Information paragraphs
Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) (No. 2) Regulations 2026
30.This instrument would extend by six months a time limit for the exercise of powers in the Energy Prices Act 2022, from 25 October 2026 to 25 April 2027. The powers allow the Government to provide support to households for meeting the costs of energy. The Government is currently relying on these temporary powers to fund its ‘Renewables Obligation to Exchequer’ policy. The Renewables Obligation (RO) supports renewable electricity generation, with the costs passed on to consumers via energy bills. Under the RO to Exchequer policy, announced in the 2025 Budget, the Government has been providing grant funding to electricity suppliers since April 2026 to cover 75% of the costs of the RO in relation to the electricity supplied to domestic customers. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) says that the RO to Exchequer policy, together with the discontinuation of the Energy Company Obligation (a scheme that aims to tackle fuel poverty and help reduce carbon emissions), has lowered domestic energy bills by an average of £150 per year. The policy will be in place until 2028/29.
31.This would be the second extension; the first extension was from 25 April 2026 to 25 October 2026.10 The DESNZ says that while a further set of extension regulations will be required every six months to maintain the legislative basis for the RO to Exchequer policy, the Department plans to introduce new powers in primary legislation in this parliamentary session to provide a permanent legislative basis for the policy.
Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026
32.These draft Regulations propose a national scheme of delegation for planning decisions which must be followed by all relevant local planning authorities in England. The instrument specifies the types of planning application which would always be delegated to planning officers and other types of planning application which may instead, in some circumstances, be referred to a planning committee for a decision.11 The instrument also proposes to limit the size of planning committees to 13 members.
33.The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) says that these measures aim to help ensure that planning committees “play their proper role in scrutinising development without obstructing it”, while also “maximising” the use of experienced professional planners. The changes are intended to facilitate faster decision-making on planning applications and ensure greater standardisation in the way planning committees operate, thereby enabling a “more efficient service and greater certainty for applicants”.
34.Under the current rules, local authorities have discretion over the size of their planning committees and to determine which applications are decided by committee. The proposed new standard approach seeks to ensure that planning committees can focus on key development proposals in their areas and, in turn, speed up and improve the decision-making process, with planning officers dealing with more minor, technical planning decisions. The MHCLG expects the increase in applications going to planning officers to be “offset” by officers spending less time supporting the work of planning committees. The House may wish to enquire further about the MHCLG’s preference for a national, standardised approach over the existing policy which allows local planning authorities to decide the most appropriate approach for themselves.
35.As the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) does not offer any further explanation, we asked the MHCLG what criteria would be applied to determine whether applications should be decided by planning officers or by a planning committee. The MHCLG provided a summary of the proposed arrangements, including an explanation of a new “gateway process”, which is included in Appendix 1. We consider that this information should have been included in the EM. The criteria for deciding whether an application should go to a planning committee includes whether the application raises an “economic, social or environmental issue of significance to the local area”. Whilst guidance has been published to support local planning authorities in applying the new rules,12 we consider that this condition still leaves considerable room for interpretation. The House may wish to enquire further about how the condition will operate in practice.
36.We note that there was mixed feedback during several rounds of public consultation on the future approach in relation to “reserved matters”. Reserved matters are the specific details of a proposed development, such as its appearance, that are not considered at the outline planning application stage (during which the principle of development is decided), but at a later stage, before work on a development can start. In response to the feedback received, this instrument proposes that reserved matters approval applications which relate to a large outline planning permission (that is over 500 dwellings or 50,000 square metres of floorspace) would be presumed to be delegated to planning officers but may be considered by planning committees. The DESNZ says that such applications are more likely to raise important matters, such as the provision of onsite community infrastructure on a large site which may benefit from consideration by a planning committee. In contrast, reserved matters approval applications relating to smaller outline planning permissions would be determined by planning officers in all cases.
37.We also note a concern among respondents to the consultation13 about a loss of local democratic oversight over planning decisions. Asked about this, the MHCLG responded:
“These measures are intended to ensure the planning process is streamlined and more efficient, whilst retaining local democratic oversight. The best way for councillors and communities to engage in the development proposed for their areas is through the local plan process, which will be agreed by the council. [ … ] We are not removing the ability of local people to comment and make representations on planning applications. Representations are considered by the decision maker–whether officer or planning committee.”
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026 (SI 2026/613)
38.This Order applied temporary controls to seven named ‘orphines’, a new class of synthetic opioid, owing to their potential to cause severe harm. The measure follows a report from the independent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs citing increasing deaths in the UK as a result of orphines, as well as international evidence of harm.14 The report recommended that urgent action is taken to control these substances.
39.The Home Office says that a normal drug control order, which would follow the draft affirmative procedure, would not meet the requirement for urgent action. It therefore used powers to lay this made affirmative instrument, introducing a ban that came into force on 11 June, the day after the instrument was laid. The effect, deriving from the powers being used, is that orphines are treated in most senses (such as the applicable penalties) as though they were a Class B drug. However, the powers also require that the ban expires after 12 months. The Home Office states that it intends to bring in a full, permanent control order before the expiry date, under which, subject to parliamentary approval, orphines will become a Class A drug. We encourage the Home Office to bring in the permanent order as soon as possible, so that the full Class A regime is available to help tackle these substances.
Police (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/597)
40.These Regulations change the legal standards that define how a police officer must act (including off duty) in relation to the use of force. Specifically, it changes the test that will be used in police misconduct proceedings from that in the civil law to that in the criminal law. The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) says the effect is that, while previously an officer could rely on an honest but mistaken belief in the necessity of force only if that mistake was “objectively reasonable”, the officer will now be able to rely on such a belief regardless of whether the mistake was objectively reasonable.
41.The change implements a recommendation of an independent ‘rapid review’ of police accountability.15 The review was set up in response to a court case that confirmed that the civil test had replaced the criminal test as a result of a change to the wording of the use of force test in 2008. The review found it was “highly improbable” that the wording change was, at the time, intended to shift the test in such a fundamental way. Moreover, the Home Office argues that reverting to the criminal test will “provide greater protection for officers making split-second decisions under pressure, supporting recruitment and retention in critical roles”. The EM states that officers will still not be able to use disproportionate force and that “sufficient” safeguards remain in the system; the EM refers to further detail in the rapid review, which included mentions of, for example, Professional Standards Review Meetings. The Home Office also told us that the Regulations do not amend the general law, including the law that applies in civil claims against the police.
Dangerous Dogs (Exemption Schemes) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 (SI 2026/602)
42.Dangerous dogs legislation currently bans the possession of specified types of breeds, including the Pit Bull Terrier and XL Bully, unless owners have been granted a certificate of exemption that includes conditions for keeping the dog. The conditions include that the dog is neutered, kept on a lead and muzzled in public; and that the owner has third-party public liability insurance for the lifetime of the dog.
43.This Order makes two changes. First, it removes the legal requirement for third-party public liability insurance from 1 July 2026. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says that this is necessary as the only current provider of this type of specialised insurance will be withdrawing from the market from that date, and no other providers have expressed an interest in offering such insurance. The Department told us that the instrument is “an interim measure” while Defra continues to work with the insurance sector to find a viable replacement product, and that if a suitable replacement becomes available, the Government will consider reinstating the requirement.
44.Defra emphasises that owners will remain fully responsible for any harm caused by their dogs and may be subject to civil claims and court-ordered compensation following an incident. Asked what assessment has been made of the risk of dog owners being unable to pay compensation, the Department pointed to the limited data available and explained that it considers the risk of significant unaffordable liabilities to be low. Defra said that there are around 15 incidents per year involving dangerous dogs, with average claims of around £23,000, and noted that “courts can adjust compensation based on individual circumstances”.
45.Second, the Order requires owners to ensure that their dog does not come into close contact with a child under 12 unless supervised by an adult. This new condition will apply in non-public places, including in private homes. The condition aims to reduce the risk of serious injury to children in domestic settings, while allowing exempted dogs to continue living with families where appropriate supervision or separation is in place. According to Defra, evidence indicates that the most serious attacks involving dangerous dogs frequently occur in domestic settings, with fatal incidents in the home concentrated among children under 12 who are considered more vulnerable due to their developmental stage and inability to interpret dog behaviour. Defra says that no fatalities have been recorded in the 11 to 18 age group. We note this rationale but consider that some older children may also be more vulnerable due to developmental or other factors.
46.Failure to comply with any condition of a certificate of exemption will invalidate the certificate, making the possession of the dog unlawful. Asked how the new child safety requirement will be enforced in private homes, and how it will be communicated to those who are currently keeping a dangerous dog, the Department explained:
“Enforcement will take place through existing dangerous dogs legislation and powers, primarily by the police and local authorities. It is expected to be incident led and intelligence led, rather than through inspections. [ … ]
Updated Certificates of Exemption will be issued proactively to existing holders ahead of the new requirement coming into force. This will not be the sole means of communication. Defra will write directly to all registered owners on the Dangerous Dogs Index to notify them of the changes and provide guidance on compliance. GOV.UK guidance will also be updated, and further communications will be supported through engagement with partners, including enforcement authorities and animal welfare organisations, to ensure holders are aware of the new requirement and understand how to comply.”
Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/614)
47.These Regulations amend the repayment rate in the statutory scheme used to control the cost of branded medicines to the NHS. The statutory scheme exists alongside a voluntary scheme; both require suppliers to pay back a set percentage of their sales to the NHS. Pharmaceutical firms representing approximately 98% of medicines sold to the NHS have signed up to the voluntary scheme, while the remainder default to the statutory scheme. The Government aims to maintain broad commercial equivalence (BCE) between the two schemes. This necessitates that their percentage repayment rates are comparable, in order to remove any incentive for companies to move repeatedly between schemes to whichever has the lowest rate, which the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) says would lead to more volatile repayment rates and would prevent costs being controlled effectively.
48.Repayment rates in the voluntary scheme are based on newer medicines sales growth. The DHSC says actual newer medicines sales growth in 2025 was lower than forecast due to one medicine being reclassified as an older medicine following a court challenge. The DHSC says this led to an overpayment from industry in 2025 and, consequently, the 2026 voluntary scheme repayment rate was reduced. However, this created an inconsistency with the 2026 statutory scheme repayment rate. This instrument therefore reduces the statutory scheme rate from 24.3% to 16.5% in 2026, and thereafter unless changed by further legislation.16 This new statutory scheme rate is similar to the voluntary scheme rate for 2026 which is 14.5%, plus a 1% “investment programme rate”.
49.The DHSC says the reduction in the statutory scheme repayment rate will result in a reduction in income to the NHS of approximately £8 million over three years. The Impact Assessment notes that reducing the repayment rate will contribute to increased spending on medicines, supporting the terms of the recent UK-US pharmaceuticals arrangement, which committed the UK to doubling the amount spent on new medicines as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP).17 Asked about whether there is a connection between this instrument and the UK-US pharmaceuticals arrangement, the DHSC told us that this instrument flows from the need to restore BCE between the two schemes and that work on this instrument began before the arrangement was announced.
50.There have been frequent changes to the statutory scheme repayment rate in recent years.18 Asked about the impact of this on industry, the DHSC told us that industry has not raised concerns about the frequency of changes and that the long-standing policy of BCE provides “a level of assurance” through the expectation that the statutory scheme repayment rate will follow the voluntary scheme rate. However, the DHSC told us that industry has raised concerns that the current approach does not result in sufficiently prompt changes to the statutory scheme repayment rate following changes in the voluntary scheme.
51.We note that in response to the consultation, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry suggested that the statutory scheme repayment rate should adjust automatically to changes in the voluntary scheme rate. We have previously recommended the introduction of automatic mechanisms to adjust amounts set in legislation.19 Asked about this, the DHSC told us it has considered such a mechanism, but was dissuaded from introducing one for several reasons, including that: it would necessitate “significant changes” to the legislative framework; it could override the current requirement to consult on changes to the statutory scheme; and, because the voluntary scheme repayment rate is based on terms agreed with industry, it is concerned that an automatic process would be “unlawful and amount to [a] sub-delegation” of power. We note the reasons for not introducing an automatic adjustment mechanism in this case. The DHSC says it will instead streamline the current consultation process, which it says takes time and often results in changes to the statutory scheme repayment rate being made mid-year, by undertaking direct engagement with industry rather than a full public consultation on changes to the statutory scheme in future.20
10 Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026, see: SLSC, 54th Report (Session 2024–26, HL Paper 273).
11 Planning committees are public meetings where elected councillors decide some planning applications.
12 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Planning Committees and the National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions: Guidance for local planning authorities in England, 1 June 2026.
13 MHCLG, Planning committee reform: statutory consultation on draft regulations and guidance—government response, 1 June 2026.
14 Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Seventh addendum to the ACMD report on the use and harms of 2-benzylbenzimidazole (‘nitazene’) and piperidine benzimidazolone (‘brorphine-like’) opioids, 30 April 2026.
15 Ministry of Justice and Home Office, Independent report: Recommendations by Tim Godwin and Adrian Fulford to the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, 23 October 2025.
16 The repayment rates in the statutory scheme had previously been set by the Branded Health Service Medicines (Costs) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 (SI 2025/667), in: SLSC, 29th Report (Session 2024–26, HL Paper 145).
17 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Policy paper: Arrangement between the United States of America and the United Kingdom on pharmaceutical pricing, 2 April 2026.
18 The statutory scheme repayment rate for 2025 was initially set at 15.5%. Halfway through 2025, this was increased to 23.4%. At this time, the 2026 percentage payment rate, which had initially been set at 17.9%, was also increased to 24.3%. This instrument reduces the 2026 rate to 16.5% halfway through the year.
19 SLSC, Work of the Committee in Session 2024–26 (1st Report, Sesson 2026–27, HL Paper 2), para 38.
20 For more information about the future approach to consultation, see: Department of Health and Social Care, Consultation outcome: Response to consultation on changes to headline payment percentage and approach to consultations of the statutory scheme to control the cost of branded health service medicines, 10 June 2026.