forward, is that all existing staff will transfer over under existing legal protections. Clearly, other issues may arise when we get into the operational detail, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to talk about workforce matters in a Bill Committee; that ought to be discussed with the workforce first. As I say, my clear understanding at this stage is that all staff will be transferring over, because we have a job to do to ensure that the labour market is enforced properly, and we need everyone on board to do that.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 109 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 110 Consequential and transitional provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The clause introduces schedules 6 and 7, which make consequential amendments and transitional provisions required to deliver this change. Schedule 6 sets out consequential amendments we are making to various Acts of Parliament as a result of these reforms. Part 1 of schedule 6 covers the consequential amendments to existing powers under relevant pieces of labour market legislation. Part 2 of the schedule sets out the changes required to other Acts.

Schedule 7 sets out transitional and savings provisions we need in place to set up the new body. Part 1 of schedule 7 gives powers to the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to move staff, property, rights and liabilities of the GLAA and DLME to the Secretary of State. Part 2 of schedule 7 provides for other necessary transitional provisions, such as to ensure that smooth sharing of information can continue and to retain provisions that devolved legislation relies on. The clause and the schedules it introduces are necessary to deliver a functioning statute book and to deliver on the policy intention of upgrading enforcement of workers’ rights.

My thoughts on the clause are similar to those I expressed on the last clause we debated. The language of this one is a little clearer, so the Opposition do not object to it.

Question put and agreed to. Clause 110 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 6 Consequential amendments relating to Part 5

I beg to move amendment 101, in schedule 6, page 133, line 7, at end insert “and the italic heading before that section.”

This amendment makes a further consequential amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 102 and 103.

Schedule 6 outlines consequential amendments to other existing legislation. It ensures consistency with the new provisions introduced by the Bill, which is important to make our legislative framework cohesive and functional.

Amendment 101 ensures textual consistency by removing the italic heading before section 13 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Section 13 is repealed by the Bill. The change is entirely technical, to make sure that all aspects of the legislation are properly aligned and clear for interpretation. Such amendments are common practice when integrating changes into existing legislation and ensure accuracy in our statutory framework. I hope Members will support this uncontroversial and important amendment as it facilitates the clarity and precision of the legislation.

Amendment 102 corrects a small drafting error in schedule 6, and amendment 103 is a consequential change to align with amendment 102. They do not affect the substance of the Bill, but maintain its quality and accuracy.

These are very minor amendments, to which the Opposition do not object.

Amendment 101 agreed to. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Anna McMorrin.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 14 January at twenty five minutes past Nine o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

ERB 79 Mitie

ERB 80 Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †Peter Dowd, Sir Roger Gale, Sir Mark Hendrick

† Ahmed, Dr Zubir (Glasgow South West) (Lab)

† Al Hassan, Sadik (North Somerset) (Lab)

† Barros Curtis, Mr Alex (Cardiff West) (Lab)

† Bool, Sarah (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

† Chambers, Dr Danny (Winchester) (LD)

† Cooper, Dr Beccy (Worthing West) (Lab)

† Dickson, Jim (Dartford) (Lab)

† Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Gwynne, Andrew (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care)

Jarvis, Liz (Eastleigh) (LD)

† Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

† Osborne, Tristan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Rankin, Jack (Windsor) (Con)

† Stafford, Gregory (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)

† Stainbank, Euan (Falkirk) (Lab)

† Whitby, John (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)

Chris Watson, Kevin Candy, Sanjana Balakrishnan, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 9 January 2025

(Afternoon)

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Clause 1

Sale of tobacco etc

Amendment proposed (this day): 17, clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out

“born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert

“under the age of 25”.

This amendment makes it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to people born on or after 1 January 2009.—(Dr Johnson.)

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: Amendment 18, clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert “showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 22, clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 23, clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 24, clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out “a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 44, Schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out, “a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 48, schedule 5, page 132, line 7, leave out from “berson” to end of line 8 and insert “dan 25 oed (“B”)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 45, schedule 5, page 132, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 46, schedule 5, page 132, line 38, leave out from “rhoi”, to “a” in line 39 and insert “yn 25 oed neu drosodd”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 47, schedule 5, page 133, line 2, leave out from “person” to end of line 3 and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 39, schedule 5, page 133, line 16, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 40, schedule 5, page 133, line 21, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 41, schedule 5, page 133, line 26, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 42, schedule 5, page 134, line 9, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 43, schedule 5, page 134, line 14, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 25, clause 50, page 25, line 30, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 26, clause 50, page 25, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 34 and insert “under the age of 25 (“the customer”) to be aged 25 or over”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 27, clause 50, page 25, line 37, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 28, clause 50, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 29, clause 50, page 26, line 28, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 29 and insert “under the age of 25”;.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 30, clause 50, page 26, line 30, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 31 and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 31, clause 50, page 26, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line and insert “under 25.”

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 32, clause 68, page 35, line 28, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 33, clause 68, page 35, line 37, leave out “shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert “showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 38, clause 72, page 37, line 28, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 49, title, line 2, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

The stated aims of the Bill are really quite clear: as the previous Government and the new Government decided, it is a generational smoking ban, such that anybody who turns 18 after 1 January 2009 is prevented from ever purchasing tobacco in many different shapes and forms; I think that means people who have just turned 16, as we have just had a change of year, will be prevented from ever doing it.

The batch of amendments that have been grouped together effectively undermine the fundamental nature of what the Bill is trying to achieve. Instead of moving to an incremental generational ban, it moves to a different system that alters the age at which tobacco products can be sold to someone, and does so on an indefinite basis. The generational ban does not remove any individual’s rights to buy cigarettes, because at the moment the people who would be prevented from buying cigarettes and other tobacco products cannot do so; their rights are not changed, but rather prevented from ever kicking in. These amendments move instead to a system whereby the legal age is changed such that it is 25 rather than 18.

That will remove the right to smoke from seven years’ worth of people. Smoking has become a lot less prevalent among younger people, but there are seven years’ worth of people, aged 18 to 25, who can smoke at the moment, so if you passed this batch of amendments as they are, you would have seven years’ worth of people who effectively do have rights individually removed from them. However, that must be set against what you do to the collective.

My concern with the principle of clause 1—I know we are not talking about the principle at the moment—is that it creates two tiers of adults, but the generational ban will work its way through and, by the time that generation passes, you will have created one tier of adults again, so my principal objection works its way through. This batch of amendments would keep that static. Yes, you would have two tiers of adults, because you would have people under 25 and people over 25, but you would not be infringing the right of the majority of people to go about smoking tobacco products throughout their lives.

My general view of the Bill is that the generational smoking ban is the state overstepping the mark from public health into infringing personal liberty. However, I recognise the argument of both the previous Government and the new Government that smoking is fundamentally incredibly bad for somebody, so stopping people taking it up in the first place is in the realm of public health. In particular, even though the legal age is 18, we have people aged 15, 16 and 17 taking up smoking. One thing that the Bill setting the age at 25 might do is to stop those people at those ages from picking up a very bad habit indeed.

On this batch of amendments in particular, I am trying to weigh up the removal of those rights of that seven years, set against whether we need such a draconian ban that we stop all adults smoking in the future. I have come to the conclusion, listening to the earlier debate under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Gale, that on balance I would support these amendments.

Before I call the next speaker, and at the risk of sounding like a pedant, we do not use the second person in debates—that is, “you”—because when you talk about “you”, you are talking about me. I respectfully ask people to bear that in mind and use another person—maybe the third person.

Speaking specifically about amendments 17 and 18 and the age restriction of 25, I understand the arguments that have been made: Government policies often offer entitlement to one age, but not to another. For example, people have cited the state pension, which you will not get at 55, but you will after you hit 66. I would argue that those are one off burdens of proof, because once you are 66, you will automatically—

Order. Sorry, I do not want to have to push this, but when you talk about “you”, you are addressing the Chair. This is not about me, so please, for the purposes of our protocols, will people remember that? Thank you.

Once one has turned 66, that person does not have to confirm their age each and every couple of days or necessarily carry ID to claim their state pension—it is noted on the record, and that is that. Here, potentially, however, if we have an outright ban from 1 January 2009, whenever someone tries to buy a cigarette, after 2034 retailers will have to ask on every single occasion how old they are, for fear of a fine.

I agree that we already have the age 25 verification, but it is safe to assume that people reach an age when they do not have to prove it. I find it incredibly flattering when I do get IDed, but we all reach a point when we do not need it. In the Bill, however, we do. It might seem to be a quick check—one simply looks at the date of 1 January 2009—but we can foresee that being troublesome for retailers. Also, we very much have to bear in mind the issue of the abuse of staff and, as British retailers have mentioned, the increased financial and administrative burden, in particular for smaller shops, which is often where vapes and tobacco are sold. That will have a big impact on their businesses.

Indirectly, a potential effect is the introduction of legal inequalities and giving sanction to age discrimination by creating a create a class of under aged adults. Furthermore, a point I would like to stress is that, as a lawyer, one of my main concerns is enforceability. I do not disagree with the principle of the next generation being smoke free—I think that is admirable and important—but I want to ensure that we pass a piece of legislation that will work in practice. We have to think about how this will work in due course, even if in 10 years’ time. That is something I wanted to put on the record.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am also grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, for bringing this discussion before the Committee today.

These Liberal Democrat tabled amendments would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. The amendments also seek to change the age of sale notices to align with the change in the age of sale, which is why there are so many consequential amendments.

This group of amendments also includes amendments 29 and 30, which cover proxy sale of tobacco products in Scotland. To save time, I assure the Committee that, instead of now, I will discuss those particular issues during the clause 2 debate, which I hope will begin shortly, as that relates directly to the points in that group on proxy sales, rather than to age of sale.

As we heard from our expert witnesses during oral evidence, smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, of disability and of ill health: it claims about 80,000 deaths a year across the United Kingdom; it causes one in four of all cancer deaths and it kills, as the shadow Minister rightly pointed out, two thirds of its long term users. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor that there is no liberty whatever in addiction. We seek to ensure that the next generation is never addicted to tobacco products in the way that the current generation and previous generations have been. That is the real freedom here: the freedom not to be addicted to a product that, frankly, would not be allowed were it invented today.

I take the Minister’s point, but there is the potential throughout the Bill for double standards. He talks about addiction—I disagree with him, but it is a perfectly reasonable point to make—but the same could be true of gambling or alcohol. We allow, for example, gamblers to advertise on football shirts. So if the Minister takes the logic of his argument all the way through to its necessary end conclusion, then this Government must be legislating for all those addictive social things that are incredibly damaging as well.

I understand the hon. Member’s argument, but it does not hold water. There is no safe level of smoking. That is the fundamental issue. People can drink or gamble responsibly. We have laws in place to protect against the harms of those things; we can argue—although this Bill is not the place for it—about whether those measures go far enough or go too far at present, but there are protections in place for alcohol and gambling harms. Tobacco is a product that kills two thirds of its users, and as a state, we have a duty to save lives.

I take the Minister’s point somewhat, but I think that there is a conflation of argument here about cigarettes and tobacco. If I may say so, the Minister alternated somewhat between the two. That may be the case with cigarettes; I have never been a smoker of cigarettes, but on new year’s eve I had a big cigar with my dad and brother, and the last one I had with them before that was at my brother’s 30th. I think that was a safe and pleasurable thing to do, and something that the state should not be infringing on. It is not just cigarettes that the Government are going after—it is all tobacco products.

The fact is that the primary consumption of tobacco in this country is through cigarettes. Tobacco is not a safe product. There is no safe level of tobacco use. The hon. Member might enjoy a cigar every now and then; that is a risk that he is prepared to take and that the law allows him to him to take, but I would argue that is still a risky behaviour. Tobacco, in whatever form it is consumed, causes health defects for him. The Bill seeks to ensure that we that we have a future generation that is weaned off tobacco, nicotine, and the toxins and the pollutants that come from a range of products, and that we give the tobacco industry no room for manoeuvre to shift from one product to another. It is about ensuring we have a generation that is freed from the addiction and the dirt and the death that tobacco brings.

Tobacco puts a huge pressure on our NHS. It costs taxpayers billions of pounds on our health and care services—a cost of £3.1 billion a year from smoke related illnesses. The cost of smoking to our economy is also huge: £18.3 billion of productivity lost every year, with smokers being a third more likely to be off sick.

The Bill will deliver on this Labour Government’s manifesto commitment to create the world’s first smoke free generation. To be fair to the shadow Minister, who supported the Bill on Second Reading and supported the previous iteration of the Bill that her Government introduced, it is to the credit of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) that his Government brought in the original iteration of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I pay credit to him for showing leadership on public health, and to the shadow Minister for always being a vocal supporter of tobacco control and opponent of the scourge of youth vaping. I only wish that some of her colleagues understood the sense of what we are seeking to do.

The prospect of the next generation of children becoming adults in a smoke free country, where they will never be able to legally purchase tobacco products, and where the older generations will never be able to legally buy the products for them by proxy, leads effectively to tobacco being a thing of the past for the next generation. For me that is a real prize in terms of public health, the NHS and the economy.

I agree with everything that has been said; the Minister has given a powerful summary. We have discussed freedom of choice and the lack of it, and I remind hon. Members of the extreme examples provided by some of the expert witnesses yesterday: they talked about someone who had their leg amputated purely because of complications as a result of smoking, and who, the same day, felt the need to light up another cigarette. There is no freedom of choice when someone is addicted to this substance.

This might sound comical, but it shows that there is no safe level of passive smoking: as vets, we struggle to manage asthma in pets—in dogs and cats—that come from houses where the owners smoke. That is how dangerous it is. This Bill is obviously about public health—I am not trying to conflate human and animal health—but the perception that there is a safe level of smoking is utterly wrong.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Anyone who heard the evidence on Tuesday cannot but have been shocked at what medical professionals see with their own eyes—not just the procedures they have to use, such as amputations, but the people who are so addicted to that product that they have to light up, even having lost both legs. That was a powerful contribution, and he is right to labour the point that there is no freedom in addiction. We are seeking to free the next generation from ever being in the situation that, as he reminds us, was outlined in detail by professionals in the evidence session.

That leads me to the amendments. Simply raising the age of sale to 25 will only raise the age at which people start smoking; it will not meet this Government’s, or indeed the previous Government’s, ambition to make the United Kingdom smoke free. We also know—and we heard this from the four chief medical officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in unison—that whenever there has been a change in tobacco control legislation, the tobacco industry is clever; it is smart; it sees that one road has been blocked, so it finds another. The industry has been swift to refocus its tactics. For example, when flavoured cigarettes, including menthol, were banned in the UK, the industry used product innovation to exploit loopholes in the ban. It created new products, such as menthol filter tips and cigarette like menthol cigarillos.

Those examples demonstrate how the tobacco industry will always regroup and refocus its efforts to respond to whatever regulations are in place. If we raised the age of sale to 25, the industry would likely change its business model to target older age groups.

Let us be clear here about what we are seeking to do. We are not criminalising current smokers; people who are legally able to purchase tobacco products and consume them will always be able to do that. However, we are having a cut off point. We are saying to the tobacco industry, “This is your customer base now. That’s it. Game over. What you have got is all you have got. You can’t kill two thirds of your customer base and expect other people to come along the conveyor belt. We’re stopping the conveyor belt. What you have got is it.” We will do all we can to make that customer base even smaller through smoking cessation services and effective targeting of existing smokers to help them to quit. But this is it—this is the customer base, and it will shrink rapidly over the next few years, so that no child born after 1 January 2009 can ever legally be sold tobacco products.

That means that the examples we have heard from Members in this debate about a 45-year old being asked to show ID are an irrelevance. They miss the point. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill says really clearly that in 25 years’ time—in 2050, which is not that far away—we expect smoking prevalence among people aged 30 and below to be near zero. The logical consequence of that is that there will be very few people of middle adult age going into shops to purchase tobacco. The reality is that there probably will not be a market for tobacco products by then. Retailers will have diversified into selling something else, because there will not be a market of sufficient scale for tobacco to be sold.

All the arguments that we have heard—they have actually been pursued by the tobacco industry—as to why these things are not workable are for the birds. They are for the clouds. They are for another world that does not exist, because the measures in the Bill will ensure that we are smoke free, and I find that really exciting.

The Minister is making an extremely eloquent case. He referred to the impact assessment for the Bill. I wonder whether he has spotted that on page 61, the likely societal benefits of having a smoke free generation are estimated at something like £73 billion by the end of the century. I wonder whether he believes, as I do, that the amendment that we are considering puts that societal benefit hugely at risk.

It does, for the reasons that I have set out. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing to the impact assessment, because it sets out a very clear reversal of the current situation, in which the costs of tobacco to society, the individual, the economy and our health and care services are massive. In the future, that situation will be reversed—it will become a positive, not a negative—because people will be healthier and living longer. They will not be living with the comorbidities that are a direct consequence of tobacco use. They will be free from addiction. They will actively participate in the economy. That is why we are moving to smoke free, rather than just shifting the age of sale to a fixed point and continuing to give tobacco companies that conveyor belt. If we did so, people would eventually reach 25 and the tobacco companies would be able to target them again—maybe not in as great a number, but we would have switched the conveyor belt back on.

I want that conveyor belt stopped for the next generation. That is what the last Bill did, to be fair, and it is what this one does. It is about protecting future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine and carrying the horrible burden of disease that is a direct consequence of all tobacco products. Breaking the cycle of addiction and disadvantage and allowing people to live healthier lives—that is true freedom. Let us be clear: there is no freedom in addiction. There is freedom in never being able to be sold tobacco and having a genuinely smoke free UK. For that reason, I ask the shadow Minister not to press these Liberal Democrat amendments.

I certainly do not want to press the amendments to a vote, but it may be that other members of the Committee do.

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I am not sure whether this is a point of order, and I am not sure how the other parties voted on this, but this was a non whipped vote for the Liberal Democrats. It is not a Liberal Democrat amendment; it is an amendment from an individual MP. The entire Liberal Democrat health team certainly do not support the amendment to change the minimum age of sale to 25, and the majority of the Liberal Democrat party voted in favour of the Bill as a whole. I want to put it on the record that the Lib Dems are not in favour of the amendment.

I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

1|0|2|14|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Does Mr Rankin wish to push amendment 18 to a Division?

Yes.

Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert “showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.—(Jack Rankin.) This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Question put, That the amendment be made.

2|0|2|14|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

We now move to amendment 56. I remind hon. Members that I know Sir Roger today indicated a more lateral approach to debate, but I will only take that so far.

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert— “, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 59.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert— “(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 59. Amendment 67, in clause 50, page 25, line 34, at end insert— “(ba) in subsection (5), at end insert ‘, save if it is a first offence.’

(bb) after subsection (5) insert— ‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence of selling tobacco products to person under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning. Amendment 73, in clause 68, page 36, line 12, at end insert— “, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 76. Amendment 74, in clause 68, page 36, line 12, at end insert— “(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 76. Amendment 75, in clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert— “, save if it is a first offence.”

See explanatory statement to Amendment 76. Amendment 76, Clause 69, page 36, line 31, at end insert— “(4A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under this Article is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 73, 74, and 75, prevents penalties for a first offence under Sections 68 and 69 being beyond level 3 and provides for a cautionary warning.

Amendment 56 proposes a change to clause 1 and specifically targets the penalty provision for offenses under the sale of tobacco section on page 2, line 9. It suggests adding the phrase “, save if it is a first offence.”

at the end of the current penalty clause, effectively modifying the penalties described for violations of the tobacco sale law. Under the legislation, as it is currently proposed, clause 1 specifies: “A person who commits an offence under this section is liable…to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.”

However, this penalty applies without any distinction to all offenders, regardless of whether it is their first offence or a repeat violation. Amendment 56 introduces an exception for first time offenders, suggesting that they may receive a reduced or different penalty instead of the full fine that is typically prescribed.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but could my hon. Friend illustrate what levels 3 and 4 mean in practice and how they might read across to similar products, such as alcohol, so we can have some context for what she proposes?

My intention was to set out what these amendments seek to do and then to discuss the reasons why that might, or might not, be a good idea, and I will come to my hon. Friend’s very important point when I do so. The principle of amendment 56 is to bring in reduced or different penalties for those committing their first offence compared with those committing subsequent or repeated offences. This change acknowledges that businesses or individuals who commit an offence for the first time may not require the full penalty, but may require education or a form of leniency or mitigation. It separates first time offenders from repeat offenders, offering an opportunity for compliance without the harshest penalties on the first offence. It could incentivise more careful compliance with the law, especially by businesses that are new or small, or are unfamiliar with or unintentionally violating the regulations on selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers.

Amendment 57, also within this group, proposes to amend clause 1, page 2, line 9 by adding a new subsection (4A), which specifically addresses the penalties for first time offenders who admit guilt under the sale of tobacco section. This amendment introduces a more lenient penalty, stipulating that first time offenders would be “liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a caution.”

Under clause 1(4), as it reads without the amendment, a person who commits an offence under that section is liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, regardless of whether it is their first offence. The addition of proposed subsection (4A), however, distinguishes and separates first time offenders by offering a potentially reduced fine—level 3 instead of level 4—or alternatively a caution, which is a formal warning and a less severe still form of penalty.

The next amendment within this group, amendment 67, proposes an amendment to clause 50, page 25, line 34, adding two new paragraphs to subsection (5) and inserting new subsection (5A). Clause 50 is essentially a read- across of clause 1. There is understandable desire within Government to see the four nations of the United Kingdom having the same policy. That is simpler, it means that we can protect the health of people across the country, and it also makes it easier to enforce and manage the law. In Scottish law, the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 essentially provides Scottish tobacco regulations; clause 50 of the Bill thus alters sections 4, 4B, 6 and 8 of that legislation, so that the legislation in Scotland can essentially follow clause 1 in the rest of the United Kingdom. Amendment 67 is therefore designed to do to clause 50 what amendment 56 does to clause 1, introducing the phrase, “, save if it is a first offence.”

to section 4(5) of the 2010 Act.

In doing so, it effectively exempts first time offenders from the usual penalties set out in that section, which typically involve higher fines or penalties.

Secondly, amendment 67 introduces proposed new subsection (5A) to section 4 of the 2010 Act, specifying: “A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1)”, related to selling tobacco products to minors, “is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale”— consistent with amendment 57— “or a recorded police warning”, which I understand is the equivalent of a police caution in the rest of England and Wales. This change allows a more lenient treatment of first time offenders, in line with the approach seen in other amendments aimed at reducing penalties for first offences.

The level 3 fine is less severe than the typical penalty under the current system, which could be level 4, and the recorded police warning offers an alternative that serves as an official notice without a financial burden. The amendment applies specifically to Scotland rather than to the rest of the United Kingdom, and its discretionary penalty for first time offenders is intended to focus on correction, compliance and education rather than simply punishment of offenders. It promotes a more rehabilitative approach for those committing what is, relatively speaking, a minor offence for the first time.

Amendment 73 to clause 68, by adding the words “, save if it is a first offence.”

is designed to introduce a more lenient approach to individuals committing an offence under the clause for the first time. Again, clause 68 is essentially a read across of clause 1 into Northern Irish legislation. Northern Ireland has its own legislation on tobacco control, which the clause will amend. It substitutes clauses such that we have the same rules for tobacco purchasing in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, making them harmonious across our country. The amendment would provide in clause 68, and therefore in Northern Ireland, what the Government seek to provide for the rest of the country, which is the rolling smoke free generation legislation. The exemption would mean that those who commit an offence under the clause would not be subject to the usual penalties if it was their first offence.

Amendment 74 would add a new paragraph (4A) to article 3 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, to specify that a person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under the clause is “is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a conditional caution.”

My understanding is that a conditional caution in Northern Ireland is similar to a police warning in Scotland and to a caution in England and Wales.

The intent behind the amendments is to provide a more lenient penalty for first time offenders than for those who have committed the offence previously, in particular by allowing a fine capped at level 3 on the standard scale, which is obviously lower than level 4. Alternatively, there would be the option of a conditional caution, which means the opportunity for the offender to avoid a formal criminal conviction by complying with certain conditions, such as attending educational courses or engaging in community service. The original briefing suggested that we would discuss amendments 75 and 76 at this stage, but I understand that we are going to postpone those to the debate on clause 2, so I shall leave them for now.

I will talk about the effects of the amendments, but first I will answer the question my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor asked about what the standard scale is and what it means. On the standard scale, a level 3 fine has a maximum of £1,000 and a level 4 fine has a maximum of £2,500. Cautions are given to people over the age of 10 years who admit an offence and agree to be cautioned by the police; they do not amount to a criminal conviction, but they may appear on a Disclosure and Barring Service check, which is required for some forms of employment. The amendments speak to the proportionality and purpose of the penalties, which ought to be set at a level that is both a reasonable punishment and an effective deterrent. It is important to prevent crimes and to maintain the confidence of the public.

When we debate clause 1 later today, we will discuss further the challenges faced by shop workers implementing the provisions in the Bill; no doubt, we will also discuss who is liable for the fines. I invite the Minister to consider who he wishes to be responsible for them. Does he wish it to be the shop worker—the chap or lady working in the shop? Does he expect it to be the shop manager, the shift supervisor, the owner of the business or the chief executive of a major company? That is a relevant consideration when thinking about the proportionality of the fine. A fine of £1,000 may not deter a large supermarket chain, but it may well deter and be a substantial penalty for someone who works part time in a shop while working as a student. The size of the fine is a relevant consideration.

My hon. Friend might best be able to provide clarification. Perhaps I have misunderstood, perhaps this is a mistake or perhaps it is deliberate. I understand why each jurisdiction of the United Kingdom has to be taken separately, but do I understand correctly that in clause 68, which covers Northern Ireland, the suggestion is that it should be a level 5 offence, whereas in clause 1, which covers England, the suggestion is it should be a level 4 offence, and my hon. Friend is seeking an amendment to make it a level 3 offence in the first instance? Why would that offence be a different level in different parts of the United Kingdom? The Minister is frowning.

Which page is it?

It is the top of page 36. As I understand it, clause 68 makes the sale of tobacco a level 5 offence in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend is seeking to make the first offence a level 3 offence, but on page 1, clause 1(4) makes the sale of tobacco a level 4 offence. It seems that there is a an inequity there, which perhaps is deliberate or perhaps I have misunderstood. I support her opinion, but it seems that there is a difference between the different nations of the United Kingdom and I do not understand why that is the case.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It brings us to the heart of the next part of my speech, which is the inconsistency between different parts of the United Kingdom. We will come on to other inconsistencies in further amendments to clause 1 relating to age verification processes. As for why there are differences in the legislation as drafted, I am afraid I did not draft it; the Minister did. Perhaps he will say whether that was intentional or whether he wishes to amend it later.

I just want to clarify the intention of my hon. Friend’s amendments, not to resile in any way from her clear point that she supports the Bill, but to clarify her feeling that the current level of fines and punishments within it are disproportionate, especially if they are going to be levied on a part time junior shop worker, or perhaps even a Saturday person who is a minor themselves. I want to clarify for the record that she does not in any way feel that the offence should carry a lesser punishment, but believes that first time offenders should be educated rather than castigated.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Those who know me or who have listened to my speeches on tobacco and vaping will be in no doubt of my support for the Bill, and I believe that the criminal justice system has its part to play in ensuring compliance, particularly where people recklessly or even deliberately sell products to children. If one talks to children at local schools, one will repeatedly be told which shops they know they can get particular products from.

You were not here this morning, Mr Dowd, but I talked about the last time I was carded when purchasing alcohol. A junior shopkeeper was selling it under the supervision of an adult, and when the adult had walked away, the young chap actually said to me, “Now if you go to the corner shop round there, they will sell you it.” That shop might not have sold me what I was trying to buy, but a different form of alcohol. It is certainly the case that some shopkeepers sell age restricted products to children with some impunity, and it is important that we catch them and ensure that they are punished appropriately.

The Bill says that an individual may be liable for a fine, which means that other penalties up to £2,500 may be put in place. The Bill allows flexibility around the fines that might be issued, so I am struggling to understand, now I have made that point, why we are continuing to debate this. Is it the upper figure of £2,500 that the hon. Lady is objecting to, or is it the principle that we are introducing a fine at all? I am struggling to see the overall point of this debate.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I shall try to be clearer. I strongly believe that these products should not be sold to children—I believe that personally; we have a free vote on this in my party. I strongly agree with the vast majority of the Bill, and certainly with the rolling age for tobacco. However, I think we have to be proportional in how we manage fines for individuals who break the law. I will come on to how the measures compare with those for other age restricted products in a moment. Consistency is important.

When we debated this issue in the last Parliament in relation to the previous iteration of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, there was published Government guidance on who would be fined. It may be that this Government have published similar guidance already, but I have not been able to find it; perhaps the Minister can say whether it is available yet. When we debate clause 1 stand part, we will talk about what the clause means by “a person”. The effect of a deterrent or punishment depends on who we are trying to deter or punish: if we are trying to deter or punish a major corporation or a business, the fines may need to be larger than if we are trying to deter a 19-year old who works in a shop on a Saturday afternoon while attending college. That is the point that I am trying to get to with the amendments.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, on which the shadow Minister is expanding, for which I am grateful, we heard evidence on the question of proportionality from National Trading Standards on Tuesday. The witnesses said that they would not necessarily levy the highest fines in the case of first time offenders. Building on what my hon. Friend said, I am struggling to see the purpose of the amendment, given that the people who will engage with this measure, National Trading Standards, are very clear that they will employ exactly what the shadow Minister is concerned about—proportionality—in the case of, for example, a first time offender.

The hon. Gentleman is right to go back to the evidence. One of the things we were told in the evidence provided by National Trading Standards and the Local Government Association, particularly on Tuesday, was that they want discretion, but also that they want first time offenders to be treated more leniently. That was a clear ask from our witness, who explained that educating or warning first time offenders was a better option than fining them.

Each of the amendments that I have tabled seeks to make available a police caution that will not count on a criminal record and so means the person will not be criminalised, unlike someone’s being taken to court and given a fine. The amendments would add in a lower level, as well as reduce the overall top fine. What I am trying to get from the Minister before Report is an understanding of whom he is trying to fine and proportionality in the amount of the fine. We need guidance on that issue, so that we can fully understand how a Saturday shop worker will be treated if they inadvertently sold some tobacco to somebody in a first offence versus how a shopkeeper and licence holder will be treated if they repeatedly commit such offences. I want some guidance from the Minister on that.

To build on that point, it is also important that we have clarity from a legal and enforcement perspective. The person who commits an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine “not exceeding” a certain level. I take the point about what trading standards may do in practice, but if the practice changes and they decide to always go for the upper level, there is nothing in the law that allows for a cautionary approach and another level. The amendment provides a benchmark and a safety catch, so that there is slightly different treatment. It would ensure that those who the Bill intends to punish are punished. From an enforcement perspective, it is a sensible amendment.

My hon. Friend is right. We are trying to get some indication in legislation that there are different groups of people: those who commit this offence inadvertently on a one off basis and those who do so repeatedly and deliberately. Different individuals or corporations need different treatment. I hope that the Minister, when wrapping up this set of amendments, will let the Committee know whether the guidance on this sort of sentencing has been produced yet, as it was before the previous Bill Committee debated the subject. If it has not, can he give some indication of when it will be produced and, in particular, whether it will be produced before Report? That will be really helpful.

In relation to the fines, I also want to discuss the principle of proportionality. Tobacco is a harmful, age restricted product, but it is far from the only product subject to restrictions. When I looked into this, I found there are many more age restricted products than I thought, and it was difficult to find out what the penalties were for selling them, inadvertently or deliberately, to someone below the age threshold. Selling a lottery product, including scratch cards, to someone under 18 is against the law. The penalty for doing that is more severe than for selling tobacco. I hope the Minister will correct me if I get any of these wrong. I looked at various council, trading standards and Government websites to find this information, but some of those websites, despite being official or council based, are out of date. I have done my best, and I will be grateful for any correction the Minister can provide.

The penalties I was able to find were an unlimited fine and up to two years in prison. It is also illegal to pay out the prize to someone under 18, so one could argue that buying a ticket in the first place is somewhat futile. This is generally enforced by the lottery operator itself. Underage sales can also lead to termination of contract and removal of the lottery terminal. Not included in the penalties, which the Minister may want to speak about on amendment 57, is a penalty to the licence holder in terms of his or her licence, but we might come to that later.

Butane or lighter fluid are also age restricted, and selling them to an under-18 carries an unlimited fine or six months in prison. These are more severe penalties than for the tobacco offence. Fireworks have different age restrictions based on their category: for some the threshold is 18, but crackers, which have a small spark in them, have an age restriction of 12, which I did not know. I could have inadvertently breached that had I worked in a shop that sold such things.

Films in the cinema have age restrictions. When I was younger, I used to think that the higher restrictions meant that the film was cool, and therefore movie producers wanted to get the highest rating possible to make the film seem as cool as possible. Fortunately, I have gained a little bit more understanding since then. There is an unlimited fine for the cinema offence but, again, this is not a fine on the individual who sells the cinema ticket; it is a fine on the cinema itself as a business. That is why who pays these fines is important. There can also be six months’ imprisonment for the person running the cinema.

Alcohol is another example of an age restricted product where there are fines and penalties. Selling alcohol to someone under 18 can lead to an on the spot fine of £90, a criminal caution, or formal prosecution with an unlimited fine. With alcohol, there is a different approach for offending persistently. If someone persistently sells alcohol to under-18s, they can be given an immediate closure order for their shop of up to 14 days or an unlimited fine. Also, shops need a licence to sell alcohol. Petrol or diesel from a petrol station cannot be sold to anyone under 16. That risk is mitigated using the licencing process, and again, there is a penalty of an unlimited fine and up to 12 months in prison. Selling a blade or a knife to someone under the age of 18 is illegal and carries an unlimited fine and up to six months in prison, as is the case for solvents too.

A challenge with the fines for the different age restricted products is that they vary from product to product without a clear explanation necessarily being given. It is also worth considering the age of the customer, because this is not a law that applies to children. Most of these other examples I described are there to protect children. As a society, we have a job to protect children.

I support my hon. Friend on the principle, which we see in other legislation, but the point about children is important. Shopkeepers are used to the concept of Challenge 25 for people over 18, and this starts in that way, but given how the legislation is designed, we will soon get to the cut off for smokers being in their early 30s. Shopkeepers will not be used to challenging someone who is 32 in the same way, as part of a Challenge 37 policy or whatever. There needs to be an acceptance. In 10 years’ time, we will not see selling cigarettes to a 32-year old—I have not got my sums right, but I just want to illustrate the point—in the same way as we see selling cigarettes to a 17-year old today. There should be a recognition of that when it comes—

Order. Please can you ask questions or make a short intervention? If you wish to speak on these clauses or to this amendment, feel free to do so, but I do not want an intervention to become a mini speech. Please bear that in mind, because we have several days of this, and I want people to get into the routine and the discipline of making an intervention, asking a question or making a speech. It is fairly straightforward and simple. As we progress, that will become more apparent.

Thank you, Mr Dowd, for the guidance, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor for his intervention.

The age of the customer is important. The principle of existing tobacco legislation is that it protects children under the age of 18 from tobacco. This legislation will protect some adults from tobacco as well.

I have a question for the Minister about the offence. If we get 10 years down the line and we cannot sell tobacco to people under the age of 28 or 26, depending on when legislation takes effect—people in their 20s—we will have one group made up of children, who are not allowed to buy tobacco, and another group made up of adults who are not allowed to buy tobacco. I care deeply about the protection of children, but I believe that adults have a right to choose risk to an extent, where it does not harm others within society. Does the Minister think that, when we get to that point, selling tobacco to a child is a more serious and aggravating factor than selling it, perhaps inadvertently, to a 25-year old when the age limit is 26? It is being sold to an adult who has the capacity to make a choice—although an illegal choice—about risk, but for the shopkeeper, at that point, selling to a 15-year old would be a more serious offence.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting that question, because proportionality is key here to how trading standards will approach the fines regime. The reality, however, is that the law will be clear as to what the age of sale will be. If a retailer has knowingly sold tobacco products—against the law—to someone who it is clear should not have been sold to, trading standards may take a different view than they would were the retailer’s defence that they had every reason to believe that the person was the age they claimed to be.

That is not quite what I meant. I guess the question is this: if someone has sold tobacco products to a person of 45 who should not have them because they are now illegal, that is an offence—it is breaking the law as set out in the clause—and would see a penalty applied—[Interruption.] Well, it may see them liable for a penalty—let us put it that way. If the retailer sold that same tobacco to a 14-year old, would the Minister not agree about the difference? Selling it to a 45-year old and a 14-year old might be illegal—the same crime on the face of the Bill—but the penalties for selling tobacco to a minor should be greater than those for selling it to an adult.

We have heard very clearly from trading standards. The current practice is that trading standards officers across the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, which have different penalty regimes in place, apply a degree of proportionality. There is nothing in the Bill that changes that situation. Trading standards will always approach this in a proportionate and responsible way. However, as legislators setting out a clear desire to have a smoke free generation across the UK, we must be clear that there is a borderline where one side is legal and the other is illegal, and that there are maximum penalties for breaking the law, as there are for a whole range of things. I do not want to differentiate within the smoke free generation by saying, “Well, you can be a little bit smoke free because you’re an adult now, but you should be absolutely smoke free because you are kids.” From 1 January 2009, smoke free is smoke free.

I understand the Minister’s point. However, my point was that even in a world where things are illegal, we do have aggravating and mitigating circumstances in law. I suggest that, particularly as the rolling generations get older, selling to a child becomes an aggravating offence. I ask the Government to consider that.

Obviously, if someone is liable for a conviction or a fine, the defence is that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission. Given that in this instance we are talking about perhaps a fleeting look at a passport or something, will companies or shops now actually have to take scans or register that they have seen it?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I suggest, so that I do not try the patience of the Chair, that we discuss that when we get to clause 1 stand part, because it speaks to the substance of the clause rather than the substance of these amendments.

To be very clear, the answer is no. But I will explain why later.

As the Minister is in the mood for answering questions, would he like to intervene to say whether the guidance on who specifically will be liable for the fines has been written and published?

I will happily get back to the shadow Minister on that. On tobacco fines for under age sales, it is up to trading standards to make a sensible decision—I emphasise the word “sensible”—about whom it seeks to fine. It depends on the circumstances behind the offence. When it is proxy sales, it is the person who buys the product on behalf of the minor who will be fined, rather than the shopkeeper or the business.

Order. For the smooth running of the Committee, it would be helpful—rather than having the table tennis that is going on—if Members could ask questions and the Minister answered them when he winds up, and not on this individual level, if possible.

Thank you, Mr Dowd. That concludes my remarks on this group of amendments.

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for bringing these amendments before the Committee. That allows us to have a genuine debate on the nitty gritty of the Bill and on the enforcement and implementation of the measures that the Government are bringing forward.

As the shadow Minister outlined, the amendments would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of selling tobacco, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to someone who is under age in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They would create an exception to the maximum penalty a person can face for committing one of these offences—if it is the person’s first offence, that is. They would also establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale—that is £1,000—or it would instead provide for a discretionary caution in England and Wales, a recorded police warning in Scotland and a conditional caution in Northern Ireland. That is one level lower than the level of fine that someone who commits this offence is liable to under current legislation in England and Wales and Scotland, which is level 4—£2,500 pounds. It is two levels lower than is currently the case in Northern Ireland, which is level 5—£5,000.

I appreciate that the intention of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is to establish greater leniency for first time offenders, but the amendment is not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West rightly pointed out that National Trading Standards told the Committee only two days ago, on 7 January, that when enforcing tobacco and vape legislation as it currently stands in England and Wales, it takes an entirely proportionate approach, taking the appropriate action to achieve compliance. Typically, that starts with the issuing of warning letters, which is entirely proportionate for first time offences. As we heard only two days ago, sending warning letters is often incredibly effective in ensuring future compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties such as prosecution and the associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction. That proportionate approach is also taken by trading standards officers in Scotland and by district councils in Northern Ireland when enforcing tobacco and vape legislation.

There is absolutely nothing in the Bill or in what we heard from trading standards officers to suggest that anything will change. Trading standards will continue to do the job it is currently doing. It will use the proportionality it is currently using—nothing will change. The approach it takes to decide who to fine will continue. That will be entirely dependent on the case and the evidence in front of trading standards officers, as well as the circumstances. If, as is currently the case for most retailers, it is their first offence, they will get a warning letter. Only if the issue continues will that not be the case. The measures in the Bill do not change one iota how trading standards enforces tobacco control in the four nations of the United Kingdom. That is why it is right that we debate this issue and clarify it not just for the Committee but for the House and those following these proceedings. However, the amendments are not needed, because nothing will change.

As a Government, we have a smoke free ambition. We take the view that tobacco is uniquely harmful. We want to ensure that the message gets out there loudly and clearly that we are serious about this smoke free generation policy, so we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime for tobacco and vape offences. What message would it send out if we watered down the measures as they are today? That would say that we are not taking smoke free seriously.

I want to make sure that we carry on with the measures in the Bill. Offences must be taken seriously, and it is important that existing consequences are not weakened for first time offenders or anyone else who commits these offences. We trust trading standards officers—the professionals—to do their job, as they do it day in, day out, week in, week out, and year in, year out, and to apply common sense, proportionality and, ultimately, the law of the land. Therefore, we do not want to remove the ability of the court to issue higher level fines, where that is viewed as a proportionate penalty. The courts may well view fining certain rogue traders as a proportionate penalty in a particular case. For that reason, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister’s response was very interesting. However, could he respond further to a couple of the questions that were asked? First, is it intentional that there is a difference in the level of the fines?

There are differences across the four nations of the United Kingdom, and those differences are a consequence of the devolution settlement that this Parliament agreed a quarter of a century ago. Of course there are divergences across the jurisdictions, because the four jurisdictions are able to legislate their own penalty regimes and have done so. The measures in the Bill do not change that situation.

We have crafted the Bill after full consultation, and with full agreement and full consent, across the three devolved jurisdictions and the UK Government, which legislates for England in this matter. That is why we do not seek to have a common penalty regime across the UK; we allow the Welsh, the Scots and the Northern Irish to develop their own penalty regimes. However, the law is common across the United Kingdom, and it will be for the trading standards authorities in those jurisdictions to apply the law. It will be for the courts in those jurisdictions to apply the penalty regime that appertains to those jurisdictions.

The Minister has somewhat contradicted himself. On the one hand he says that he does not agree with the amendments because he wants to leave the courts free to issue a bigger fine to a rogue trader, and I have sympathy with that argument. But why, in Northern Ireland, should a rogue trader be subject to a higher fine?

Because that is what Northern Ireland has decided.

If Northern Ireland has decided that it wants higher fines and if, as the Minister has said, he wants to take the idea of a smoke free generation seriously, why, given that the law as it stands in England and Wales is for him to decide—certainly in England, as he is the Minister with responsibility for public health—does he not want the fines in England to be as high as they are in Northern Ireland?

We are in the bizarre situation where the shadow Minister has gone from wanting to water down the penalties to now wanting to make them higher, in line with Northern Ireland. We have been very clear that we are continuing the existing fine regime for tobacco control in England. We want trading standards officers to continue the proportionality they currently display when they enforce breaches of tobacco control. The Bill changes nothing in the current situation, beyond the fact that there will be a different age of sale that determines whether the law has been broken.

The measures in the Bill have been crafted in a way that suits the desires and the ambitions of the four nations of the United Kingdom, recognising that, in some parts of it, measures are already in place and that, in some parts, the penalties will be different from those in other parts. However, the underlying aim is the same: we expect law enforcement to continue in the way it does, and we expect the situation regarding fines to be as it is set out in current legislation.

If I understand the Minister correctly—he can correct me if I am wrong—he is saying that the reason why the fines are different between England, Wales and Northern Ireland is that that is the way they are at the moment.

indicated assent.

Would he like to see the fines in England rise to the same level as those in Northern Ireland, or is he content with them where they are?

This is becoming a question and answer session—it is all slightly like an evidence session. That is a decision for future Governments; it is not what we intend in this Bill, which is clear on what the penalty regime will be. I cannot guarantee that some future Government will not decide to alter the penalty regime. That may be a Liberal Democrat Government, a future Labour Government or even a future Conservative Government, when the Conservatives get their act in order, although the differences in the Committee suggest that may be way after the next generation are affected by the Bill to a considerable extent. They will be free to do that, because nothing done by this Parliament can bind future Governments. The Bill sets out the penalty regimes as they are for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—and yes, there are differences, because that is devolution.

I am grateful to the Minister for his clear answers. The purpose of the amendments is to provoke debate on the proportionality of the punishments in place and to encourage the Minister to provide further guidance on who he expects to be punished—the shopkeeper or the shop—and to consider the levels of penalty across the UK. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Age verification policy— “(1) A person commits an offence if the person— (a) carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business, and (b) fails to operate an age verification policy in respect of premises at which the person carries on the tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to premises (“the business premises”) from which— (a) tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products are, in pursuance of a sale, despatched for delivery to different premises, and (b) no other tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business is carried on from the business premises.

(3) Before the specified date, an “age verification policy” is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, a vaping product or a nicotine product on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, vaping product or nicotine product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).

(4) After the specified date, an “age verification policy”— (a) in relation to a tobacco business or herbal smoking product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product or cigarette papers that the customer may have been born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy); (b) in relation to a vaping product business or nicotine product business, is a policy that steps are to be taken to establish the age of a person attempting to buy a vaping product, or a nicotine product, on the premises (the “customer”) if it appears to the person selling the product that the customer may be under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).

(5) In relation to times before the end of 2033, the reference in subsection (4)(a) to the customer being born on or after 1 January 2009 (or such earlier date as may be specified in the policy) has effect as a reference to the customer being under the age of 25 (or such older age as may be specified in the policy).

(6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations amend the age specified in subsection (3) or (4)(b).

(7) The appropriate national authority may publish guidance on matters relating to age verification policies, including, in particular, guidance about— (a) steps that should be taken to establish a customer's age, (b) documents that may be shown to the person selling a tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product as evidence of a customer’s age, (c) training that should be undertaken by the person selling the tobacco product, cigarette papers, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product, (d) the form and content of notices that should be displayed in the premises, (e) the form and content of records that should be maintained in relation to an age verification policy.

(8) A person who carries on a tobacco, herbal smoking product, vaping product or nicotine product business must have regard to guidance published under subsection (7) when operating an age verification policy.

(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(10) Regulations under subsection (6) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

(11) In this section— “the appropriate national authority” means— (a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and (b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers, “herbal smoking product business” means a business involving the sale of herbal smoking products by retail, “nicotine product business” means a business involving the sale of nicotine products by retail, “the specified date” is 1 January 2027, “tobacco business” means a business involving the sale of tobacco products by retail, “tobacco, herbal smoking product or vaping product business” means a business which involves any one or more of the following— (a) a tobacco business, (b) a herbal smoking product business, or (c) a vaping product business, “vaping product business” means a business involving the sale of vaping products by retail.”

This new clause introduces a requirement on businesses to operate an age verification policy covering steps to be taken to establish the age of persons attempting to buy tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping/ nicotine products, or cigarette papers. It reflects provisions in place in Scotland to be amended by the Bill. Amendment 68, in clause 50, page 25, line 38, at end insert— “(2A) In section 4A (Sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18) insert— (a) in subsection (5), at end insert “, save if it is a first offence.”

(b) after subsection (5) insert— “(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or to a recorded police warning.””

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to the sale of nicotine vapour products to persons under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning. Amendment 69, in clause 50, page 26, line 26, at end insert— “(ba) in subsection (7), at end insert “, save if it is a first offence.”

(bb) after subsection (7) insert— “(7A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.””

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence pertaining to a failure to operate an age verification policy in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 2 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning. Clause 50 stand part.

Clause 68 stand part.

Amendment 68 would create a more lenient penalty regime for the offence of selling vaping or nicotine products to someone under age in Scotland. It would establish that someone who admits to committing an offence for the first time would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000. That is one level lower than the level of the fine to which someone who commits the offence under the current legislation is liable, which is level 4 and £2,500. They could also be given a recorded police warning. However, the effect is slightly unclear, as the police are not responsible for the enforcement of these offences.

Amendment 69 provides for a recorded police warning as an alternative to a fine up to level 2 for the offence of failure to operate an age verification policy in Scotland. While I appreciate the shadow Minister’s intention to establish greater leniency for first time offenders, the amendment is not necessary. When enforcing tobacco and vape legislation, trading standards takes a proportionate approach, choosing the appropriate action to achieve compliance. As I said in the previous debate, that typically starts with the issuing of warning letters, which is often entirely effective in achieving compliance without the need to escalate to harsher penalties such as prosecution and the associated criminal fines, which are subsequently issued by a court on conviction.

Furthermore, the introduction of a recorded police warning in amendment 69 would add an extra layer of complexity and burden. It is not the responsibility of the police currently, and indeed it will not be under any measure in this Bill, to enforce tobacco and vape sales legislation. That is the responsibility of trading standards. The Government believe that trading standards is best placed to enforce the legislation, as it currently does.

As I said before, we do not want to weaken the existing penalty regime for either tobacco or vape offences by creating exceptions for first time offenders. Tobacco and vape offences must be taken seriously, and it is important that the existing consequences are not weakened for first time offenders or anyone else who commits those offences. We do not want to remove the court’s ability to issue a higher level fine where that is viewed as an entirely proportionate penalty in the case that is before it, or for anyone who has been convicted of those offences.

New clause 3 would introduce a requirement for businesses selling tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products in England and Wales to operate an age verification policy. That policy would require steps to be taken to establish a customer’s age if they look under the age specified by the clause. The new clause seeks to replicate the existing requirements in Scotland. For the purchase of tobacco, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, from 1 January 2034, when anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 turns 25, the age verification policy would be updated to reflect the new age of sale for those products. That means that a person selling those products from 2034 onwards would be required to take steps to establish a customer’s age if they looked like they were born on or after 1 January 2009. A person selling vaping and nicotine products would be required to take steps to establish a customer’s age if they looked under 25. That would not change in 2034, as the age of sale for those products will remain 18.

While I welcome the intention to ensure that retailers do not sell potentially harmful products to anyone under age, there are trade offs to be made. We do not want to place undue burden on or limit the flexibility of retailers. They understand their business and their customers. We do not want to force customers to carry ID by introducing mandatory age verification policies. It is already an offence to sell tobacco and vaping products to anyone under age. The majority of retailers sell tobacco and vapes responsibly—it is important to put that on the record. They follow recommended practice and regularly ask for customers’ ID anyway.

Trading standards will continue to take an intelligence led, proportionate approach to enforce the law through age of sale test purchases. New £200 fixed penalty notices introduced by the Bill will allow trading standards to take quicker enforcement action against rogue retailers. The Bill also provides powers for Ministers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of these products to strengthen enforcement and provide trading standards with further opportunities to clamp down on rogue traders.

Retailers should continue to take all reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that they do not break the law. The Bill introduces a new defence for retailers accused of selling to someone under age, if they can prove that they were shown an identity document that showed the customer was above the age of sale, and it sets out the type of ID that retailers can accept as proof of age to rely on in that defence. This is intended to support and reassure retailers by providing a clear example of what it means to take “all reasonable steps” when selling these age restricted products. We are working closely with retailers and we will utilise the long lead in time to best support them in preparing for and implementing these changes, including rolling out information campaigns for both the public and retail workers. For that reason, I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments to a vote.

Clauses 1, 50 and 68 seek to change the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so that no one born on or after 1 January 2009 will legally be sold them. It is necessary to change the age of sale because tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. Smoking is the No. 1 preventable cause of death, disability and ill health. It claims the lives of around 80,000 people a year in the UK, it is responsible for one in four of all cancer deaths in England, and it kills up to two thirds of its long term users. Smoking not only damages health but costs the economy and wider society £21.8 billion a year from loss of productivity through smoking related lost earnings, unemployment and death, as well as costs to the NHS and social care of £3.1 billion a year.

This is not about criminalising those who smoke. However, tobacco is a deadly addiction and stopping children from starting to smoke is the easiest way to reduce smoking rates. The facts speak for themselves: 83% of smokers wish they had never started smoking but they are unable to give up due to the addictive nature of tobacco. The majority of smokers want to quit but cannot, and that is not freedom of choice.

The change to the age of sale applies to all tobacco products, including tobacco that is smoked, smokeless and chewed. There is no safe level of tobacco consumption and all tobacco products are harmful. Given the well known multiple and serious harms of tobacco in its many forms, it is rational to include all these products within the legislation and to prevent anyone from taking up their use in the first place. Herbal smoking products are in scope of the existing legislation and are included because, although their smoke may not contain nicotine or tobacco, it still contains cancer causing chemicals, tar and carbon monoxide, similar to a tobacco cigarette. Cigarette papers are in scope of the existing legislation and are included because burning them, with their bleaches and dyes, adds to the volume of smoke and the range of toxicants in it, contributing additional risks to not just smokers but passive smokers.

As I mentioned when discussing new clause 3, these clauses provide a defence for a person charged with selling tobacco products to someone under age. It is a defence if the person can prove that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser and that the date of birth shown on that document was before 1 January 2009.

The clauses will align the age of sale in England, Wales and Scotland, which will ensure that the health benefits accrue across all parts of the UK. They will address the health disparities and provide a clear position to comply with for anyone selling tobacco anywhere in the United Kingdom. For Scotland, clause 50 also updates existing legislation, so that no one can purchase tobacco products on behalf of someone born on or after 1 January 2009. Requirements for businesses to operate an age verification policy and display warning statements are amended to reflect the new age of sale.

The Bill will be the biggest public health intervention in a generation. I and other Government Members—and, indeed, some Opposition Members—are determined and delighted to take it through, because it will break the cycle of addiction and disadvantage across our country and put us on track towards a smoke free UK. I therefore commend clause 1 to the Committee.

It is a pleasure to discuss the substantive portion of the Bill, starting with clause 1. This Bill is vital health legislation. It takes a much needed regulatory approach to vaping, as well as phasing out the sale of tobacco for the next generation. I am proud that, as the Minister has said, it was the last Conservative Government who first introduced the legislation. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), for championing this issue, and to Dr Javed Khan for his comprehensive 2022 review, “Making smoking obsolete”, which is where I first saw the suggestion of a rolling ban. I am pleased that this iteration of the Bill continues to have strong cross party and cross national support. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his long standing and tireless campaigning on nicotine and tobacco, and to Dame Andrea Leadsom, the Minister in the previous Bill Committee, whose proceedings began in April 2024.

It is now a truth universally acknowledged that smoking is bad for health. It is the leading cause of preventable death in this country. It is responsible for about 80,000 deaths a year. When we say that number, it is easy for us to let it trip off the tongue without realising just how many people it represents. For each of them, there is a personal story.

My own Nana Burton, my dad’s mother, smoked all her life—she smoked Woodbines—and she died of lung cancer. When she was diagnosed, her response was to buy herself some filters and start smoking filter cigarettes because they might be better for her, but it did not do any good. She used to smoke in the living room, and the ceiling had to be repainted annually for Christmas because there used to be an orange yellow stain above her chair where the smoke had gone up. Perhaps not surprisingly, two of her children also smoked. My Uncle Alan died of emphysema following a lifetime of smoking, and my Aunty Chrissie died of oesophageal cancer following a lifetime of smoking. We do see—it has been discussed already—the pattern of generations. One benefit of the clause is that by breaking that cycle, we can stop generational smoking. We know that people are more likely to smoke if their parents do. My dad does not and never has, and perhaps that is why I do not, either.

As we come to what I hope will be the end of tobacco in many ways, it is worth casting our mind back to its history. Tobacco is actually not that old a product. It was first brought to England on 27 July 1586 by Sir Walter Raleigh, as the story goes. He brought it to England from Virginia, along with potatoes and maize—perhaps he should have stuck with potatoes and maize. It is said that his servants, seeing him smoking a pipe, threw water on him because they thought he was on fire. It was held at the time to be excellent for your health, whereas potatoes were viewed with great suspicion. Tobacco was touted as a relief for toothache, worms, halitosis—well, it certainly changes the smell of people’s breath—falling fingernails and even cancer. It is also said that in 1600 he tempted Queen Elizabeth to try smoking, and it was then copied by the rest of the population.

By the turn of the 17th century, tobacco was very commonplace and starting to cause concern. Sir Francis Bacon noted: “The use of tobacco has immensely increased in our time”, and that it gave men “a kind of secret pleasure, so that persons once accustomed to it can scarce leave it off”— an early description of the addiction that the chief medical officer described in evidence earlier in the week. If that period was when smoking first became popular, it is also when we find the very first anti tobacco campaigning and regulation in this country. King James I, who was perhaps before his time in some respects, in 1604 produced a pamphlet called “A Counterblaste to Tobacco”, one of the earliest anti smoking and anti tobacco publications known. He reckoned that tobacco caused serious social problems and serious health issues; he described it as “hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.”

Although that pamphlet was published 400 years ago, James I was not far off, and his words ring true today. He also, recognising the dangers, put an import tax on tobacco to try to reduce its use, and he noticed what the doctors in this Committee will have seen in their anatomy classes—I think there are pictures now on cigarette packets too—of black scarring in the lungs of people who smoked. Of course, that was not enough to put people off; during the great plague of 1665-66, at Eton College it was made compulsory for all the boys to smoke tobacco to protect them, which I thought was interesting.

Fast forward, though, to the 20th century and we begin to see tobacco being mass produced rather than sold as a luxury item. There had been some strides in regulation, such as the Children Act 1908, which forbade the sale of tobacco for those under the age of 16. It is interesting that it took from 1908 to almost modern times for that age limit to change.

After the conclusion of the war, tobacco companies had a captive audience, with lots of male soldiers wanting more, so they turned their attention to women. Recognising the strides that women had made during the suffrage movement, they cleverly used the equality angle as a basis for their mass marketing campaign to “light up for freedom”. They were also sold light or “Mild as May” cigarettes, which were supposed to be a more feminine version but were no doubt just as harmful.

As the chief medical officer said in evidence on Tuesday, big tobacco is very clever. As reports began to emerge suggesting a link between smoking, cancer and a whole host of other issues, tobacco advertising began to change tack. Cigarettes were no longer sold as being “Mild as May”, but focused on a male audience once again, promoting rugged individualism and stoicism. The Marlboro Man became a regular feature of motorsport events such as Formula 1 and featured on ski jackets and other clothing.

At that stage, to be pro smoking was to be pro choice, a rationale that amounted to “Die like a man, die free”. It is interesting that it was promoted as a form of choice—the argument being used against clause 1 today—when actually, as has been described to us in evidence, the only choice people make is that first cigarette. Once they have taken their first cigarette, they can become addicted to it, so the next cigarette is not the choice it is set out to be.

I take the point my hon. Friend is quite eloquently making, but might I suggest to her that times have very much changed: the advertising that she has talked about has long since been restricted, the idea that smoking is seen in that same way and is prevalent throughout society is no longer true, and perhaps the arguments she is making are not as relevant today as they might have been in the past?

My hon. Friend is right that the advertising restrictions have changed, because the Governments of different colours over the period have changed them. That has reduced tobacco smoking, which for people’s health is a good thing, as I am sure he agrees.

I am advised that the five men who appeared as the Marlboro Man all died of smoking related illnesses, which is very sad to hear. In the 1950s, we started to see reports in the British Medical Journal that suggested a link between smoking and lung cancer, and by 1962 the Royal College of Physicians had enough evidence to push for a ban on advertising. Tobacco advertising has been banned on television since 1965, and a national warning sign saying, “SMOKING CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH” was imposed in 1971.

In 1984, national No Smoking Day was launched to encourage smokers to quit, and laws on making public places smoke free, which we will build on in this Bill, were introduced between 2005 and 2007, but there is still more to be done. As the Minister said, 80,000 people die of smoking related diseases in the UK every year, and smoking continues to have a pernicious effect on our society. Some of the impact assessments mention the other effects that the Bill, particularly the rolling generational ban providedfor by clause 1, can have on health.

Something I find interesting when looking into the effects of smoking on health is that smoking does not just affect your health and the health of those around you; it can affect the health of your children and grandchildren. One of my favourite subjects in medical school was embryology, in part because we got lots of coloured pencils, but also because it is a fascinating subject. After having studied embryology in great detail, I find it almost a miracle that most people end up as perfect as they do, because the number of places where embryology can go wrong is remarkable. Research shows that, if a maternal grandmother smokes, it has an effect on her grandchildren. The reason for that is that when a female foetus is developing inside her mother, by the fifth month of pregnancy the eggs that she will use to produce her own children are already being formed, and there is evidence to show that the epigenetic changes in place then will transmit to the grandchildren of that smoker. That is remarkable.

Smoking also affects fertility. Women who smoke are more likely to have an earlier menopause, an ectopic pregnancy and have nicotine damage to their fallopian tubes, which makes an egg more likely to implant in the wrong place or not at all. Gentlemen who smoke are more likely to suffer sperm damage, and reduced sperm count and fertility. The effects of smoking on the vasculature can lead to erectile dysfunction, which obviously makes becoming pregnant more difficult.

The evidence we heard about the generational ban in clause 1 told us that, because many women who smoke are the young women who get pregnant, the ban will have a quick effect on the impacts of smoking on pregnancy and will help with this Government’s and the previous Government’s aim of reducing stillbirth and premature birth. The number of women smoking in pregnancy fell significantly between 2022 and 2024, from 8.8% to 7.3%—an 18% fall. It will be difficult to replicate that, but this is really important because younger mothers in more deprived areas are passing up to 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes across the placenta, which can restrict the blood supply to the baby, cause cleft lip and palate, and increase the risk of childhood cancer. Babies’ growth is restricted, so they are more likely to be small for their gestational age, which comes with its own health and developmental problems. Women who smoke during pregnancy are more likely to find that their children have an autistic spectrum disorder, too. There are many diseases in children that can be prevented by mothers not smoking during pregnancy.

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a paediatrician, I have seen children suffer sudden infant death syndrome; SIDS is three times more likely among smoking mothers. That should be reduced by clause 1. We also see lots of children admitted with pneumonia and bronchitis in their first year of life. That is more likely if the mother smokes, particularly if the baby is born prematurely, perhaps as a result also of the mother’s smoking, because smaller and less mature babies are also less likely to withstand those infections as robustly.

One of the diseases I am most scared of as a paediatrician is meningococcal meningitis, because of the rate at which the child goes from relatively well to incredibly, almost irretrievably, sick. We have all heard about pressing the glass against the rash to look for it. The risk of meningococcal meningitis and sepsis is doubled by smoking in the family home. The previous Government introduced in 2016 the saving babies’ lives care bundle, which included carbon monoxide testing both at antenatal booking and at 36 weeks, and referrals to stop smoking services. That was designed to reduce smoking during pregnancy, and it should be added to and cumulative with the effects of clause 1.

Although I am a paediatrician and quite focused on the effects on children, it is important to recognise that other doctors have adult patients, and adults are important, too. It is important to reflect on the fact that smoking does more than cause 80,000 deaths a year. We heard from the Minister about its effect on the vasculature. In addition to early death, smoking causes miserable and horrible chronic illness and disease, such as emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, intermittent claudication and requirement for amputations; it worsens diabetes and causes heart attacks, strokes and dementia. So many diseases can present because someone is smoking. One advantage of clause 1 is that the prevalence of those diseases should fall. The chief medical officer gave his view on which ones he thought would stop.

The hon. Lady makes an important point. This is not speculation; we have seen it in action. In the period immediately after the indoor smoking ban, for example, the levels of cardiovascular disease in this country plummeted, so we know that tobacco control has almost immediate beneficial health outcomes for those who are at risk from smoking related illness.

I thank the Minister for supporting the view that clause 1 will reduce the number of people who smoke. We can argue about how it will reduce the number of smokers and how many people will stop, but either way we know that there will be a significant reduction in the number of smokers. That will significantly benefit people’s health—particularly young people, thanks to the rolling age process. As I have mentioned, it will benefit the health of children—even those as yet not conceived, never mind born—which is important.

The Minister talked about the effect on the NHS and social care. Smokers are likely to need social care 10 years earlier than their non smoking counterparts. He gave figures in the billions of pounds for the cost to the NHS. Nearly half a million appointments a year are caused by smoking. If we were able to stop that, not only would we have a healthier and happier population who are not miserably addicted and unwell, but we would be able to concentrate NHS resources on other conditions and perhaps reduce waiting lists and waiting times.

The other key benefit of clause 1 relates the economy. Smokers are more likely to die early, which has an economic effect. They are more likely to take time off work as they experience chronic illness. It is estimated that smoking related absenteeism costs the economy £5 billion annually. When smokers are hospitalised or have illness, they tend to have longer recovery times and more prolonged periods off work than their non smoking counterparts.

Nicotine is an addictive substance. Nicotine cravings can be experienced by smokers and, as we heard in our discussion with teachers about children and vaping earlier this week, it can disrupt their work day and lead to lack of concentration and reduced focus.

Turning to the environmental impact, smoking is bad for the environment in several ways. Everywhere outside, we can see cigarette butts lying on the floor; that is pollution. The tobacco industry has an effect on the environment right from the get go, including through deforestation, use of fossil fuels, and pollution caused by waste disposal. Tobacco cultivation requires large amounts of land and water, and the waste of cigarette butts contributes to hazardous litter that harms the ecosystem. Clause 1 will reduce the amount of tobacco consumed, which will reduce the number of cigarette butts and the amount of deforestation, and will therefore reduce waste.

The cultivation process is of particular concern. Tobacco is cultivated in around 125 countries, particularly in low income regions and places such as Brazil, India and China. It is resource intensive and requires chemicals and pesticides that endanger the environment and public health. It is often grown through monoculture farming, which reduces biodiversity and increases the need for chemicals. It also uses up vast quantities of water, with some estimates suggesting that one smoker’s habit for 50 years could deplete almost 1,400 cubic metres of water, the equivalent of—

Order. I am trying to give as much latitude as I can, but we do need to stick to the issues in this grouping as best we can. I have tried to give Members the opportunity to talk about the inadequacies and the unhealthy nature of tobacco, but we need to move on to talk about the particular issues in the grouping. I just want to bring that to your attention.

Thank you, Mr Dowd. My intention was merely to illustrate to the Committee the benefits of clause 1, rather than the risks, and the effect that reducing tobacco consumption will have on the environment and the public.

Early on in this Committee, the hon. Member for Winchester raised the issue of pets. We have a much loved cocker spaniel. We do not smoke in our house, or at all, but it had not occurred to me that animals would be affected by smoking, too—it is obvious, when I think about it. Every day is a school day.

The number of smokers is falling, with only 12.9% of the English population smoking—I say “only”, but that is still 6.4 million people—which is a significant drop. However, there is still more to do, and this legislation is an effort, in part, to do that.

So what does clause 1 do? Essentially, it changes the age of sale for tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers so that those born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold these products in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, replacing the existing legislation, which sets the age of sale at 18. I appreciate that 1 January 2009 was the date set by the previous Government, but I wonder whether that was the reason the Minister chose it, or whether there was a more special reason. Given that we want to get children and adults not smoking as quickly as possible, why did he not choose to bring it forward a year? Why that date, specifically? Does he think it needs time to bed in, or does he think that leaves enough time to bed in?

I want to talk about subsection (1)(a) on tobacco products. There is a huge variety of tobacco products. We have talked mostly today about cigarettes, because they are the most common tobacco products, although they come in various different forms. There are also cigars, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor talked about earlier.

I will just expand the point a little bit. My understanding of heated tobacco, for example—my hon. Friend is a medical professional, so she may take a different view—is that where it has been introduced en masse, such as in Japan, there has been a 70% fall in cigarette sales. If we are talking about a smoke free generation, and the health benefits that she and Government Members are talking about, is banning all tobacco products necessarily the right way to go about that?

Some people talk about celebrating special events with a cigar. My hon. Friend talked about new year’s eve, birthdays, the birth of a child or weddings—people might celebrate those sort of events with a cigar, although it is not as popular as it once was. It is possibly most famously associated with Winston Churchill. I think the expression “close, but no cigar” comes from the practice of giving away cigars as prizes at fairground games, which is thankfully not something we encourage today. Intriguingly, cigars have often evaded smoking bans, as a special exemption remains in place that allows customers of cigar shops to smoke on the premises, the idea being that smokers sample a product before committing to buying an entire box. Just a few hundred metres from where we stand, Members can stroll down St James’s Street and then smoke a cigar indoors, entirely legally, at the establishments that sell them. I think cigars have been given special treatment in the in the past for that reason. The Minister may consider that people who find themselves banned from tobacco, but addicted to it, may decide that they are going to smoke lots of cigars, but I would be interested to understand his thought processes on that.

I think that those are the two most common forms of tobacco products, but there are others. Members will doubtlessly be familiar with hookahs, or shisha, from having seen them being smoked on high streets in the UK or abroad. The idea is that tobacco—or sometimes other substances—is smoked through a pipe, having passed through water, which is believed to act as some sort of filter. Invented in either Persia or India—depending on who one asks—they spread across the world.

However, they expose the user to the usual list of toxic chemicals, and a great deal more carbon monoxide than cigarette smoking. In fact, I am told that, in a single hookah smoking session, the user inhales as much as 200 times more smoke than is inhaled smoking a single cigarette, so these are particularly harmful. The hookah’s most famous user is perhaps the caterpillar in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”, although it has many real life users today.

Could the Minister comment on that form of tobacco? In the Committee session in which he was the witness, he talked particularly about bongs, and he sounded unsure—if I am honest—whether they would be covered under this legislation as tobacco products, so could he clarify that, or whether he intends to bring in an amendment on that?

Snus is a further tobacco product. It is originally from Sweden, which the Health Select Committee, which I was a member of at the time, visited earlier in the past year to look at tobacco, among other products. It is still very popular there. It is consumed by placing a bag of powdered tobacco, mixed with salt and flavouring, under the lip. It reminded me of a small teabag, but it is much more harmful. Snus has been linked to oral and pharyngeal cancers, meaning that—unusually, compared with other tobacco products—snus was actually banned by an EU law in 1992. That ban remains in place across the United Kingdom, and it caused some contention in relation to Sweden’s EU membership. I understand that they got special exemption, believe it or not, on that otherwise EU wide ban of snus.

A further tobacco product that will be affected by clause 1(1)(a) is snuff. I think that snuff is now seen as a novelty in the UK, but it was once a popular alternative to smoking tobacco. It is made by pulverising tobacco leaves, and it is snorted. I am not an expert in this, but I am told that it comes in flavours including coffee, honey, chocolate, orange, and apricot, again reminding me a little bit of the extraordinary flavours of vaping products available to the public, although I am not aware of any bubble gum, unicorn or “cherry razz” flavoured snuff that might be available.

New Members might not be aware that there is a snuff box at the door of the House of Commons Chamber. If one asks the Doorkeepers, one will be shown a box of snuff. It is a wooden box with a plaque on the top—I took a look at yesterday—and it is made from wood that was retrieved from the House of Commons after it was bombed in the war. There is a plaque on the top that has the name of the chief Doorkeeper—or Principal Doorkeeper—of the time.

The box does indeed contain snuff, which apparently—I was told by the Doorkeepers yesterday—was given to the House of Commons by the BBC. I would not want to name any Members, but I am told by the Doorkeepers that it is still used by Members infrequently—or more frequently by some Members, but not very many. I know that we have a lot of traditions in Parliament that are very important to people, and I wondered whether the Minister can comment on whether this particular tradition of having a box of snuff at the door of the House of Commons will be affected by the legislation in clause 1, or indeed any other part of the legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) raised heated tobacco, another product that will be affected by clause 1(1)(a). As I understand it, the idea behind heated tobacco is that it is heated to a lower temperature than conventional cigarettes—so, essentially, instead of being burnt, it creates a vaporised aerosol form of tobacco—and it has gained some popularity in recent years, with some people believing that it is less harmful than other forms of tobacco.

Indeed, in a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in the last Parliament, one Member told us how he had given up smoking by moving on to heated tobacco, but the medical evidence suggests that it is not good for him either. I suspect that that is part of what the chief medical officer meant when talking about the flexibility of the tobacco industry in making people believe they have a slightly better version of the product, when it is still harmful.

Other relevant forms include chewing tobacco, which is a tradition originally inherited from native Americans. It is not very much used in the UK at the moment, but those who have watched a lot of western films will have seen the little spittoon bowls in which the unwanted juices are spat. However, anyone keen to try it might want to consider baseball legend Bill Tuttle, who had a 40-year habit, and had to have many of his teeth, his jawbone, his gums, his right cheekbone and, finally, his tastebuds removed after developing a tumour so large it protruded through his skin. Chewing tobacco and all forms of tobacco are particularly likely to cause cancers.

Moving on, dipping tobacco—I confess that I had not heard of it—is similar to chewing tobacco and is known as “dip”. It is form of smokeless tobacco, and using it involves placing a pinch of moist, finely ground tobacco between the lip and gum, typically in the lower jaw. Here, the nicotine is absorbed through the mucous membranes, delivering a quick and potent buzz. It is similar to the nicotine pouches that are currently becoming more popular with youngsters. They also provide a fast hit of nicotine, which is very addictive. Dipping tobacco, referred to as “dip” or “lip”, avoids the harmful effects of smoking related to combustion, but it is not safe, and again is linked to oral cancer, gum disease and nicotine addiction. It is welcome to see that it will not be causing cancers in the future.

Clause 1(1)(b) talks about herbal smoking products. These are alternatives to traditional tobacco cigarettes and are made from blends of dried herbs, dried flowers and other ingredients. They are often marketed as a natural or tobacco free option—again, an attempt to imply that they are better for people. They contain plants such as mint, lavender, rose petals or mugwort. Excluding their usage alongside cannabis, they make up a relatively niche market, but not an insignificant one. A quick internet search will uncover a whole panoply of claims about the positive physical and mental health effects of smoking herbal products—usually made, unsurprisingly, by the retailers trying to sell them.

Paragraph (c) bans cigarette papers. I am interested in understanding—I notice that there is a relevant amendment later in the Bill—why that does not include cigarette filters. I will talk more about cigarette papers themselves in relation to clause 2, so I shall leave them aside for now.

Subsection (1) makes it an offence to sell tobacco products to under age people, but not for them to buy them. That differs from alcohol, in relation to which it is an offence to buy, to try to buy, or to sell. Will the Minister at least give his reasons for that? The “buy” and “try to buy” provisions on alcohol affect only children; they are crimes that only children can commit, because only they can try to buy, or buy, alcohol when they are under age. However, the crime in subsection (1) is one that adults can commit, so there is an interesting inconsistency, which does not reflect the ages of the people who are potentially committing such a crime.

Subsection (2)(a) talks about its being a defence for a person charged with the offence to prove

“that they were shown what appeared to be an identity document belonging to the purchaser and that the date of birth shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”.

That will protect people who are shown a plausible but fake identity document, and seems like a sensible provision to me. The identity documents themselves are listed in subsection (3), but can the Minister comment on veteran cards? Many veterans carry veteran cards as a form of identification and proof of age, but they are not included. The Government were very keen, as were the Conservative party, to ensure the cards were included as quickly as possible as a form of voter ID. I wonder if the Minister could comment on whether he plans to table any amendments to introduce veterans or any other form of ID as part of the offence.

Subsection (2)(b) allows the defence

“that they otherwise took all reasonable steps to avoid the commission of the offence.”

What are reasonable steps? Is it a reasonable step that I look at the Minister and think, “Well, he looks like he was born after 1 January 2009”?

indicated dissent.

The Minister is shaking his head. So what is a reasonable step? Unless one is to ask everyone for ID, the first step will be to decide whether to ask the customer in front of them for ID. That step will be, in essence, that shopkeeper or shop worker assess the person’s age.

Research shows that people are usually off by about eight years in their estimates of people’s ages by face alone. In fact, some research shows that if groups of people are shown a face, and the face that they are shown immediately before was a younger face, they will pick a younger age for that second person. If they are first shown an older face, they will pick an older age for that same person. That suggests that who the customer came in with, or who the previous customer was, may have an effect.

At the moment, we are asked to conduct a Challenge 25 check on a customer, but is it as easy to check the age of a 40 or 41-year old as it is to check the age of someone under 25, or to tell whether someone is young or relatively young? The evidence seems to suggest that people who are close to 25 are quite good at telling whether people are under or over 25, and people who are close to 41 are apparently better at telling whether people are 40 or 41. It depends on age, and there is also an effect of sex and ethnicity.

Given that the Minister rejects new clause 3 tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham on a policy on checking ID, he does not want people to have a policy on when to check, he does not want people to check everybody and he just indicated that he does not want people to rely on what they think based on looking at people, what reasonable steps would he expect to take place? The Government need to provide further guidance on that.

In the last Parliament, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) tabled an amendment for a nicotine free generation. She made the point that we have a rolling age of tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers, so why not have one for all nicotine products? We know that nicotine is addictive and that the industry will evolve to try to get people hooked to a different form of nicotine product—that may be less or more harmful than tobacco, but it will still be addictive. Their choices will still be taken away, and they will still be having something that they do not want, which costs them money and potentially makes them poorer as a result. If it were to become apparent later that these items were particularly harmful, and one wished to do another rolling ban, one could end up in a situation where there is an age for sale of alcohol, fireworks and all sorts of other things, and two rolling ages with two different dates—one for tobacco, herbal products and cigarette papers, and another for vaping and other nicotine products such as nicotine pouches.

Many of the amendments to the Conservative Government’s very similar Bill were included by this Government in their Bill, so I wonder whether the Minister could comment on why that particular amendment from a Government Member was not included.

To take a step back, I am still not satisfied that I understand, in practice, what the defence for someone to prove that they were shown ID means in practice? Perhaps that will form part of the guidance. If one is to suggest that CCTV is required, is that in the GDPR? In some circumstances, it would be quite difficult to prove. Given the seriousness of the offence and the repercussions, I just want some reassurance.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful intervention. I, too, am not entirely clear what the Bill means by reasonable steps. We seem to have established what some reasonable steps might not be, but I am still not clear what they might be. It would be helpful if the Government elucidated that point further.

The Government’s intent in clause 1 is to create a nicotine free generation across the country. When I was briefly the Minister for public health, I was shown some figures about where new smokers come from. Smokers become non smokers because they either die or quit—and we have heard about how difficult that can be; it is the reason for clause 1 in the first place.

However, one reason we have new smokers is because people, particularly children, start smoking; again, clause 1 will help in that regard. The other reason is because people who smoke come here, either as tourists or migrants, whether regularly or irregularly. How the Minister tackles that group will be interesting. What will happen with tourists to the UK who are legal smokers in their own country? Will they be expected to bring tobacco with them? Presumably, they will. Does that have an effect on imported volumes and how will border control manage that situation?

My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point that I personally had not considered before. We need to know more from the Minister, and the point will potentially come up again when we consider smoking in the grounds of a hospital. The Minister has quite rightly pointed out that smoking is a terrible addiction, but if we have people coming to this country—tourists or migrants—who are addicted to smoking, but who are also under the age of sale here in this country, how will we be dealing with them?

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which builds on the point I was trying to make.

The issue of managing individuals addicted to smoking who come to the UK is an important one. On my last foray through Heathrow, I met a gentleman who was unhappy to find himself there; I think he had been supposed to land in Paris but weather had intervened, and he was not happy at Heathrow because there was nowhere for him to smoke. I think he was travelling back to South Africa, having watched the rugby.

How we manage smokers who come here to visit as tourists or as migrants is an important economic question. If people come here permanently, what investment will the Minister make to promote awareness among such individuals of the various nicotine replacement therapies that might be available to them, in order to help them to quit smoking and improve their own health, which is obviously very important?

I will just expand on that point a little. The United Kingdom is something like the third biggest tourist destination in the world. Forgive my ignorance—there is a lot of paperwork here—but obviously we are trying to make the sale of tobacco and the distribution to others of tobacco illegal in the UK, and I have not seen a clause in the Bill that would make bringing cigarettes into the country for one’s own use illegal. Maybe the Minister will correct me on that.

We obviously have a tourism issue in that regard, but I was also thinking about when G7 leaders come to the UK. President Obama was famously a smoker. Will the United Kingdom not be able to host a G7 event, which is obviously of massive significance, if there is a leader of the free world who smokes? Their attendance might be vetoed. There are lots of things that have just not been thought about.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have not seen a clause in the Bill that prevents tobacco from being imported. The Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong about that; however, it does not look as if he is going to. If the leader of another G7 nation is coming to a conference in the UK, he will be bound by the same laws as everybody else. If that means he cannot buy cigarettes, then he cannot buy cigarettes, although I suspect that the current leader of the Bahamas was probably born before 1 January 2009, so we are safe for a little while.

However, it is right that my hon. Friend raised the point. After all, the purpose of this Committee is to ensure that someone has gone through the Bill line by line and thought about all the various different esoteric concerns that might be raised, and to ensure that they are brought to the fore. I am sure that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the volume of tobacco that can be brought into the UK for personal use will exceed the amount that the average president might wish to use while they were here attending a conference. Who knows? The final point was about employers. Will they be required to train people in age estimation? Given that the evidence for that does not exist—we were told in evidence to the Committee earlier in the week that such training does not exist—would that form part of the reasonable steps? It would be reassuring to me if it does not, in particular for small businesses, which already bear a number of burdens in tax at the moment.

Amendment 68 is an Opposition amendment, in my name. It would prevent the imposition of penalties for a first offence pertaining to the sale of nicotine vape products to individuals under 18. It would modify section 4A of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which regulates the sale of nicotine vapour products to a person under 18, by introducing lenient penalties for first time offenders. The amendment stipulates that the penalties typically applied for selling such products to minors will not apply for the first offence. The new provision would allow first time offenders who admit guilt either to receive a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to be issued a discretionary recorded police warning—similar to a caution—instead of facing more severe penalties.

The change aims to provide a less punitive approach for first time violations, offering flexibility in enforcement while still holding offenders accountable. It comes back to the point that we made about proportionality in relation to the group of amendments that included amendment 56, and to the Minister’s comments on who exactly will be responsible for the fine—whether that is the shopkeeper or shop worker, or indeed whether it can be both.

Amendment 69 would add to section 4B(7) of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 the phrase “save if it is a first offence”, and insert a new subsection (7A) after subsection (7). The provisions would ensure that individuals who commit a first offence under the age verification policy in relation to the sale of tobacco, and herbal smoking, vaping and nicotine products, are treated more leniently than repeat offenders. That goes back to the difference between a rogue trader and a young Saturday worker who mistakes the age of an older person.

The first change made by amendment 69 would limit the application of harsher penalties to those who have already been convicted, meaning that first time offenders will not face the same level of penalty as those who have a history of non compliance. The second change—the addition of the new subsection (7A)—would establish a graduated response for first time offenders. It specifies that anyone who admits guilt for the first time, for their first offence, would be subject to a much lower fine of no more than level 2 on the standard scale, or a recorded police warning.

That is a significant reduction, compared with the penalties that may apply to repeat offenders, so it would offer more lenient consequences for a first offence. The recorded police warning would serve as an official notice, preventing the individual from avoiding further legal consequences if they do not comply with the conditions of the warning. That is similar to our earlier discussions about proportionality, and the Minister may want to comment further on that in relation to these amendments.

Finally, new clause 3 seeks to amend clause 1 to introduce a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products to individuals born on or after 1 January 2009. The new clause would require businesses to offer an age verification policy to establish the age of persons who attempt to buy tobacco products. The policy must include the steps that are needed to verify the age of a person who attempts to purchase any of those products, if it appears that they may be under the age of 25 or any other age specified in the policy—in this case, the age of a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

New clause 3 outlines certain exemptions, specifying that businesses from which tobacco, herbal smoking products, vaping products or nicotine products are dispatched for delivery to other premises do not need to operate an age verification policy, to help with trade and providing them to retailers. It would avoid problems with businesses and delivery services that do not interact directly with the customer or end user in person. The new clause would allow the appropriate national authority in England or Wales to regulate the details of those policies, including by providing guidance on the steps that businesses need to take to verify age, the type of identification that can be accepted and the training requirements for staff.

I note that the Minister suggested that he would reject new clause 3. I am interested to understand which of the steps taken to verify age, to train people in identification and to set out training requirements for staff he does not want. The implementation of this age verification policy would reflect similar measures that are already in place in Scotland, which are included specifically in this Bill and are designed to ensure that individuals who are under the legal age are not sold these products. The Scottish legislation provides legal underpinning to the Challenge 25 scheme, which operates voluntarily in the rest of the UK.

There is an argument that customers in the rest of the UK are uncertain whether they will need to provide ID, whereas customers in Scotland under the age of 25 are certain that they will need to provide their ID. I am not sure that that holds water in some respects, because if one is close to the age of 18 or fortunate enough to look it, one is expecting it—although, as I said before, I was 38 the last time I was carded, and I did not expect it. I did not have my ID with me, and I was not able to buy the product, though I was amply old enough.

I note that in new clause 3, the fine is set at level 2, which is obviously lower than the level 3 fine. When she speaks to her new clause, can the hon. Member for City of Durham explain why she has chosen a level 2 fine? For the purpose of the new clause, the fine is applied to a business for not adequately training its staff to assess people’s age and putting them at risk of non compliance with the law. Does she think that a level 2 fine, for which a young Saturday worker could be liable if they were to sell those products, is proportionate, or set at the right price point? We are trying to get businesses to comply, and a rogue business may be unlikely to be deterred by such a low amount.

Subsection (7) of new clause 3 stipulates that individuals selling tobacco products, cigarette papers, herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products must undergo training. However, the practical implementation of age verification policies poses significant challenges, and businesses, especially small retailers, may lack the resources and training to effectively enforce them.

One thing that will be particularly operationally difficult is the period of time during which those on the shop floor may not be able to use cigarettes themselves, but they will not be prohibited from selling cigarettes. An 18-year old shop worker might be asked to adjudicate whether someone is 33 or 34. In such instances, training might be really quite important.

My hon. Friend raises two points there, one of which is that the age at which someone can sell a product may not correlate with the age at which they can buy it. That is true for some products already, and I will go back to my story. When I could not get my bottle of champagne, because I looked too young, the young man at the cash desk had to be supervised by an older person in order to sell such products, so he was selling them with permission. Other age restricted products can be sold—without supervision, in some cases—by people aged 16 to 18 with a specific form of training and when a particular form of paperwork is completed, so this is not unprecedented.

I also agree with my hon. Friend’s second point that this is a bit odd and clunky. If one were to make tobacco illegal, however, one would be criminalising people, and if one were to bring in an age limit of 25, suddenly there would be a cohort of criminalised addicts. The rolling pattern helps with that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made a point about how people tell the age of somebody who is in front of them. Earlier, I explained that evidence shows that people are not very good at discerning the age of another person, particularly someone who is not in the same generational age group, or of the same ethnicity or sex.

Drawing on the point that my hon. Friend is making, one issue with the drafting of subsection (7) of new clause 3 is that businesses will need to have this age verification policy, but the national authority may—and it is only a “may”—publish guidance, so there is not clarity. Some form of template would be needed to make the provision effective. The intention is obviously to have a full policy in place, but the guidance could be just a piece of paper with three bullet points, and that would not meet the intention. Also, do we really need two fines in place when there is already a fine, as the Minister said, for selling? I do not think there needs to be a fine for not having a piece of paper with a policy.

If one is expected to have a policy, guidance on what that policy should contain is certainly important. If one is going to be held accountable for not having such a policy in law, it is clearly not sufficient to say, “You must have a policy but we are not going to tell you what it must say or do.” It comes back to the point that I have been making throughout the day. Who will face this fine? How will it be decided who the fine applies to? Will it be applied to the retailer as well as to shop workers, shop supervisors, shift supervisors or CEOs, and under what circumstances? I think there needs to be guidance on that so we have a clear pathway.

Clause 1 states that it is a defence if someone has taken “all reasonable steps”. If having a policy is not to be a reasonable step—there are arguments for why we might not want it to be, because it is an extra regulatory burden on business, and some very small businesses could struggle with that—and neither is looking at someone and making one’s own mind up, it is important to understand what is. I do not think we have got to the bottom of that yet.

My final question for the hon. Member for City of Durham, who tabled new clause 3, is: why not Northern Ireland? I think one reason why she has chosen to introduce this is because there is such a policy for Scotland, but not for England and Wales. I do not believe there is such a policy for Northern Ireland either, and I wonder why she did not seek to correct that in her new clause. It may be something that she wants to consider in refining such a new clause before Report.

I wish to speak to new clause 3, which is in my name. I do not intend to press it to a vote, and I will be very brief because there has been a lot of discussion—about three and a half hours—on this part of the Bill already, and I hope it will answer some of those points. I am introducing it because I think it would enhance the Bill’s consistency with the Government’s four nations approach. New clause 3 would apply to all the nations of the United Kingdom mandatory age verification for purchasing tobacco, vapes and non medicinal nicotine products, in line with the provisions set out for Scotland in the Bill.

Scotland has had mandatory age verification for anyone who looks under 20 as a legal requirement for purchasing tobacco and vapes since 2017. In lay terms, there is a legal underpinning for Challenge 25, which is voluntary in the rest of the UK. The Bill amends the Scottish system so that from 2033, it will be a legal requirement to verify the age of anyone trying to purchase tobacco who looks like they were born on or after 1 January 2009. My new clause would simply extend that beyond Scotland to ensure consistency for retailers, customers and enforcement agencies.

Just for clarification, is the hon. Lady doing this simply to make it equitable across the United Kingdom, or is there something specific in the policy that she thinks will strengthen the Bill or add to it parts that are not covered currently?

The new clause will make the policy consistent across the nations and simplify the process. If I can carry on, I will expand on those points. The new clause will extend the policy further than Scotland and simplify the process for retailers, customers and enforcement agencies. There has already been a lot of discussion about the implementation of a smoke free generation, and about trying to make it simple and easy to understand. We heard in oral evidence concerns about the difficulty, when the policy has been in place for some decades, in telling the difference between two individuals in their forties who fall on either side of the policy. While that is likely to be a marginal issue in practice, the new clause will further help to resolve it.

Mandatory age verification currently exists in Scotland and is supported by retailers here. In response to the Minister’s point about it possibly being a burden on businesses, a survey of independent UK tobacco retailers by Action on Smoking and Health in 2024 found that more than seven out of 10 retailers—71%—in England and Wales supported this.

We have heard dreadful stories of retailers who have experienced nasty abuse and, in some cases, violence when they have asked for someone’s age. If somebody knew for certain that they would have their ID checked, it would no longer be an evaluation by the shopkeeper of their age, but merely a simple, expected transaction.

I agree. We heard concerns on Tuesday in evidence about the aggression towards retailers, and the impact that the Bill might have on that. I would argue that providing consistency about identification is a potential mitigation of those risks. It takes away the guesswork.

May I ask the hon. Lady if there is any evidence that in Scotland, it has reduced aggression towards retailers?

I cannot point to any evidence in statistics, but retailers welcome it. I think 90% of retailers in Scotland are in favour of it. In England, 83% of small retailers agree with it, and I am sure that is because it takes away those cloudy grey areas. It means that once someone shows their ID, that is the end of it.

On the point about this being a slippery slope towards mandatory ID cards, young people now are used to carrying ID. In fact, the Bill provides a list of different forms of ID that people can provide, including passports and driving licences. I believe the Government are talking about introducing digital ID checks for the purchase of alcohol. If this were applied to tobacco, individuals would not need to carry a physical ID with them. The measure is supported by retailers and by seven out of 10 members of the public, as well as by the Local Government Association and trading standards, which both believe it would help with enforcing the legislation and aid prosecution.

I have tabled the new clause to simplify things. This has already happened in Scotland, and it would make the Bill consistent with the Government's four nation approach. Given the issues that we have been discussing today, having mandatory ID would make things so much easier and simpler. Just to be clear, I will not be pushing it to a vote.

I want to take a step back and look again at clause 1 itself. Enforceability has to be considered as an important element of achieving the smoke free generation. As I keep stating, as a former lawyer, I want to be absolutely sure before I can give further support.

I seek assurances from the Minister on the implementation of the policy with regard to Northern Ireland, if it is truly to be a smoke free nation. One of the provisions of EU law in the Windsor framework is the EU’s second tobacco products directive—TPD2—which applies to Northern Ireland. It lays down various requirements that must be satisfied for tobacco products and vapes to be marketed in the EU—for example, on ingredients, emission levels and packaging. Most crucially, it also states that member states, which include Northern Ireland for these purposes, “may not...prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of tobacco or related products which comply with this Directive.”

So a generational smoking ban may be incompatible with TPD2.

Similar plans for generational bans in Denmark and the Republic of Ireland were ditched in 2022 and 2024, respectively, because of TPD2. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Health and Social Care has any plans for this issue, and whether the Attorney General has formed a view that can be shared with us. I think we have learned over the years that it is imperative that we do not jeopardise our Northern Irish friends.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the shadow Minister for her comprehensive look at the clause, and the amendments and new clauses that go with it. I look forward to similar in depth discussion on the rest of the Bill over the coming sittings.

I will state at the outset that I have never smoked a cigarette or tobacco based product, or indeed any other product—legal or illegal—and I come with a background of being vehemently anti smoking, so it may surprise some Members that I abstained on Second Reading. I did so for two reasons, really.

I support entirely the vapes element of the Bill, and had the Bill contained just that, I would have supported it wholeheartedly. I will not talk about vapes now, because that is a separate part of the Bill. My concern is with the enforceability of the tobacco element of the Bill, and indeed about some of the civil liberties that I outlined earlier. That said, I hope that hon. Members take my comments as helpful, supportive and inquisitorial rather than critical of the principle of the Bill. I entirely support the idea that we must have a smoke free generation, as outlined in clause 1.

I abstained for two reasons. The first was personal. My paternal grandparents were both chain smokers. I do not have medical evidence of this, but I would say that both died because of that chain smoking. My grandfather died when I was three months old, so I do not have any recollection of meeting him. Having heard from people in Haslemere who did know him since becoming the Member of Parliament for the area where he lived, I feel that I am definitely the poorer for having not had the chance to meet him. My grandmother lived a lot longer; I knew her very well and loved her very much. But I have to say that the smell of tobacco and smoke in her house was not something I looked forward to as a child; in fact, I dreaded it. When I went back to visit that property, which is now in the hands of a lovely woman in Haslemere, it was refreshing that it did not have the pervasive smell of smoke and, to be frank, decay that went with it.

My second reason is professional. Many people will know that I have worked in healthcare for the vast majority of my career, latterly in the NHS, where I worked for the Getting It Right First Time programme to improve patient outcomes. It is clear from some of the reports we produced over the last few years, including the lung cancer report, the respiratory report and the vascular surgery report, that tobacco smoking and related products are significant killers and must be dealt with.

It is interesting that, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister outlined, there has been a shift in perception, and that takes me back to my scepticism about the tobacco elements of clause 1. We have seen a significant fall in the number of people taking up smoking, especially of cigarettes. According to the latest figures I could find, we went from around 20% of people smoking regularly in this country in 2011 to just over 11% in 2023. The reduction has been even more significant among people aged 18 to 24: around 26% of them smoked in 2011, but under 10% did so in 2023. While I totally support the clause, I wondered, given my concerns about civil liberties, whether its aims were necessary. However, I have listened carefully to the arguments made today and, while I still have some questions, which I will outline in a minute, I am convinced that the Government’s approach and the ambition of the clause are appropriate.

The clause is especially appropriate when we look at the disparities between people who and do not smoke. The reality is that what ASH calls “manual” and “routine” workers—that is its terminology—are 2.6 times more likely to be smokers than what it determines to be people in management positions. I do not think that is down to a lack of education, by which I mean publicity campaigns, or indeed any of the measures that Governments of all colours have taken. I therefore think there needs to be a sea change, which is, in essence, what clause 1 will bring about, so I support it.

I still have some concerns about the flexibility of fines. I take the Minister’s point that trading standards will be able to use its judgment to impose them, but I still think it is important to outline in the legislation that a first time offence is less serious, or that the punishment should be less serious, in order to encourage education, training and rectification by either the individual or the business.

I turn briefly to new clause 3 tabled by the hon. Member for City of Durham. I understand her point about simplification, but I say to her and to Scottish Members—SNP Members or whoever—that I think it is a regulatory burden too far. Far be it from me to tell any Scotsman or woman what to do, but I do not think we need to introduce such a measure in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

As I pointed out, surveys of retailers in Scotland show that 83% of them do not think it is a burden. As things are, there are fewer tobacco sales year on year, and as we progress, the sale of tobacco will phase out anyway; it will not be a thing of the future for businesses. In the meantime, they have pointed out that this measure aids them.

I am interested to hear those facts. I know the hon. Lady will not press her new clause to a vote, and given that the Government do not support it, as far as I can tell, it is probably not going to be part of the law, but perhaps we can have a further discussion on Report.

On that point, the concept of having an age verification policy so that all retailers know what to do in these situations is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but the difficulty perhaps lies in making it an offence not to have one, because it will be in built as part of that process.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We in this Committee want to ensure that nobody who does not have to dies of smoking or tobacco related issues, but we do not want to make the regulations so tight that they make things more complicated than necessary for business.

I do not want to put words into the mouth of the hon. Member for City of Durham, but I think she is trying to fill a gap with her new clause. The Government have said that businesses need to take reasonable steps and people need to take reasonable steps, but they have not defined those reasonable steps. Even today, it does not seem clear what they might be, although we know what they are not.

I thank the shadow Minister for her intervention. She made that point powerfully during her speech. It is vital that we in this Committee, people listening to at home and those who will have to implement or abide by this legislation are really clear what those steps are. I hope the Minister is able to give us some surety on that.

We must ensure that we expand the acceptable forms of identification as much as possible, especially in clause 1, as the shadow Minister said. We have seen this in all sorts of walks of life, and she made the reasonable comparison with voter ID laws. Even if it is not something that the Minister can guarantee today, I hope that further forms of ID, such as veterans’ cards, will be inserted on Report, because as the age of people who are still allowed to smoke increases, they will have different forms of ID from younger people.

I will finish with a personal comment, if you will indulge me, Mr Dowd. I have two daughters, one of whom is nearly seven and one who is eight, and I find it fascinating that they find the idea of people smoking both bizarre and abhorrent. When we drive along in the car or walk along the street and they spot someone who is smoking, they rather loudly, and perhaps slightly to my embarrassment, point it out and say, “Daddy, that man”—or woman—“is smoking. Isn’t it awful?” Although the steps in the Bill are necessary and useful, I think that we as a nation, and Governments of all different colours, have done a good job in dealing with this. What worries me more for our young children is vapes, which we will discuss in future sittings. I will be happy to support clause 1 if it comes to a vote.

Judging from the tone of debate so far, I might be the most sceptical about the principle of clauses 1, 50 and 68, and I appreciate that perhaps I am in the minority. I will talk to what I see as the principle of those clauses and put on the record where I agree with the Minister and the shadow Minister. I will also give international examples that we should bear in mind, particularly in relation to the scope of “tobacco products”, which I think is wrong in these clauses.

We talk about a smoke free generation. If we were to tweak that slightly and call it a “cigarette free generation”, I would share the aim of the Government and the previous Government; that is laudable pretty much every which way. The Minister, the shadow Minister and Members from across the Committee have made eloquent contributions about the damage that smoking cigarettes does to people over many years. It clearly should be a priority of a Government of any colour to reduce cigarette smoking significantly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon eloquently said, we have made significant progress on that. Yes, there has been legislation, but the change has also been cultural. The legislation has been important. Government Members made the point to me earlier that some of the arguments I have used I might have used against previous legislation that sought to put barriers between people and smoking. But the cultural element that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon talked about is deeply embedded in most young people today.

That is why, despite sharing with the Government the aim of moving to a cigarette free generation, I do not think I can quite get over the principle of what they are doing to civil liberties in this Bill. We are on the journey to a cigarette free generation anyway, so why would they need to use—I do not mean this in an incendiary way, although they might take it that way—quite draconian powers? I would say that that is what this is.

A simple question: whose civil liberties are we refusing?

Very simply, in the future, we will create two tiers of adults. Those people are children today, and it is right that in law we prohibit them from smoking, because they cannot make these responsible decisions, but once someone passes the age of 18, we as a society, generally speaking, accept that if they want to make bad choices, they are their bad choices.

With rights come responsibilities. People have the responsibility both to look after themselves and to not be overly burdensome on the state. We know that the cost of tobacco is borne hugely by the taxpayer. Does the hon. Member therefore not agree that the Bill seeks a very reasonable balance? The draconian measure would be to ban tobacco full stop. The Bill says that those for whom tobacco is not legal today will never be able to purchase it, but everybody else—those who have the civil liberty to purchase and consume tobacco—can do it till the day they die.

I take the Minister’s point that in a society in which we are looked after by our NHS, to which we all contribute, which is free at the point of use and which I am sure all of us across the House support, when someone smokes and creates a burden on society through health or social care, that is the responsibility of us all.

Where I think the difference lies is where we make a moral choice. I have heard different figures for the cost from cigarettes. There are different studies. I have heard numbers as low as £20 billion, but I think that today the Minister used £80 billion when talking about productivity. I think that should be calculated properly and appropriately with evidence, but if that is the cost, that is what we should levy in excise duty, at which point the people who impose that burden are the people paying it. That is where I would go, in principle. I think that if we go beyond that point, we are starting to make a moral decision on behalf of others.

I understand the “polluter pays” concept that my hon. Friend is raising, but he is also talking about the morality of the situation. What does he think of the morality of producing a product that we know, more than on the balance of probabilities, will kill the person who uses it and will make them an addict and remove their choice of whether to purchase any more?

My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, but there is not a single adult in this country who does not know how bad cigarettes are for them. It is an important function of Government to make that educational point. Governments of all colours have made it systematically, and it has massively changed the way people, including the new generation, perceive cigarettes. That education battle has been won. Once we have won that game, which I think we have, and once we have no longer socialised the healthcare cost to others, which is what I suggest cigarette duty should be doing, we are starting to make moral choices on behalf of others.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sure I am winning some hearts and minds here.

We could rephrase the way we talk about civil liberties. We currently have a generation among whom some are addicted and have no choice, and we will be allowing a future generation to be free from having their choice taken away by addiction.

I take the hon. Member’s point. I understand that cigarettes are obviously incredibly addictive, but I think we can exercise that point too far. People who smoke have agency to stop; it might be difficult, but they can, should they choose to.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Having spent decades helping people quit smoking, I would like the hon. Member to think carefully about saying that quitting is easy. He should give some thought to the words he is using, for the sake of all those who have struggled to give up smoking. This is a choice we are giving back to millions of people.

I thank the hon. Member for his point. Forgive me if I did say it was easy, but I try to pick my words carefully, and I do not think I did say that. I said they had agency, and that is a different point.

Linked to that is the fact that too often—not just on this issue—we talk about waving our magic wand with legislation to make things illegal. But that is not the way that the world works. I am concerned that there is the potential, with draconian legislation such as this, to exacerbate the illicit trade in tobacco, which will reduce the effectiveness of the regulations and the public health messages.

At this rate, I am going to start referring to the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member for the Institute of Economic Affairs—I am sure he has got the briefing. He probably sees that as a compliment, but believe me, it really is not. He talks about illicit trade, but let us talk facts. The last time there was a major piece of tobacco control in this country those same arguments were made, but the illicit trade fell by 25%. There is absolutely no evidence that, with the appropriate enforcement—through His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, border control and trading standards—there will be any increase in illicit trade as a consequence of the Bill.

Does the Minister perhaps not see the difficulty with the fact that we will be out of international lockstep with everybody? My understanding is that both New Zealand and Malaysia introduced a generational ban policy, and both have been repealed.

My understanding—I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—is that New Zealand introduced the ban, but it had not come into force, at which point the Government changed. When the Government changed, the political views of the Government changed—as we have seen happen in our country. Sadly, as a result, the law was rescinded before it came into force in New Zealand.

I am well aware that that is the case. Part of the reason for that change in Government—although I do not want to overplay the significance of this singular issue—was that the incoming Government made an argument about the practicalities of enforcing such a law. Frankly, that is a significant concern of mine.

Before the hon. Member moves off his point about the international picture, I think it is a point of pride that the United Kingdom—all four nations —will be the world leader. We thought we were going to be in second place behind New Zealand. I pity New Zealand, given the predicament it finds itself in, because it was leading the way. However, this Government—building on the actions of the last Government—will be the world leader. I reassure the hon. Member that, as I saw when I was representing the United Kingdom at the G20 Health Ministers summit in Rio de Janeiro late last year, the world is queuing up to look at what we do here. They all want to implement these measures. They wished us the best of luck and want this to work. We are going to make it work and lead the way in the world.

I sympathise with what the Minister says about the world wanting us to make it work. I will make an analogy that I think is directly relevant. My expertise before joining this House was in renewables development. The United Kingdom, particularly under this Government, has been quite aggressive on renewables; the Conservative party was quite aggressive on them too, and the new Government have come in, continued those policies and been more aggressive. The Government are clear that they want to be world leaders, but in the past week the United Kingdom was incredibly close to blackouts.

If you are a leader and you do something successfully, whether on renewables or cigarettes, you may well lead the world forward, and the Minister is right to say that other countries would want to follow us on this issue. However, there is an under spoken truth about being a leader, and perhaps being first. Clearly, the Minister is passionate about the issue, as is clear in not just what he says, but how he says it; he wants the United Kingdom to lead on this, and I am sure he will be as forceful as possible. But a leader is also a warning if they do not succeed. If we make moves that are too draconian, too quick or over eager on energy, and we get it wrong, that could mean blackouts. If that happens because we have taken an aggressive approach, no one will follow us. We will be a warning. For leaders, it goes both ways.

I am sorry to prolong the debate, Mr Dowd, but the hon. Gentleman should believe in his country with a bit more passion. The patriotic case for leading the way on tobacco control is clear, and the world has been looking for some time at the United Kingdom and the measures that we have brought in over the past two decades. They have been incremental steps to get us to the point where we are absolutely determined, and where it is a viable proposition, that this country will be smoke free. The hon. Gentleman should believe in this country a bit more, back the Bill and show the world that the real freedom is freedom from addiction to tobacco.

I thank the Minister for his passionate remarks, which I am obviously not going to take lying down. I agree wholeheartedly that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the greatest country in the world, but before I try to make some progress, I might humbly suggest to him that a lot of that greatness may be based on the primacy of the individual and our rights to get on with our lives.

The hon. Gentleman talks about civil liberties, agency and this great country. One purpose of the Bill is to tackle inequalities in our country—stark inequalities between the rich and the poor. We know that tobacco is mainly prevalent in deprived areas, and that it kills one out of two of its users. What agency does a young person have, in terms of their health and life expectancy, once the tobacco industry has them hooked? That is not agency. Tobacco is a product that kills people, and the tobacco industry will continue to find loopholes to replace the people who have died because of its product. If the hon. Gentleman believes in this great country, he should believe that tackling inequalities and making a smoke free future for our young people are paramount.

I recognise the hon. Lady’s passionate belief in equality, but I find that somewhat paternalistic and somewhat—I do not mean this dismissively—condescending. Poorer people have the same agency as anybody else. That is the point.

I thank the hon. Member for the points he is making, which add to the interest of the debate, and I have listened with interest. I declare an interest as a public health consultant, and if the hon. Member is not interested in the greater moral argument, I would encourage him to look at my discipline and the 50 years of evidence and data we have collected since Sir Richard Doll first identified the fact that lung cancer had a causality with smoking. Data and evidence build this great Government and this great country. I ask the hon. Gentleman to please not accept the moralistic or paternalistic arguments: this is a solid Bill, built on 50 years of evidence.

I might make some headway, because I think that was more of a slap down than a question for me.

It might be good to get on record some of the figures that appear in the Government’s impact assessment regarding the association between smoking and poverty. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that people who are poor or rich have the same agency and intellectual capacity to make decisions, but the figures show that the number of people in poorer areas who smoke is greater.

Figures produced in the Government’s impact assessment show that, in 2023, 20.2% of those in routine and manual work smoked, compared with 7.9% in managerial and professional populations. For those who owned their home outright, smoking rates were only 7%, but for those who rented local authority or housing association properties, smoking prevalence was 25.7%, which shows there is a marked inequality in smoking rates between rich and poor. The health inequalities we see across the population in other forms of ill health will be improved by clause 1, because smoking rates will fall in all populations. The change will be seen most in the poor.

Order. The principle was already agreed on Second Reading, so we do not need to rehearse all the arguments. I am sorry to have to say that, but that is my job as the Chair. Some may accuse me of being lax in this regard, but I am not—I want the debate to go on, but I want it to be about the clauses we are supposed to be debating.

I will move, then, to tobacco products, the definition of which is in clauses 1, 50 and 68—forgive me that digression, Mr Dowd, but I got blown off course a little by some Labour Members. I made a differentiation between smoke free and cigarette free. All the arguments I have heard about the hugely detrimental nature and health challenges of a life of smoking pertain, in the majority, to cigarettes. I find the widest possible definition of tobacco products to be unnecessary.

I have made the point about recreational cigars. The Minister said that there was no safe level of consuming tobacco, but I would suggest that an adult can make a perfectly reasonable choice to, once a year, have a couple of cigars. Yes, there will be detrimental health effects, but an adult in a reasonable country should be able to make that choice. The definition should not include recreational products that do not have the same hook as cigarettes. I do not feel the need to have a cigar on January 8 because I had one on 31 December.

There is also a degree of puritanism to having the widest possible scope of tobacco product. I mentioned heated tobacco earlier. Although I know it has negative health effects, I understand that the data shows that to be significantly less than for cigarettes. Heated tobacco could be used as a cessation device, so the heavy handed approach here might be overdoing it. In the same way, I would be interested in how the Minister thinks about nicotine patches.

To achieve the smoke free future we all want, the UK must move in an evidence based way that differentiates clearly between various smoke free products and traditional cigarettes, because I do not think the current approach has necessarily been justified. We need to exclude reduced risk products from the generational ban, which will help minimise confusion and encourage smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives.

I want to put on record that I concur with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said, particularly about vapes. My hesitation so far has always related to my concern about tobacco in clause 1.

I can reassure the Minister that I firmly believe in the United Kingdom. We have one of the finest legal systems in the world, and it is that basis that I have concerns: the greatest frustration in practice is that, while the principles are well intentioned, the drafting does not follow suit, which leads to litigation and sometimes to unintended consequences.

I firmly believe that health is wealth. As a type 1 diabetic, I do not want anyone else to experience any form of chronic suffering. I do not smoke and I never will, but I want to have strong law, which is what we are here to achieve. I therefore ask the Minister to give me some reassurances on Northern Ireland and TPD2, because that is fundamental to the roll out of this smoke free generation. I also have a question on what we will do about imports of cigarettes to ensure that we do not have the illicit trade we were talking of.

I think we all need to take a deep breath before I call the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Dowd. At least, in taking your deep breath, you will not be passive smoking—it is a healthier deep breath than it might otherwise be. I thank all hon. Members for their input into the debate on these amendments and new clauses, as well as clause stand part. I will try to address the points that have been made.

First, I will clarify my previous contribution. The police do of course enforce the law on smoking in cars with children; we were talking about the retail side of things, and the police do not have a role in enforcement in retail—I just wanted to make that clarification.

Will the Minister therefore clarify something for the record or for anyone listening to proceedings? If one is suspicious that a particular retailer is selling tobacco products to children or, in the fullness of time, to those who should not be receiving it, to whom do they report it?

These are matters for trading standards. Trading standards is the enforcement authority. If people have a concern today about a retailer in their area that is potentially selling tobacco or alcohol products to people who are under age, they should report it to trading standards. Trading standards will investigate, and may even do test purchasing as one of the tools at its disposal. As we discussed previously, should that test purchase unfortunately show that someone was sold a particular product under the legal age, appropriate action can be taken within the framework of law, and that will continue to be the case under the Bill. For a first offence, that might be a written letter, or it might be amplified through the court process, depending on the severity and the particular situation.

I want to dwell briefly on the comments of the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. He is right that many young people now do not smoke; certainly, they do not smoke in the numbers they did when I was a young lad, when my peers took up smoking. That is a good thing, and as a consequence of the past two decades of tobacco control measures, we have got to the place we are in, but let us not be complacent. The hon. Member for Windsor is keen on international comparisons, and we have seen increases in youth smoking in the USA and Australia because there has not necessarily been the concerted tobacco control that we want to see. I do not want to see smoking prevalence increase in the United Kingdom as an unintended consequence of saying, “Well, we have sorted it with the kids. It’s all right.”

I had the privilege of being interviewed by LADbible. I did not even know what LADbible was, but now I am aware, because I ended up with not one story, but a set of four stories off the back of this Bill. It is incredibly keen on reporting on this Bill—no doubt it is listening in to the proceedings. One of the questions I was asked was whether I was concerned that young people are again being bombarded with images on social media of film stars and influencers—whatever the trendy term is for the great and the good these days—smoking. As in the images that we used to see in magazines and newspapers, it looks sexy again, and I am concerned about that. My answer was that it is often best for politicians not to give advice to kids, because they think, “Yeah, whatever—you would say that,” but, as a father and a grandfather, my advice to the next generation is that there is nothing sexy about having yellow fingertips. There is nothing sexy about having a cough. There is nothing sexy about clothes stinking. There is nothing sexy about bad breath.

Cigarettes and tobacco are not sexy, but we cannot be complacent that we have fixed the problem. That is why we need to stop that conveyor belt so that the tobacco industry of today knows that the customer base of today is it. We are coming after the industry, because I want to beat the addiction that the hon. Member for Windsor talks about. I want to ensure that those millions of smokers in the United Kingdom, whether in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England, have every opportunity to give up, to break that addiction and to be free. That is real liberty.

In the impact assessment, it says that 95% of people cannot give up through willpower alone. Will the Minister congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), who told me that over Christmas he has managed to give up smoking using willpower alone? This is the first time that he has not been smoking.

I do not want to tempt fate or for the right hon. Gentleman to end up smoking again, but that is great. Anybody who manages to break free of that addiction and to do so on their own—through willpower alone—is incredibly tough. That is why the previous Government committed to funding for smoking cessation services and introduced things such as swap to stop. This Government are continuing that investment into stop smoking services, and we are determined that anybody who wants to give up will have everything that we can throw at them to help them off their addiction. However, for the next generation, that is it—we have stopped that conveyor belt, because we know that the tobacco industry will target them wherever we put the borders. The measures in clause 1 are so important.

The shadow Minister asked why 2009. I will let the cat out of the bag: not everything that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) did was bad. The previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill showed real leadership by him. Announcing it at the Conservative party conference did not just take Conservatives such as the hon. Member for Windsor by surprise; it took a lot of us by surprise, because we had been calling for precisely the New Zealand model after Javed Khan had reported back. We think that 2009 is appropriate.

I get the urgency of this issue, and I share the urgency outlined by the shadow Minister to bring the date forward, but we have to be real here. As the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire said, we want these measures to be workable and we want this Bill to be a success. The lead in time is slightly shortened, because the Bill was parked due to the general election and had to be reintroduced, but it gives us an appropriate lead in time for these big changes, particularly in our engagement with the retail sector and in getting some of these measures right for the retail sector. We are working with the sector on guidance and on how we allay some of the concerns that have rightly been raised in the course of this debate. Subject to Royal Assent, the measures in the Bill will come into force on 1 January 2027. That is an appropriate, proportionate and measured way of reaching our ambition of getting to smoke free and working with industry to get us there. That is why we have gone for 2009.

The shadow Minister mentioned bongs and other paraphernalia. This is an issue that really gets on my nerves, because it is possible to walk down Strutton Ground, the street just at the side of the Department of Health and Social Care, and see vape shops there that not only have all the colourful packages of vapes, but what I consider to be drug paraphernalia, in their windows. That is the result of a loophole. Under drugs legislation, which of course is the remit of the Home Office, such paraphernalia can be displayed by shops so long as it is not sold for the use of drugs consumption.

We all know what bongs are for, and I have raised this issue with the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, who shares my view that we need to crack down on it. I asked my officials whether we could end up with a perverse situation, whereby the measures in the Bill mean that, subject to consultation, the display of vapes—all those colourful packages—would be replaced by vapes in plain packages and in cabinets locked away, not to be seen and with the shop window bare of them, but instead the shop window could be full of bongs. That would be a real perversity, where it would not be possible—rightly—to see tobacco or vape products in the windows of these establishments, but it would be possible to see drugs paraphernalia in them instead.

My officials assure me that the only reason that such shops can sell bongs, rather than display them, is because bongs can also be used to smoke tobacco products. That is the loophole. Given that we are bringing within the scope of the Bill a number of things that can be used to smoke tobacco and banning their display, that means—thank God—that the measures in the Bill will get rid of that awful loophole. That will mean that shops around the country, including shops just around the corner from the Department of Health and Social Care, will no longer be able to show drugs paraphernalia in their windows.

The Minister is making a very powerful and impassioned speech; I get the impression that he finds this situation frustrating. I wonder whether he will put a clause in the Bill that specifies bongs and other such paraphernalia, because, although a bong may be a product for using tobacco with, it is not a tobacco product, is it? So which clause will ban them?

We believe that a bong is a tobacco product, because the only reason shops are able to treat bongs as not being drugs paraphernalia and therefore to sell them is for the consumption of tobacco. There are all the other things that are addressed in the Bill, such as pipes and so on, and bongs are no different. Therefore, we will make sure that the loophole that currently exists when it comes to drugs paraphernalia is closed.

Bongs are not explicitly dealt with in the Bill, but the hon. Lady raised them as an issue and they are a real bugbear of mine. As I am sure she can tell, dealing with them is something that I have been championing, both with officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and with my colleague the police Minister. I am assured—indeed, I am reassured—that a consequence of the measures in the Bill will be that bongs will no longer be able to be displayed for sale in shops.

The Minister is making a very impassioned point and I am grateful to him for doing so. Given his great passion for this area and the fact that, as the Minister for Public Health, he has his hands on the levers of power, so it is up to him—to govern is to choose—why has he not chosen to put in a specific mention of these products? It is up to him to do so if he wishes.

Because we do not need to. The measures in the Bill cover these bongs. For example, although it is not a direct tobacco product, clause 45 gives Ministers the power to cover devices used to consume tobacco, which is the power to say, “Well, you’re selling these bongs. We know it’s for drugs, but you’re selling these bongs on the basis that it is to consume tobacco.” Therefore, they are no longer covered because clause 45 gives Ministers the power to do that.

I will try to rattle through because I know Members are very keen to get to other parts of the United Kingdom for which transport is not easily available. Apologies if I miss anything. I will try not to take interventions as a consequence—I hope Members will forgive me for that. On whether the rules apply to snuff in Parliament, I do not know the answer off the top of my head; perhaps I should. I have been around here for such a long time that I remember the implementation of the indoor smoking ban. My recollection is that Parliament was not covered because it is a royal palace, and we got a bit of flak for that. Rightly, the parliamentary authorities decided that they would apply the law within the Palace of Westminster, even though the law did not apply to it, and that is why the Smoking Room is smoke free. It may well be that snuff goes the same way, but I imagine those will be matters for the House authorities.

On reasonable steps and what they are, retailers may check other forms of ID, not just the forms outlined in the Bill—for example, that may include veterans ID cards. We are very clear that other forms of ID can be shown, as long as the retailer can show that they have taken all reasonable steps to avoid selling to a person under age, and that is the important thing.

On tourists and the potential for the President of the United States not to be able to attend a G7 if he wants to have a cigarette, the duty free rules are not changing. Those coming into Great Britain from outside the UK are allowed to bring an amount of tobacco for personal use, which is 200 cigarettes or 250 g of tobacco, although there is no personal allowance for those under 17. The President of the USA can bring 200 cigarettes with him to a future G7—that is not an issue.

On enforceability, as I have said, trading standards is responsible for enforcing tobacco and vape sales, and district councils are responsible for regulations at a local level in England, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland, Border Force and HMRC also have an important role to stamp out opportunities for criminals in the illicit tobacco trade. We are working closely with retail associations and will develop guidance with them to support the successful implementation of the enforcement measures in the Bill. That is a really important point, and it leads into the point made by the shadow Minister on why we are not bringing the measures of the Bill further forward. We want that lead in time to get these measures right so that retailers are clear on both what those measures are and how we can work with them to get it right.

The Bill introduces a new defence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for retailers accused of selling to someone under age, if the retailer can prove that they were shown an identity document that shows the customer was above the age of sale. The Bill sets that out, but as I have said, other forms of ID are not unreasonable.

On protecting retail staff from abuse, we are working really closely with retailers and will use the long lead in time to support them in preparing for and implementing these changes. We will not stand for violence and abuse against any shop workers. Everybody has the right to feel safe on the job and this Government will introduce a new offence of assaulting a retail worker to protect the hard working and dedicated staff who work in the stores.

Order. Given the time, if the Whip wants to move the adjournment, I have decided to permit returning to this debate at 9.25 am on Tuesday, if the Minister wishes.

Mr Dowd, I think that is very sensible. Certainly, in other Bill Committees that I have been on in the near two decades that I have been here, I have seen Ministers be cut off at the time of interruption, to continue their oration when the Committee next meets. That is partly why I wanted to sit down at the time agreed by the usual channels.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Adjourned till Tuesday 14 January at twenty five minutes past Nine o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

TVB39 Arcus Compliance Limited

TVB41 Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)—on the licensing and registration powers in the Bill

TVB42 Mental Health and Smoking Partnership (a coalition of organisations co ordinated by ASH) on the impact of the Bill on people with mental health conditions

TVB43 British Brands Group

TVB44 British Heart Foundation

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Peter Dowd, † Sir Roger Gale, Sir Mark Hendrick

† Ahmed, Dr Zubir (Glasgow South West) (Lab)

† Al Hassan, Sadik (North Somerset) (Lab)

† Barros Curtis, Mr Alex (Cardiff West) (Lab)

† Bool, Sarah (South Northamptonshire) (Con)

† Chambers, Dr Danny (Winchester) (LD)

† Cooper, Dr Beccy (Worthing West) (Lab)

† Dickson, Jim (Dartford) (Lab)

† Foy, Mary Kelly (City of Durham) (Lab)

† Gwynne, Andrew (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Care)

† Jarvis, Liz (Eastleigh) (LD)

† Johnson, Dr Caroline (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)

† Osborne, Tristan (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)

† Owatemi, Taiwo (Lord Commissioner of His Majesty's Treasury)

† Rankin, Jack (Windsor) (Con)

† Stafford, Gregory (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)

† Stainbank, Euan (Falkirk) (Lab)

† Whitby, John (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)

Chris Watson, Kevin Candy, Sanjana Balakrishnan, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 9 January 2025

(Morning)

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. To those to whom I have not already had the opportunity to say so, happy new year.

Let me first set out a few housekeeping arrangements. Please switch off all electronic devices. We do not want phones ringing; I hope mine is off. No food and drink is permitted during sittings, apart from water. If anybody needs anything else, will they please leave the room and obtain it from the usual places? If Members have speaking notes, they are always useful to Hansard, particularly if they refer to a name or a business in a constituency or anything like that. That just about deals with that bit of it.

We are about to begin line by line consideration of the Bill.

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Good morning; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I rise on a point of order about the groupings for our discussions today. They are normally provided in good time, but at about 9 o’clock last night my team were provided with two versions that differed slightly: one from the Government and another from the Clerk. That did not give adequate time for the groupings to be properly considered. As you know, Sir Roger, this Bill is really important to me, but it is also important to the House and to our constituents. It aims to revolutionise their health and wellbeing. It is really very important that we get it right.

Another set of groupings has now been provided this morning. It was not delivered until about 9.30 am, and it is different from both the sets delivered last night. I think only the Minister, the Government Whip and I are the only Committee members who were MPs before July last year. I seek your guidance, Sir Roger, on how we can ensure, particularly for new Members, that there is proper time to scrutinise and appraise each clause and each group properly before the debate.

Exceptionally, this is a matter for the Chair—normally, points of order have nothing to do with the Chair at all.

First, I have a note prepared by the Clerks, which I will read because it is relevant to part of what has been said. The Clerks in the Public Bill Office work on behalf of the Chairs—my colleagues and me—to prepare a provisional selection and grouping of amendments. It is very important that that is accurate. For those who have not served on a Bill Committee, I will come on to why that is done, which may help further downstream to explain the process of line by line scrutiny.

This is a very big Bill. A significant number of amendments have been tabled. Not entirely unusually, the Committee took oral evidence on Tuesday. Inevitably, such situations generate the late but timely—in the sense of being within the time limit—tabling of amendments.

Where the Clerks have to preside over the oral evidence sessions as well as trying to do all the rest of the work, it inevitably places a great strain on the system. It is no criticism whatever of the Clerks, who are formidable in the work that they do, that this has pushed it right up against the wire.

I know that the Government and, I believe, the Government solicitors and the Opposition received notice of the provisional selections fairly late last night. That is regrettable. It is always the case in such Committees that wherever possible all members, particularly the Government Minister and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, should get material in as timely a fashion as possible. That is a given, but there are exceptional circumstances, and these were exceptional circumstances.

I can only apologise on my own behalf—because my colleagues and I are ultimately responsible for the selection—for the fact that the grouping was late. I appreciate that that has created some difficulties, although not insuperable ones. If anything arising from that requires attention, we will deal with it as we go along, because part of our job is to be as flexible as we reasonably can.

I will seek advice on the hon. Lady’s second question about the groupings.

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. There is a second point that I want to raise; I have given notice to the Chair. Because of the aforementioned delay in getting the groupings, I have not had time to scrutinise all the clauses of this very big Bill, as you have described it, but it strikes me as unusual that amendments 75 and 76 have been linked with clause 1.

In my experience, it is unusual to discuss amendments to one clause while considering another. My amendments 75 and 76 would amend clause 69 on page 36. Clause 69 is essentially a relative of clause 2, in so far as it tries to make things equivalent across the United Kingdom. I therefore wonder whether as Chair you might agree that amendments 75 and 76 would instead be best considered at the same time as clause 2.

I thank the hon. Lady; that is very helpful. I fully understand what she is saying. This is an arcane process and it is an art, not a science. Personally, I am more than willing to consider grouping amendments 75 and 76 under clause 2 rather than clause 1. Because the selection list has been published, that requires the leave of the Committee. If the Committee is happy to do so, I am minded to accept the suggestion.

As I hear no objections, the hon. Lady has won her case. Amendments 75 and 76 will therefore be taken under clause 2 with amendments 58 and 59.

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger—

Don’t push your luck!

It is a point for the Chair, and it is procedural. I have not seen this sort of thing happen before. Normally, we agree the groupings and then they just flow.

I have not had the opportunity to go through all the pages and pages of the Bill and see whether there are other issues like the one with amendments 75 and 76. Will there be a further opportunity to amend the sequencing as we go?

There will be a further opportunity to raise a point of order. It will be up to whoever is in the Chair at the time to decide whether to take the kind of action that, on the Clerk’s sound advice, I have just taken. I appreciate that this is a complex Bill and we may well find that one or two amendments are more comfortably located under other clauses. If that is so, sensibly and flexibly, we will endeavour to accommodate that.

On a point of order, Sir Roger. The loop system in this room does not appear to be working, at least not for my hearing aid. I do not know whether somebody can get it switched on or, if not, whether Members could please amplify when they speak.

That request, I understand, has been remitted. We will do the best we can. Will hon. Members be kind enough to ensure that they speak clearly for the sake of the Minister and anybody else in a similar position? Exceptionally, I am more than prepared to make sure that the person speaking is addressing the Minister rather than the Chair, as would normally be the case, because sometimes in these circumstances it helps to see somebody’s lips. Again, I can only apologise that the system ain’t perfect.

I am well aware that there are hon. Members present who have not taken part in the Bill Committee process before. First, on code of dress, it is fine if anybody wishes to take their jacket off. You have the permission of the Chair to do so. You are supposed to seek the consent of the Chair before doing so; you have that consent.

Hon. Members who wish to intervene may do so in the same way as on the Floor of the House. It is up to the Member who has the Floor whether to give way, but it is customary in Committee. Unlike on the Floor of the House, it is not uncommon for a Member to seek to intervene more than once on the same subject for further clarification, if necessary. That is a given. I trust that Members are aware that—again, unlike on the Floor of the House—they are permitted to speak more than once during the debate on each grouping.

That brings me on to the groupings, about which we have had quite a lot of discussion already. This is an arcane process. Groupings on amendments and new clauses are tabled out of sequence, but in recognition of the subject matter under discussion. You will find that there are groupings with a lead amendment, which is the only one that will initially be moved. It is not uncommon for hon. Members to say, “Hang on a minute, I want to move that other amendment.” The answer to that is, “Later.” You move the amendment when we reach the appropriate point in the Bill; amendments are not necessarily moved immediately. If anybody wishes to press an amendment that is listed, but that is not immediately called as the lead amendment, will they please let the Chair know? It is not our job to try to prevent you from causing a Division if you choose to do so, but we do need to know. Otherwise, it may not get called.

Government amendments and some new clauses will be called in sequence as we work through the Bill. Although they may be debated this morning, they might not be called to be voted on—divided on—for two or three weeks. If you are in any doubt, ask. That goes for anything else as well. This is a difficult process to master. Whoever is in the Chair will be more than willing, if we do not know the answer, to take advice—the Clerk always does know—and make sure that you get the answers you want. In other words, if in doubt, ask. Do not sit there floundering.

That was intended to be helpful. I do not know whether it was or not. We will now commence line by line scrutiny of the Bill.

Clause 1 Sale of tobacco etc

We begin with the group led by amendment 17. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), who tabled all the amendments in the group, is not a member of the Committee and therefore cannot move them. Is there anybody present who has taken ownership of the amendments and wishes to move the lead amendment on behalf of the hon. Member?

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment makes it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to people born on or after 1 January 2009.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out “shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert “showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 22, in clause 5, page 3, line 8, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 23, in clause 6, page 3, line 30, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 24, in clause 6, page 3, line 32, leave out “a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 44, in schedule 5, page 132, line 2, leave out “a anwyd ar neu ar ôl 1 Ionawr 2009”

and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 48, in schedule 5, page 132, line 7, leave out from “berson” to end of line 8 and insert “dan 25 oed (“B”)”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 45, in schedule 5, page 132, line 12, leave out from “person” to end of line and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 46, in schedule 5, page 132, line 38, leave out from “rhoi” to “a” in line 39 and insert “yn 25 oed neu drosodd”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 47, in schedule 5, page 133, line 2, leave out from “person” to end of line 3 and insert “dan 25 oed”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 39, in schedule 5, page 133, line 16, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 40, in schedule 5, page 133, line 21, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 41, in schedule 5, page 133, line 26, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 42, in schedule 5, page 134, line 9, leave out “born before 1 January 2009”

and insert “over the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 43, in schedule 5, page 134, line 14, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 25, in clause 50, page 25, line 30, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 26, in clause 50, page 25, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 34 and insert “under the age of 25 (‘the customer’) to be aged 25 or over”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 27, in clause 50, page 25, line 37, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 28, in clause 50, page 26, line 1, leave out subsection (3).

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 29, in clause 50, page 26, line 28, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 29 and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 30, in clause 50, page 26, line 30, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 31 and insert “under 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 31, in clause 50, page 26, line 33, leave out from “substitute” to end of line and insert “under 25.”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 32, in clause 68, page 35, line 28, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 33, in clause 68, page 35, line 37, leave out “shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

and insert “showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 38, in clause 72, page 37, line 28, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17. Amendment 49, in title, line 2, leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert “under the age of 25”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 17.

The amendments do not stand in my name, and they are not amendments with which I agree, but they relate to a very important part of the Second Reading debate that goes to the heart of the principles behind the Bill. I have moved the lead amendment so that the debate can be heard in full and so that hon. Members can establish for themselves whether they wish to support the amendments.

I will refer to these amendments as the Maguire amendments, if that helps, as they were all tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who is not on the Committee. It is, of course, the Whips who choose who goes on the Committee—[Interruption.] Sorry, can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Thank you. I am aware that the Whips choose who gets to go on Committees. Sometimes that is a blessing; sometimes it can be less welcome, particularly if it is a long Committee that goes on for months. For someone who is passionate about a cause, but is not aligned with the Whips’ view and is not chosen for a Committee, it can be frustrating not to have something discussed that they believe important. We are all here to represent our constituents and to think carefully about the legislation in front of us. Although the amendments were tabled by a Member who is not a member of my party, and I do not actually agree with them, I want to ensure that they get a proper hearing.

Amendments 17 and 18 would amend clause 1, which will introduce a prohibition on selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to any individual born on or after 1 January 2009. The Government’s intent is to create a tobacco free generation by progressively restricting access to tobacco related products for younger age groups as they age. This is a measure that was first discussed in the Khan report and was brought forward in the previous Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which was introduced by the Conservative Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who wanted to ensure that we eliminate smoking as far as possible, for people’s health, but that we would not impose a criminal penalty on people who already smoke and thereby criminalise an addiction that is so difficult to give up. That is the reason for the rolling sale.

Under clause 1, sellers will be required to verify the buyer’s age using acceptable identity documents, which are listed as being passports, UK or EU driving licences or proof of age identity cards, known as PASS cards. If the seller relies on valid looking ID showing that the buyer was born before 1 January 2009, or if they can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to avoid an offence, they have a legal defence against prosecution. Violating the clause is an offence punishable by a fine of up to level 4 on the standard scale; I am sure we will come on to what that means later. It is currently capped at £2,500.

This measure is part of a broader strategy to combat smoking by reducing access among younger generations and curbing the initiation of tobacco use. By enforcing strict age verification and imposing financial penalties, the clause aims progressively to eliminate tobacco use, contributing to long term public health improvements.

New clause 17 would leave out “born on or after 1 January 2009”

and insert in its place “under the age of 25”.

That would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers to a person under the age of 25, rather than to a person born on or after 1 January 2009.

Order. For the sake of clarity, we are referring to amendment 17, not new clause 17.

Thank you, Sir Roger. I am very grateful for your guidance. I think spending much of the night trying to get to grips with the various drafts has left me a little tired. I appreciate the difference. As you said, the process is somewhat confusing, but at least we are moving through it steadily.

Amendment 17 would significantly alter the scope of clause 1 by replacing the birth date specific restriction of 1 January 2009. Instead of targeting individuals born on or after that date, the new provision would make it an offence to sell tobacco products, herbal smoking products or cigarette papers to anyone under the age of 25. That modification would shift the focus from creating a tobacco free generation to implementing a uniform age limit similar to the one that we have already.

My hon. Friend knows that we disagree on the principle of clause 1, and my objection is primarily to creating two tiers of adults. One of the benefits of the Bill, as it is currently written, is that it is at least a time limited measure. In other words, when that generation dies out, every adult will be one tier again. With amendment 17, however, we will effectively have two tiers of adults forever, so a 19-year old will always—or until we change the law again—be able to drink but will not be able to smoke, and that will be set in stone. Does my hon. Friend agree that, even if she thinks we should create two tiers of adults for public health purposes, we should try to delimit that as much as possible, and therefore the principle of the amendment should not be accepted by this Committee?

Order. Another thing colleagues might notice is that that was quite a long intervention. Customarily in Committee, as opposed to on the Floor of the House, it is not unusual for a Chair to allow a fairly long intervention, because quite often that obviates the need for a speech later. Be aware of that flexibility.

Once again, Sir Roger, I am very grateful for your guidance to the Committee. I was explaining the change in amendment 17, and my hon. Friend, like the very wise chap that he is, brings something forward that I had not really considered, despite my attention to this Bill over some time—and Members will be very much aware it is something that I have taken a long interest in.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: some people argue that the Bill creates two tiers of adults—some who are allowed to smoke and some who are not. In fact, that is exactly what it does. Eventually, of course, people get older and older. I saw that the oldest person in the world sadly passed on in the last week or so, and she was 116. I am not quite sure about the age of the current oldest person in the world, but I suspect their age is similar. Therefore, I suspect that it will take quite a long time before my hon. Friend’s ideal of all adults being treated the same is once again achieved. I suspect that I will certainly be long gone before it does, and I anticipate that the rules we are proposing will last the rest of our lifetimes here today.

This modification shifts the approach from creating a tobacco free generation to implementing a uniform age limit that applies universally, regardless of the buyer’s birth year. That simplifies enforcement because sellers would need only to confirm whether a buyer is under 25, and they would not need to do the mental arithmetic in their head that says, “Okay, that is their birthday, but how old would that make them?” The Minister, in his questions on Tuesday, raised the point repeatedly with one of our witnesses about whether it is simpler to have a date of birth or an age. My understanding is that a lot of tills nowadays will give a prompt to the person working behind the till to say, “If you are born before or after this date, that is where the 18 cut off is.”

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the promotion—I shall mention it the Chief Whip and see how that goes!

My training and experience as a pharmacist over two decades involved working with systems such as tills that teach people how to ask for age verification. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister is spot on and that actually this is a moot point, because the software, support and training is already there across the country, including in independent shops, and age verification is quite easy to do?

I think it is straightforward to have an age and a date of birth to check. It could become more confusing if we ended up with a range of age restricted products and the age for each of them was different, as that would require people to look at a whole spreadsheet of dates of birth.

Software systems I have worked with already have the facility to differentiate by product, including for razor blades and alcohol products. That already exists across retail and in a variety of retail premises.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention highlights the fact that in Parliament we benefit from the experience of so many different people. Each of us comes to this place with our own history, backstory and experience of working in a whole range of different professions and jobs. That is one of the reasons why we go through these Bills line by line. It may seem to some extent slow and plodding to go through things so methodically, but that means that each person can, as he has, bring their experience forward and explain the ways that tills and such things work, which is really beneficial. I thank him for that intervention.

I slightly disagree with the hon. Member for North Somerset. It seems to me that over time, we have been getting more consistent in our understanding of what an adult is. Obviously, I am quite a young man, but when I turned 16, I could buy a lottery ticket, I could get married without my parents’ permission and I could join the Army. I could then learn to drive at 17. Many of those have been regularised in the last few years, so the age for buying lottery tickets is now 18 and one cannot get married before 18 either. That is part of ensuring consistency about what an adult is.

It may well be true that pharmacies have such technology, and I understand why, but most cigarettes are bought in small newsagents and I would not necessarily expect them to have the same technology. We should be supporting consistency in what an adult is—that is the direction in which legislation has been moving—and not creating added complexity.

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. I do not know whether any Member present has worked in a small corner shop and could tell us whether they have the same level of technology. Perhaps the Minister or his officials know whether the same level of technology is used in shops across the board. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that.

On that point, will my hon. Friend give way?

Yes; if my hon. Friend knows the answer, I would be delighted to hear it.

I do not know the answer to that question, although I suspect that many such shops do not. Although I agree with my hon. Friend about the thrust of the Bill, something that does concern me comes not from the retailer point of view but the consumer point of view. At the moment—please do not disabuse me of this view—when I go and buy a bottle of wine or a pint of beer, I am very rarely, if ever, IDed. But I accept that if, on the rare occasion that I am IDed, I do not have a form of identification, it is not the biggest problem in the world. Most of the time, however, people can see that I am over the age of 25 or over the age of 18, so it does not happen.

If the Bill were to go forward in its current form, every smoker would essentially have to carry a form of ID all the time. Some, especially the older generation, might not have a suitable form of identification and some—if they are, like me, a civil libertarian—might not want to carry ID, so how do we get around that point in the Bill to ensure that we do not end up having ID cards for older people by the back door?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Some people are averse to carrying ID—it is not something that bothers me personally, but I am aware that for some people it is a sticking point. In a previous debate before the election, the former Member for Norwich North, Chloe Smith, made the point that not all adults will be affected by this legislation, but only a relatively narrow band of them.

The last time I was carded for ID, I was 38. I was not buying the typical basket of a 17-year old; I was buying flowers—orchids—and a bottle of champagne for someone’s housewarming, as well as some strawberries, because she had phoned to ask me to get some when I was on the way, as she was running out at the housewarming party. I was IDed, so I was not able to buy the champagne for her, because the supermarket would not let me. That was disappointing for both of us, but I accepted the fact that if ID could not be shown and they genuinely believed that I looked under 25, that was the law and it had to be accepted. That is not universally the case, and I am aware—as we heard in evidence—that retailers can sometimes receive significant verbal and occasionally violent abuse when they ask for ID in that way.

Will the Minister give way?

I keep getting promoted!

The shadow Minister is having a good morning, having not had a particularly great evening last night. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Windsor, who made this point in his intervention, by the time that the age of sale is legally his age, we hope that smoking prevalence in that age group will be next to zero, and therefore it will not be an issue.

I thank the Minister for his intervention, although I am not sure what he is implying about the age of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor—

Wisdom!

Wisdom or age, but I shall be cautious not to answer too closely.

I accept the view that having to provide ID will be inconvenient and frustrating for some people, but all the expert witnesses on Tuesday pointed out that many smokers do not wish the younger generation to continue smoking. I think that most of them would probably be of that view that the slight infringement of their civil liberties in having to carry ID is a small price to pay for the knowledge that they are preventing smoking from being taken up.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the measures have broad support. Certainly, the pollsters who have investigated people’s views of this legislation—that proposed by the previous Government and the legislation as it is now, with some tweaks to it—have found the public to be overwhelmingly positive. We legislate because we are elected by those people. On the basis of their opinions and given that policing in this country is done by consent—

On the civil liberties point, I disagree with my hon. Friend entirely, as she well knows. The point about civil liberties is that they need protecting not when the majority agree, but when the majority do not agree. The hon. Member for Winchester made the point that all the experts agreed. We listened to a cohort of experts who were from a variety of fields, but they were also all in some way paid for by the state and had some vested interest in the Bill—they were not retailers, consumers and so on— [Interruption.] We had one person out of 15. It was really not a well balanced affair at all, so I disagree with that point.

I think that comes back to the issue of choice. The chief medical officer said that the only choice we make is the choice to have that first hit of nicotine; after that, our choice is taken from us by the profound addiction that we experience. One of the challenges with stopping smoking is that people get powerful cravings. Despite their overwhelming desire to stop, the cravings drive people to have a cigarette that they do not really want or would rather not have because of their addiction.

May I de aggregate the two separate, distinct points about the age that will be defined on a driving licence or passport versus the concept of having ID?

On the first point, most identity documents will contain a defined birth date, which makes it easier for a retailer or sales individual to check the date. They do not contain an age, per se, but they have the date of birth, which creates an easier means of assessment.

The second point about having ID is a separate, distinct issue. In some countries in Europe, they put identity cards on the back of credit or debit cards, for instance. The question of how we would define that identity is a separate element or, perhaps, a separate amendment to the clause that may expand the list of identity that would be bona fide, but we nevertheless use the concept of identity already in many cases to purchase products.

If we are against identity cards or any form of identity, how are we supposed to look at any product with regard to sales, including ones that we might be challenged on, such as when the shadow Minister was purchasing her orchid in a venue? We accept the premise of identity when we sell any licensed product at the present time, so we are merely extending the same premise.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution. I should be clear that I do not have an issue with carrying my driver’s licence or ID with me, although I am aware that some people genuinely do. If he wants to intervene again, I would be interested to hear whether that means that he is comfortable with voter ID, because his party, prior to the general election— I appreciate that he would not have voted on it, because he was not—

Order. I have been fairly lenient up to now, but you are pushing your luck.

I merely make the point that ID is used for purposes other than to buy cigarettes and tobacco, Sir Roger.

I want to return to a point raised in an earlier intervention about the group of people who would be asked to carry ID. If somebody’s birthday is, like mine, in 1977, it is sadly unlikely that anyone will think that I was born in or after 2009. The cohort affected will be those born around 2006 or 2012. I do not see this as an ID for old people through the back door, because, as I view it, there will be a cohort of people within five or even 10 years on either side of the 2009 boundary who will find themselves required to carry ID if they wish to smoke. If they do not wish to smoke or use any tobacco, cigarettes or smoking products, they will not be affected.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I keep getting promoted—that is fine.

Sorry. Does the hon. Lady accept that the changes that have resulted in significant decreases in smoking prevalence over the last 20 years have all been about imposing additional burdens on those who wish to smoke, such as on where they can smoke and how they can buy the products, which are now in lockable cupboards rather than out on display in shops? Asking someone who wishes to smoke to carry ID is an increased burden—a very small one, but an increased burden none the less—and it is all part of the policy family that has enabled us to reduce smoking prevalence from between 25% and 30% 20 or 30 years ago to 12% now, and that will hopefully help us reduce it to 5% or 0% in the future.

It is certainly the case, as I am sure we will come to when we discuss clause 1 itself in more detail, that where tobacco control measures have been brought in—on place, price, display or age group—they have led to a fall in smoking, which is a welcome and intended outcome.

I have been lumbered with a lot of interventions and I did not get to answer one point in full, which was on the issue of adult consistency. Amendment 17 would create two groups of adults—those aged between 18 and 25, who would be unable to smoke or use tobacco products, and those over 25, who would. The previous Government sought to say, “This is when you become an adult—when you turn 18. Before that, you are a child, and we will use child protection and safeguarding measures, so you cannot get married or buy a lottery ticket.” We sought to create consistency across the board, because consistency helps people to understand what the law is, which makes it easier for them to follow it and give a greater level of consent to it.

Let me turn back to the amendments. I cannot speak directly for the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who tabled the amendments, but one of the reasons that has been given to me for increasing the age to 25 is that people normally begin smoking when they are young. Most people begin before they are 16, and many more before they are 21. That means that in principle, if we raised the age to 25, we would find that people did not start smoking in any great numbers, because their brain and their thinking process would be more mature, so they would be less likely to start. It is also the case that if someone starts smoking at a younger age, they are more vulnerable to the addictive properties of nicotine, as we heard in the impact assessment and in medical evidence.

One of the challenges with introducing an age restriction of 25 is that a 19-year old can smoke today, but that rule would suddenly take away a right that they previously had. However, the proposal on the table is for a sliding scale, whereby they will never have had the right to smoke. We are not taking away a right that someone might have had previously. Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a slight difference between having an age restriction of 25 and a sliding increase in age?

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, in my personal view, to say that. As we heard before, the previous Government wanted to ensure that in bringing forward a Bill, they were not going to criminalise people with an addiction to a product that they could not quit, and therefore leave them in a situation where they could no longer buy the product they needed to feed that addiction. Obviously, we want them to stop, but we do not want to make them stop by making them criminals. So, yes, I would be concerned that sticking in a sudden increase to 25 would mean that any smokers legally accessing tobacco products between the ages of 18 and 25 would find themselves somewhat stuck. That is not something I would wish to see.

As a point of clarification, what the proposals in the Bill, and indeed the amendment, deal with is the selling of tobacco products, not the consumption. So when we are talking people not being able to smoke, they would be able to, but a retailer would not be able to sell them tobacco products. I say that just so we are clear what we are talking about.

According to clause 1, my hon. Friend is right.

Yes, under this clause.

Under this clause, it is true that somebody would not be able to purchase tobacco, but clause 2 means that somebody cannot purchase tobacco on behalf of somebody else. It would not be possible legally for somebody under the age of 25, if the clause was amended, or somebody born after 1 January 2009, if it was not, to buy tobacco, but it would also be illegal for them to use it because, under clause 2, which provides for proxy purchase, the person who gave the younger individual tobacco would themselves have broken the law.

Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Eastleigh asked the chief medical officer why he supported the rolling change in the age for purchasing tobacco, rather than a new cut off of 21 or 25. He explained that young people have been specifically targeted by the tobacco industry. With regard to vaping specifically, we have heard examples in evidence of attempts to entice children to use vapes. However, that is also the case for tobacco products. On Amazon—other sites are available, Chair—people can buy cigarette papers that are bubble gum flavoured, that have pictures on them of apricots, bubbles and cherries or that are pink, blue, green, orange and yellow. Are those designed to attract adults? I am not so sure.

The chief medical officer sounded a note of caution about the tobacco industry and the fact that it tends to move quickly to maintain its market when the law is changed. As I understood it from him at the beginning of the week, if we changed the age of sale to 25, people may be less prone to taking up tobacco products and less prone to addiction if they do, but the risk is that the industry would regroup around the new age of 25 and look instead at what advertising and promotion measures would most likely make 24, 25 or 26-year olds—that generation—smoke or take up tobacco products. In a few years’ time, we would therefore be back saying, “Should we increase the age to 30?” In practice, that is what the Government propose to address by picking a defined date instead.

Can we acknowledge that youth initiation often starts before the age of 18? Moving the age to 25, as this amendment proposes, would not automatically shift the dial on when youth initiation starts by seven years. The Bill permanently demarcates a smoke free generation that we are specifically targeting.

When Parliament brings in any law of any kind, most people will follow it—the vast majority of the public are law abiding citizens who want to know what the law is and obey it. However, whatever law we bring in, there will always be people who will disobey it. Even if cigarettes were completely banned, people would buy them. Many products—cocaine and heroin, for example—are banned, but some people still access and purchase them, so the Bill would not eliminate the issue completely.

Perhaps I could answer the hon. Gentleman with a couple of statistics. According to the Government impact assessment, 66% of smokers begin smoking before they are 18, and 83% before they are 20. Yet the research shows that three quarters of those smokers, were they to have their time again, would prefer never to have started smoking.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the age of sale for cigarettes was previously 16 and that a previous Government made it 18 instead. The effect was reviewed by scientists at University College London in 2010, and we saw a fall in smoking in all age groups. That is in line with what we have seen across a lot of the western world: smoking rates have declined. Actually, if we look at the difference between the younger and the older people, that fall was 11% in those in the 18 to 24 age group, but 30% in those aged 16 to 17. That meant that the age group targeted by the ban was much more likely not to start smoking. That is the start of the smoke free generation, and we hope that a similar pattern will be seen and roll forwards.

On that point, according to Cancer Research, about nine in 10 people start smoking before the age of 21. Surely, if we increase that to 25, by default we are preventing more people from starting by that point. Going back to enforcement, I think that 25 is more of an age by which we have caught the youth and stopped them from starting.

I understand that opinion, and I guess that is what is behind amendment 17, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell. The evidence—certainly that which we heard on Tuesday from the chief medical officer and others—suggests that raising the age as far as 25 will help, and the Government’s impact assessment says they considered that option; they thought it would help to reduce smoking levels, and I think that that is true. However, it does bring the risk of either creating a great delay in bringing these measures in, because we want to wait until all current 18-year old smokers are 25, or criminalising people who are currently legal smokers. If we still ended up with people starting smoking at 25, we would have not created that smoke free generation, because we would not have brought those rates of smoking down as close to zero as possible. Given the harms caused by smoking—I am sure we will go through them in the debate on clause 1—it is important that we do all we can to reduce the number of smokers.

On the point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, a common maxim applied to our public policy on harmful substances is that we promote what we permit. Even having a permission to smoke and buy cigarettes after the age of 25 means that society is effectively saying that that is fine to do, albeit harmful. We do not do that with very many other harmful substances, so it would seem odd to do it with cigarettes.

I think this comes down to the libertarian argument. Someone can be an adult either because they are over the age of 25, as per amendment 17, or because they are born before 1 January 2009, as per clause 1, unamended by amendment 17. Essentially, whichever type of adult someone is, we would normally say, “If you are an adult, you make an informed choice about which substances to take and what risks you want to take with your life.” But two thirds of people who take cigarettes will die as a result.

There are other substances that we do ban, and there is a scale. There is the libertarian who would have us make all drugs—whether cannabis, cocaine or heroin—free for everyone to use and to buy as they choose. That is not a position I subscribe to, but it is a position that some subscribe to. There are also those who would go further and ban many more substances, such as certain foods that are particularly sweet or fatty but otherwise enjoyable. There is a spectrum, and I think—society probably agrees—that the judgment is that tobacco is very harmful to those who consume it, and potentially to those around them, in a way that does not offer them any significant benefit. I am a doctor, and when we prescribe medication, we look at the risk balance between the benefits of the substance that we are giving somebody and its potential harm. However, with smoking, as far as I can tell, there are no real benefits, other than an emptier pocket—because an individual has spent so much money—worse lungs and worse health.

Just to play devil’s advocate, there will be some who will say that they have a cigar from time to time, and that will be caught by this legislation. Cigars are not used in the same way as cigarettes, and they are not seen to be as highly addictive. People do not chain smoke cigars. Is it fair in that instance to remove their liberty to smoke a cigar? I am just pointing that out as a non smoker.

I will come back to that point when we get to the debate on clause 1 and tobacco products. It is an important point, but I am aware of the Chair’s tolerance, and the discussion at the moment is on amendment 17.

On the rise in age of sale, I talked about research that UCL did in 2010. Further research done in 2020 looked at the effect of raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 and found that the rates of ever smoking—people who had ever had a cigarette—had declined more among those aged 16 to 17 than among those aged 18 to 24. That supports the position that if access is restricted for younger people, they are less likely to smoke, which goes back to the point that most people are law abiding citizens and wish to follow the rules. Restricting sale also emphasises the dangers to people in their own minds, which is a point we will come back to in the discussion on vapes.

Let me move on to amendment 18, which is linked to amendment 17. It would leave out the words “shown on that document was before 1 January 2009”

in clause 1 and insert the words “showed that the purchaser was not under the age of 25”.

This is a technical point to allow the ID to reflect the principle of who is allowed to purchase tobacco. It is a broad shift. In the view of the proposer, transitioning from a birth date specific restriction to a general age based restriction simplifies compliance for sellers by focusing on the current age. In my view, it actually makes it more complicated, because there is more mathematics to do in one’s head. If one is fortunate enough to work in a pharmacy, as the hon. Member for North Somerset discussed, it requires two dates in the computer, which is more difficult than one.

I understand the point about the potential complexities, but there is a risk on enforcement that whenever anyone goes to buy cigarettes in the future, they will have to have some form of ID. That creates a distortion: someone could just be assumed to be over the age of 25, whereas under the Bill they will always have to be checked.

My hon. Friend is making a point about ID for purchasing things. It is reasonable to ask people to have ID when they go and collect a parcel, to make sure that they are getting a parcel for the right address. In my view, it is reasonable—I do not think my hon. Friend voted for it, but I suspect she would support the idea—to provide ID in order to vote to maintain our democratic process. Having ID to buy an age restricted product does not seem overly burdensome. I accept that it makes it more difficult for people below that age, because it provides a hurdle for them to overcome, in terms of potentially accessing some sort of fake ID. Most people want to obey the law, and that is an extra step in breaking the law that they would have to take, which they would not wish to do. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

Amendment 22 would amend clause 5, substituting the words “born on or after 1 January 2009”

with the phrase “under the age of 25”.

That is consistent with the changes that would be made by amendment 17 to clause 1. Amendment 23 would make a similar amendment to clause 6, again changing the date. The other amendments in this group are amendments 24, 44 and 48, which is in Welsh—I trust that it says the same thing, but since I do not speak any Welsh, I cannot be clear on that. This group also includes amendments 46, 47 and 39 to 43. Again, they all seek to change the thrust of the Bill away from a rolling smoke free generation to a fixed age of 25.

The same applies to amendments 25, 26, 28 to 33, 38 and 49. In summary, we have had the opportunity to debate the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who is not a member of the Committee, but I do not wish to push them to a vote.

Before we proceed, I shall not be in the Chair this afternoon, but I would be grateful if the shadow Minister could indicate whether she wishes to press amendment 18 as well as amendment 17, whether it is only amendment 17, or whether she may decide in due course not to press either. That is a matter for later, but it would be helpful to know if she wishes to press either.

It was my intention to ensure that the debate, even if it is on issues I do not support, got a hearing and that Members of the House who wished to contribute were able to do so. The purpose was to allow the amendments to be debated. I do not intend to push any of them to a vote.

I would like to support those amendments, if that changes anything, Sir Roger.

We will have a debate first. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to push the amendment to a Division if he chooses to do so, but not yet.

The only other thing I need to know before I call the Government Whip, which I assume is my next move, is to say that, ordinarily, when I am in the Chair, we have a thing called a clause stand part debate at the end of each clause—on the question that the clause, as amended, if it is amended, stand part of the Bill. I have always taken a fairly relaxed view: you can have a debate on clause stand part or you can debate clause stand part during all the amendments, but you cannot do both; you cannot have two bites of that cherry and just say the same thing all over again.

Ordinarily, under these circumstances, my impression already would be that by the time we have been through all these amendments, there would be no need for a clause stand part debate. I would then move straight to putting the question that the clause stand part of the Bill, but—I am afraid it is a big “but”—in this instance, the clause stand part debate is linked with two new clauses and two more stand part debates, so we will have to have it at the end. I would urge—and I expect that my colleague who takes over in the Chair this afternoon will wish to observe this—that we do not repeat the arguments that have been made on clause 1 stand part during the bigger debate at the end. I hope that is clear. If not, Members should, again, seek advice.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.