House of Lords

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 26 March 2025

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of the United States of America on recent developments in Ukraine.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the first Oral Question is from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating virtually.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, we share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end and remain in close touch with the US at every level. The Prime Minister spoke to President Trump most recently on 17 March and the Foreign Secretary spoke to his US counterpart on 19 March. A just and lasting peace in Ukraine is vital to UK national interests. We are playing a leading role in driving progress towards this goal together with the US, Ukraine and our international partners.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, while I recognise the constructive role of the Prime Minister in seeking to influence the Trump Administration, with Trump’s initiatives on energy security, safe navigation, payment systems access and relaxed sanctions now proceeding, is there not a danger, post ceasefire, in remnants of the Azov brigades challenging these successes by engaging in sporadic potential ceasefire violations with military attacks on Russian forces in Russian-occupied zones? Why not propose in the interim a narrow security corridor separating the parties, policed not by coalition combat forces but by blue-helmet peacekeepers, with the later potential for full demilitarisation? We need to prevent rogue Ukraine operators undermining any agreements.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I only wish we were in a post-ceasefire situation. We have been absolutely clear that this process must lead to a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to ensure that Russia can never launch an illegal invasion again. Under President Zelensky’s leadership, Ukraine has shown that it is the party of peace, sincere in its efforts to pursue a just and lasting end to this appalling war. For any peace deal to last, Ukraine will need robust security arrangements to ensure that Russia is never able to invade again. Europe must shoulder more of the burden of ensuring the security of our continent and the UK will play its full part but, as the PM said, US involvement in future security arrangements is the only way to effectively deter Russia.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is vital that there is no weakening of the sanctions regime, particularly the sanctions on Rosselkhozbank and the restrictions on Russia’s use of the SWIFT regime, until there is a full ceasefire?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord absolutely. We need to maintain pressure on Russia to ensure that the ceasefire leads to a secure and lasting peace.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware that these Benches are part of the consensus in Parliament in support of the Government’s aims in this, but with Steve Witkoff, President Trump’s Ukraine envoy, calling our Prime Minister posturing and posing in his work, with Mike Waltz, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, calling the previous efforts of the RAF in Yemen “feckless”, and with the chat on Signal that we saw over the last couple of days, which in effect is extorting European allies for their practice, there comes a time when good friends and allies have to say that language such as that is not acceptable. I invite the Minister to do so now.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am not going to accept the noble Lord’s invitation. The simple fact is that the UK shares President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end. Russia could do this tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion. We are absolutely committed to securing a just and lasting peace in Ukraine, and we will work with all our allies to secure that.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister has said, and we are also fully supportive of the Government’s actions here. We note the news that Russia and Ukraine have reached a tentative agreement to cease fire in the Black Sea, something that I am sure we are all looking at with a degree of scepticism. Ensuring the long-term security and sovereignty of Ukraine, as the Minister said, is not only a strategic priority but a fundamental duty that we owe to our close ally, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister is due to continue discussions with President Macron and others on this tomorrow. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of talks with the so-called coalition of the willing, the militaries of the UK and its allies, and share some more information about the organisation that is taking shape?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot report on a meeting that is going to take place tomorrow, but I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I think the Prime Minister has been absolutely consistent in building that alliance of the willing, which I think is essential. Also, on his visit to Kyiv on 16 January he signed an historic 100-year partnership agreement with President Zelensky, which will deepen defence-industrial base collaboration and lead to joint military training and exercises. We are absolutely working with all our European allies to deliver the same sort of thing, and I assure the noble Lord that we are going to continue that work.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister give careful study to the report by the International Agreements Committee, which is issuing today, about the agreement between the UK and Ukraine and the prospects that have been discussed by earlier questioners? Does he recognise that our experience in Bosnia in the 1990s showed how absolutely futile a blue-helmeted force was when the people we were up against were prepared to cheat, lie and use aggression? If he does, I think he would also agree that what the Prime Minister is suggesting is something rather different and much more robust.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I clearly have not had the opportunity to read the report yet, but I will: I do read those reports consistently. The noble Lord is absolutely right. In my response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I made it clear that the way to security is for Russia to honour the commitments it made to President Trump and actually adhere to a ceasefire, or start a ceasefire, but then focus on building a secure and lasting peace. That secure and lasting peace can be delivered only if Europe stays fully behind Ukraine and we work with the United States to ensure that there is longer-lasting security in that continent.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, at a recent meeting of the OSCE, there was widespread support, including from US Democrats and Republicans, for continued support for Ukraine. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is crucial for the UK Government to play a leadership role in the OSCE to ensure collective security for our country and the wider world and to back up the type of talks that he has mentioned previously?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have worked in all multilateral institutions to ensure that the position of the United Kingdom and its allies in support of Ukraine is heard loud and clear. I certainly welcome my noble friend’s report on the OSCE meeting.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

My Lords, we will hear from the Liberal Democrats.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said it is vital that the United Kingdom and our European allies stay in marked support of Ukraine. Does he believe that the United States still gives that vital support to Ukraine? Very often it does not look like that under Donald Trump.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

As I have said, the United States is a vital component of European security. It has been since 1945. The United States is also one of the United Kingdom’s longest allies. The close friendship between our two countries is important to secure our security, so we will maintain very strong relationships. We welcome President Trump’s initiative in trying to ensure that we have a ceasefire. The only people who have not so far committed to that ceasefire are the Russians.

Future Defence Capability

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:17

Asked by

[Lord Cryer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s future defence capability following the recently announced increases in defence spending.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, the strategic defence review is well under way and has been considering all aspects of defence, including the capabilities required by UK defence to meet the challenges, threats and opportunities of the 21st century. The recently announced accelerated programme to increase defence spending is considered a critical step in realising the review's ambition to transform our Armed Forces for this new era. The review will place NATO first and strengthen our alliances and partnerships while making defence central to the security, economic growth and prosperity of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. Can he say something about the preparedness of the Armed Forces in all their guises when it comes to the threat from one of the most evil and fascistic regimes in the world? I am talking about the regime in Iran and its proxies who spread their poison and terror across the globe, bearing in mind that one of those proxies was responsible for the most deadly massacre of Jewish people since 1945?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an extremely important point about Iran and its proxies. We will continue to work with our international partners to hold Iran to account for its destabilising activity, the things that it has done in the Middle East and, indeed, the threats it poses on UK soil. To do that, the increased defence spending that we have announced today will help us to deal with this very real threat. Let Iran make no mistake: we will both deter and respond to any threat that it or its proxies pose to us. I thank my noble friend again for his question.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s focus on defence and the further clarification of intended funding, as evident from the Chancellor’s Statement this morning, are welcome. While further detail about the additional funding and the phasing of the route to 2.5% by 2027 is needed, it is equally important to understand what liabilities may fall on defence; otherwise, we cannot make sense of the overall picture. Can the Minister say whether the cost of the Chagos deal is going to paid for by defence?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Chagos deal is extremely important for our own security and that of the US. When the deal is finalised, it will be put before Parliament with the costings and then Parliament can debate it. The future of the base at Diego Garcia, which is crucial to us and our allies, is secured, and that is the important point of any deal that is finalised.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said the ministry will put “NATO first”. NATO, through SACEUR, has defined the force structure it believes necessary if the alliance is to deter Russian aggression. It has also set out the contribution it wishes the UK to make to that force structure. What action has the Ministry of Defence taken to cost NATO’s request, and how does it compare to our currently available military capabilities?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My understanding is that discussions have taken place between ourselves and NATO and SACEUR about the capabilities that they would expect from us. We are currently looking at both the cost and our ability to provide the capabilities. It is my understanding that those negotiations are still under way. If that is incorrect, I will write to the noble and gallant Lord.

[Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, in the context of additional defence funding, what is now the Government’s dominant policy consideration about how that funding should be spent? Is it to make good our deterrent capability against Russia, or to make good the potential deficit caused by the abandonment of European security guarantees by the United States of America?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. The fundamental thrust of the Government’s policy is the “NATO first” policy, which obviously deals with the threat from Russia but also our security. We have seen that not only our own country but many countries across Europe are now stepping up their defence spending to provide the security assistance that may be needed, in the short term with respect to Ukraine and in the longer term across the whole of Europe. The important point is that the “NATO first” policy does not mean “NATO only”; it means that we will also accept the responsibilities we have elsewhere. The defence review seeks to balance that and see what capabilities we will need to do so.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government now agree with the opinion that President Macron has held for some years, that the European arm of NATO must be made stronger and credible, and eventually an equal partner with the US in the NATO alliance? It will take at least until the 2030s for us to achieve that desirable aim. Meanwhile, we are being excluded from the arrangements in Europe for defence procurement, and we are not fully aligned with them. No one voted for Brexit because they wanted us to cease to have defence and security alliances with our European neighbours. Will the Government press hard for the closest possible integration of our defence policy with that of our European allies, so we can tell the Americans there really is a self-sufficient, credible European armed alliance?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. As my noble friend Lord Collins said, the US-UK relationship is absolutely fundamental to the future security of Europe and across the globe, and we look to maintain it. As far as Europe is concerned, we are looking to reset the EU-UK relationship in terms of defence and security, and work is ongoing. Specifically with respect to industry, of course we are looking for greater collaboration and co-operation across Europe with respect to a European defence industrial strategy, and those negotiations continue. In many respects, both at European and bilateral levels, we are seeing increased co-operation, and that is essential for our European security and to demonstrate to the Americans that Europe is taking its responsibilities as seriously as it should.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the special transatlantic relationship is laudable, but if from the other side of the Atlantic the relationship is not seen as so important, what are His Majesty’s Government proposing to do to ensure that we in the United Kingdom have the military and security capabilities that we need? The Vice-President and others in the United States do not seem to be taking the UK very seriously at the moment.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I will deal with that in two parts. First, we are increasing UK defence spending, as many other countries across Europe are doing, recognising the increased threats but also the need for us all to demonstrate to the Americans that we are doing what we should with respect to our various responsibilities, both in Europe and beyond. Secondly, whatever the noise around the UK and the US, and what the US President and those associated with him are or are not saying, I cannot stress enough how important it is that the US and UK stand together, work together and tackle common challenges together. There may be a lot of noise, but let the noise from this Chamber be that we see the US-UK relationship as absolutely fundamental, and we will do all that we can to maintain it.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the announcement by the Minister’s right honourable friend the Chancellor today around a new defence growth board, which she says will maximise the benefits from every pound of taxpayers’ money. Given that is the case, will he take the opportunity to say that that supply chain should go right across the United Kingdom, and—of course, I would say, would I not—with that to include Northern Ireland with its very good defence firms?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Indeed, that is the whole point of the growth agenda. The noble Baroness may have had the opportunity to read the Chancellor’s speech earlier today, which specifically talked about the defence industry, the growth agenda and the importance of that going across the whole of the UK. She has been an advocate, as many noble Lords have been, for Northern Ireland industry, and the £1.6 billion-worth of money to Thales in Belfast and also the drone capacity and capability of Spirit in Northern Ireland are examples. I also know that all of the Northern Ireland representatives with the Government there are seeking to ensure that it is not only big business that benefits but that small and medium-sized businesses benefit as well.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, our armed services, I am afraid, are in a parlous state—it is no good pretending otherwise. They have been seriously hollowed out and they are nowhere near the capabilities that our nation thought they would have. Thank goodness we are now putting some money into defence, but there is a need to think in the short-term as well as the long-term. Are we making sure that we put money in rapidly to the areas that need to be resolved quickly, in case we are at war within the next couple of years, as well as just looking ahead to the way we would like to structure our forces for the future? This is what the SDR was going to do.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Before I answer the question directly, I thought that my noble friend was going to welcome the statement in the Chancellor’s speech that the Portsmouth naval base was to be renovated and improved, but there we go. And we are going to try to provide ships there, as well.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

As for the serious point—although that was serious—that my noble friend makes, of course there are short-term efforts that we need to make. In terms of service personnel, we have made significant changes already with respect to pay, childcare and recruitment and retention, so we are trying to deal with some immediate personnel challenges and put those right. Investment is something that sometimes takes a little bit longer, but my noble friend might have also recognised in the Chancellor’s speech a fund that will be made available to look at how new and other industrial technologies can be used to invest in a way that speeds up delivery from industry to the front line. That is a challenge for all of us. Ukraine has shown that, and at the end of the day, we will have to learn from it but do it quickly.

Energy Prices

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked by

[Lord Sikka]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to control energy prices.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government believe that the best way to protect bill payers and to mitigate the energy price spikes that we saw in 2022 is through our mission to deliver clean power by 2030. Under the default tariff price cut, Ofgem has capped the profits of energy suppliers in the retail market. In addition, the Government are reviewing Ofgem’s role to ensure that it is a strong consumer champion.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply. We need a glimpse of reality here: between 2020 and 2024, the UK’s 20 biggest energy companies made an operating profit of £483.4 billion—yes, noble Lords heard that figure correctly—which is a major cause of social problems. Steel, shipbuilding and engineering industries are struggling, 6.1 million households are in fuel poverty and 110,000 pensioners a year are dying in fuel poverty. The Government have three non-mutually exclusive policy options: price controls, public ownership, and worker-elected and consumer-elected directors on company boards. What proposals would the Minister like to offer for ending profiteering in the energy industry?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his support. The issue of prices is of course serious for both business and domestic customers. That is why we have the warm home discount and the support given to businesses that use energy intensively. Clearly, this is a continuing issue that will be solved only if we can wean ourselves off the international gas markets, which we are going to do by moving towards clean power. I just say to my noble friend that Ofgem does in fact cap the profits of energy suppliers in the retail market; they are capped at 2.4%.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we have some of the most expensive electricity prices in Europe, just at the point when our citizens need to turn away from fossil fuels to run their cars and heat their homes. I know that the Government are looking at electricity market reform, particularly zonal pricing. Will the Government work on a cross-party basis to develop those plans? When do they feel they will be in a position to bring forward legislation?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot give a definitive date for future legislation, as the noble Earl will understand, but he is right about market reform. We are considering fundamental changes, including zonal pricing. I understand that the previous Government looked at marginal pricing when they started their work but decided not to make any changes. On input, I would be very glad to meet with the noble Earl to discuss his proposals.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised by my question: what price tidal power?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it depends on whether tidal power can offer value for money. I recently met with a number of developers who are interested in developing tidal power. I understand their passion and the potential, but we must ensure that it provides value for money. However, the door is open to further discussions.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. The market for electricity in this country is obviously a very complicated one, but Ofgem made it clear in the announcement of the recent price increases that the link with international gas prices is influencing the current rise in the cost to consumers. Can the Minister assure me that, as we move to that clean power system, the REMA review that he mentioned will look at whether delinking the overall UK market from the price of natural gas internationally would be in the best interests of consumers?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is an interesting comment, and the noble Baroness is of course absolutely right. Our problem is that we are tied to international gas prices, and noble Lords who are fixated on our using even more gas need to consider the implications of that. We are looking at how future gas market networks would work in a situation where gas is used much more infrequently. On marginal pricing, the more we use renewables, the less we are concerned about the international market. The contract for difference limits enable us to pay the renewable developers at a price that has already been agreed, rather than worrying about what the international price market will be.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is always reminding us from the Dispatch Box that our electricity is the most expensive in the OECD. He blames international gas markets for that, but our European neighbours are subject to the same markets and seem to have cheaper electricity. Take France, for example. Our electricity is 80% more expensive than France’s. Why is that? It has a more balanced energy system, and it uses nuclear for its baseload. It is a simple fact that just shy of 50% of our electricity bills is comprised of green levies, subsidies and network realignment. I ask the Minister to slow down. Can we now just take some time to reflect, and reassess this mad dash to renewables by 2030? Please let us not put all our eggs in one expensive and fragile basket.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord at all. I remind him that our electricity market structure and its reliance on the international gas market is an inheritance from the last Government, and the highest prices we had were under the stewardship of the last Government. In getting ourselves off these international market prices, going to renewables and using nuclear as the essential baseload, we can grow the economy and give ourselves security. I totally disagree about the speed; we need to do this as quickly as we can.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, do we not depend on high-priced gas because we rely on it when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine to make our renewables work? The answer therefore has to be to invest more in energy storage, which I think we are doing, to strengthen international grid links so that we can gain supply there, and to invest for the long term in nuclear power.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend on all of that. I am glad that he mentioned the importance of nuclear energy as our essential baseload. With Sizewell C, the SMR programme, the opening of Hinkley Point C and the advanced modular reactors, we have the opportunity to have an excellent industry in the UK to give us low-carbon baseload energy.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, the best way to reduce the costs of energy is by not needing so much of it. Is the Minister strongly pressing his colleagues in government to get the Future Homes Standard out and implemented, so that families who buy new houses know they are not going to have to retrofit and will have low energy bills? When is that announcement going to be made?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is clearly right that energy efficiency in our homes is necessary if we are going to meet the net zero target by 2050 and hold down the cost for domestic consumers. I cannot give him a date, but I can say that my department is working across Whitehall on the policies we need to enunciate to get going in that area.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the chairman of Électricité de France has just been sacked and that, understandably, advice has been given to EDF to spend less money on overseas investments and concentrate on power in France? Can he give us an idea of what effect that has on our one major nuclear development, Hinkley, where, of course, EDF is a major player, and on Sizewell C, where it is a minor but considerable player? Is this not rather dangerous, given that nuclear power, along with renewables, is absolutely necessary to get our costs down in future?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I have noticed the change in leadership at EDF, and we look forward to having discussions in the future with the new person who has been appointed. EDF has made a major investment in Hinkley Point C and, as the noble Lord says, is an important minority shareholder in Sizewell C. We have enjoyed a good relationship with EDF. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero met with his counterpart in the French Government only a few weeks ago, and we maintain close contact with both the French Government and EDF. We will have to see how this unfolds over the next few weeks, but I am confident that we will see progress towards the opening of Hinkley Point C and a final investment decision on Sizewell C.

Heathrow Airport Closure: Resilience and Security

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:40

Asked by

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the closure of Heathrow airport following an electricity substation fire for the resilience of the electricity grid and the security of such substations.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, I extend my sympathies to all those affected by what happened at Heathrow. I also wish to praise the efforts of all the people who worked so hard to get Heathrow up and running again. The Government work continuously with industry, regulators and other stakeholders to improve and maintain the resilience and security of energy infrastructure and to minimise the risk of unplanned outages. Alongside Ofgem, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State commissioned the National Energy System Operator to carry out a review to investigate the power disruption to Heathrow. Once we have all the information, we will be best placed to understand any wider lessons to be learned on energy resilience and security for critical national infrastructure.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, and I share his comments about the work put in to restore supplies. Some 30 years ago, the IRA had a credible and viable plan to bomb a whole series of substations around London to deprive London of electric power. It was thwarted only through the efforts of MI5 and the Metropolitan Police. Although it now appears that the fire was nothing to do with malicious action, it has demonstrated how significant substations are. What steps are being taken to ensure that substations around the country are properly secure against malicious actors?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his work, particularly the work of the National Preparedness Commission. The matter he raises is very important. The Government take the protection of energy infrastructure seriously. We continually work with industry and the regulators to ensure that proportionate security measures are in place at key sites. In relation to what happened, the cause of the fire is still under investigation, and that is why we need to ask NESO to investigate the situation thoroughly. If there are lessons to be learned more generally relating to the issue my noble friend has raised, of course we will take them very seriously.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

May I link the previous Question that the Minister has just answered with the current one about security? Is it true that, in this dash for installing green energy, solar panels and heat pumps, the vast majority of these bits of kit are imported? How is it possible to guarantee that our energy infra- structure in coming years will not be covered in a whole load of Chinese chips? Are we in danger of following in the erroneous footsteps of the Germans when they sold their energy soul to Russia for cheap energy and paid for it wholesale later?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that is a bit of a stretch from the Question, but I congratulate the noble Lord on his method. We of course look at the issue of Chinese ownership and involvement in the energy sector. We take security risks very seriously. Equally, we take a consistent and long-term strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China. On the development of a UK supply chain, I agree with him. It is worth making the point that, even with solar, much of the value of work in installing it is held in the UK, and other parts of the energy sector are too. We are very keen to see the growth of a UK supply chain generally.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, when the substation caught fire, the Heathrow authorities decided that they needed to reconfigure all their internal electricity network, thereby turning off and back on again all the critical safety and computer systems, despite the fact that two other substations remained available to Heathrow. Does the Minister agree that it is important that both the inquiries that have been announced seek to understand why the Heathrow authorities felt that they were unable to transfer from one substation to another without restarting their computer systems?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, my understanding is that, in Heathrow’s view, the supply was insufficient to ensure safe and secure operation. Therefore, it proceeded to reconfigure its internal electricity network to enable the resumption of full operations, utilising the other two external supply points. This required hundreds of systems to be safely powered down and then safely powered up, with extensive testing. The Kelly review will analyse all the relevant material concerning the robustness and execution of Heathrow’s crisis management plans and the airport’s response. The review that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has commissioned from Ofgem will be looking at the issues of energy, the power outage and what lessons we have learned. We will have discussions with Heathrow to make sure that the terms of reference give us a comprehensive picture.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, it has become apparent over the last couple of days that Heathrow had submitted evidence to the environment committee of the House of Commons regarding the overrating of power requirements in that area, saying it felt that the net-zero pathway was not helping that. We are adding EV charging and heat pump requirements to the network on a daily basis, but not really doing the proper jigsaw puzzles to make this work. Ultimately, the responsibility has to be with Heathrow Airport for not having a back-up supply. I note that data centres in that area, which are hugely energy hungry, have back-up, and they never go out of power.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure those are things that need to be looked at and reviewed by Heathrow, and more generally in relation to the grid and network connections, which I think is part of the question the noble Lord raised. We recognise that, in moving to clean power, we need to strengthen both the grid and the network locally. We will be looking at these matters. We have had reports from the National Infrastructure Commission recently. NESO’s work and advice have led to the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which sets out proposals on how we are going to reform the grid and expand it to meet some of those issues.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, last week’s events surely demonstrate how urgently we need strong regional transport infrastructure to complement and supplement airports in and around London. To that end, I am deeply grateful to the Government for their public commitment to the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport. At the risk of a different stretch, can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will deliver on that commitment by ensuring adequate financial investment to support the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority and the City of Doncaster Council in getting flights off the ground once again?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, that was a nice try but I am afraid I am not going to respond in the way the right reverend Prelate might wish—although, if we are talking about regional transport hubs, I hope that this year we can celebrate the reopening of the Kings Heath station in Birmingham.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government accept—I think this is less of a stretch—that one lesson to be learned is that Heathrow’s lack of contingency and resilience plans means that a third runway is not feasible?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not take that point at all. Clearly, Heathrow had a resilience plan. One of the points of the investigations is to see how effective it is, and we are mindful of the impact the closure had on thousands of people. The noble Baroness knows that the Government believe that we need to expand Heathrow. It is a hugely important asset to the United Kingdom, but we have to make sure that any expansion is in line with our legal, environmental and climate obligations.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, on the subject of resilience, businesses and local councils, such as Ealing and Hounslow in west London, have long raised concerns about a lack of capacity and resilience frustrating their plans for growth. As I am sure my noble friend the Minister is aware, this was highlighted by the National Infrastructure Commission’s recent report on electricity distribution networks, in which it cited network constraints in west London brought about by the otherwise welcome installation of data centres—as we have already heard. Does my noble friend agree that we need to reverse the hopeless record on infrastructure investment by the previous Government and invest in a decent, future-proof grid which can cope with better growth for Heathrow and with homes and businesses in west London?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right; this Government are having to invest huge amounts into the infrastructure, which was neglected by the party opposite for years. He is right about the National Infrastructure Commission. It produced a report in February that said that, with demand for electricity set to double by 2050, the current pace of additional investment in the country’s electrical distribution networks needs to double. We are giving that earnest consideration.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:50

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I promised yesterday to update the House on how proceedings would run today. I want to do so now, before the Chamber empties. As colleagues will have seen, we have received a message from the House of Commons on the non-domestic ratings Bill, and a Motion has now been tabled. We will consider those after Third Reading of the Football Governance Bill, which should be brief, and Questions on an Urgent Question taken in the House of Commons yesterday.

We will then proceed to the Report stage of the buses Bill, with a target to complete 10 of the 14 groups. I am certain that, with the usual discipline applied to Report, we can maintain high-quality debate while getting to votes in a timely manner. I particularly remind Members that this is not an opportunity to rehearse at length arguments made at earlier stages, and I therefore certainly hope that we can have all the anticipated votes in today’s sitting. Given the number of groups on the buses Bill, I have scheduled an additional day to complete the remaining four groups next Wednesday.

The debate on the statutory instrument and related amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, will take place as last business. I would hope that this will be at a reasonable hour, but it will depend on progress when completing proceedings on the buses Bill. We will keep Members informed in the usual way through party groups and on the annunciator.

Football Governance Bill [HL]

3rd reading
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Relevant documents: 8th and 16th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

15:53

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

A privilege amendment was made.

Motion agreed.

15:53

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Twycross]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been over four months since the Bill had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. I have resisted football puns throughout, but we are now reaching full-time in your Lordships’ House, so I decided to make an exception today. I hope to get through this debate without any own goals or penalty shoot-outs. This is historic legislation that will ensure that fans are placed at the heart of our national game.

I pay tribute to the work of Dame Tracey Crouch. Her fan-led review highlighted how too many football fans have been left with nowhere to turn when faced with reckless owners, financial mismanagement and threats to their clubs’ very existence. It was this work that led to all three main political parties committing to introducing an independent football regulator in their manifestos.

We supported the previous Government’s Bill, though I strongly believe that the Bill that we presented was better and has been improved further throughout its passage in your Lordships’ House. We have made changes to refine and strengthen the legislation to ensure that the regulator successfully delivers for fans and communities while protecting the strength of English football. We are taking a proportionate and flexible approach to regulation to provide the certainty and sustainability required to drive future investment and growth so that English football continues to be a global success.

I thank my noble friends Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lady Taylor of Bolton for their invaluable contributions and for promoting greater transparency of the regulator and its work. As a result, we have added a requirement for the regulator to establish a system for all board members and expert panel members to declare relevant interests and to keep a register of those interests. I also thank my noble friends Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lady O’Grady, who, along with other noble Lords, have championed the inclusion of players and fans. We have amended the regulatory principles to explicitly add players, fans and others who may be affected by the regulator’s decisions to the list of persons whom the regulator should proactively and constructively engage with.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds for her continuous support and for stepping into the breach to offer me some respite on those extremely long Committee nights. Across the House, I want to give special thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Goddard of Stockport, for their constructive and at times humorous engagement and for advocating for a social responsibility duty. Our addition to the definition of corporate governance for football clubs to include a club’s contribution to the economic and social well-being of its local community will help to shine a light on the good work that clubs do for their local areas.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Pannick, for their considered engagement and for the time they spent considering ways in which we could improve the Bill, not least the backstop process, for the good of football. I want particularly to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who raised issues about women’s football. While not envisaged as part of the initial regulatory regime, we fully support women’s football and the aims of the Carney review.

While we may not have agreed on every issue throughout the Bill’s passage, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Markham, for their scrutiny and for ensuring that the niche but highly important issue of heraldic terminology is appropriately reflected in the Bill. I am also grateful for all noble Lords who have participated with a range of knowledge and expertise—not always on football—including but not limited to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on post-legislative scrutiny and, clearly with expertise in football, the noble Baroness, Lady Brady, and the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Hayward, for their unique perspectives and expertise, and for occasionally missing matches to take part in proceedings.

The discussions and changes that we have made in this House will guarantee that English football remains the best place to be a football fan now and in the future. The Bill’s passage through this House has been long and, at times, slow, so please excuse me for taking a moment briefly to thank the many civil servants who have worked so diligently and patiently. In particular, I am very grateful to the Bill manager, Bill team and policy team. My thanks also go to the numerous lawyers and my private office, who have been very patient—mainly with me, to be honest.

I am proud to stand here today being the one to pass this Bill over to the other House—so arguably it is half-time, not full-time, in parliamentary terms. This is important and much-needed legislation which will protect and promote the sustainability of English football in the interests of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. Football fans up and down the country deserve and want this regulator. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, it comes to my turn to say a few words. It has been a very interesting experience, and I thank the Minister for her engagement and for a number of meetings when she made her time and her staff available to us. I may have walked past the department door on my first meeting, but I certainly did not do so for the next half-dozen. I also thank my noble friend Lord Goddard. It was nice to have a wing-man, and occasionally letting him fly the plane proved a very wise move as well.

I also thank the Minister for some of the specific things they brought in. I always felt social inclusion was lacking, and although football does good work, it is bitty. Making sure it is there means taking on something that has been outside the remit of government; but we have an interest in it and we have now secured it, in its current form or something like it, for the foreseeable future. Making sure that that happens also implies a duty to the community and I hope that, now we have that mentioned in the Bill, the two-way relationship will be expanded.

I was only shouting in the chorus for the inclusion of fans and players in the Bill, but I am very glad it happened. Players have only short careers and most of them, despite the myths, have short and not very well- paid careers in the lower divisions. They deserve some consideration as well.

I also thank many of the people from the Opposition Benches for enlightening me on a range of subjects. I never thought I would learn something about heraldry on this Bill, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for that.

I hope this Bill fulfils its functions and goes forward and I hope we do not have to come back to it.

16:00

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the passage of this Bill through your Lordships’ House has indeed been a game of two halves—there are more puns coming, I am afraid.

We began our deliberations on the Government’s version of the Bill in November. At Second Reading, I joined the Minister in the thanks that she has just given again to Dame Tracey Crouch and all the fans who contributed to the fan-led review that initiated this process and set out our support for principles including conserving the heritage of football clubs and protecting against rogue owners. At the same time, I highlighted some of the concerns that we had about the changes that the Government had made to the Bill compared with the one in the last Parliament. I am sorry we were not able to persuade the Government about all those concerns, but I am very glad that, thanks to the careful deliberations of your Lordships’ House, the Bill will indeed go to another place in a better state than it started.

I know there was some criticism of the length of time taken in Committee; we certainly seemed to go into injury time before the first half of the match was over, but I do think that some of the cries of “Foul!” were unfounded. Both in Committee and on Report, the majority of amendments came from beyond these Benches, and I am glad that we found areas of consensus even amid the debate and disagreement.

I am grateful for the in-depth knowledge and passionate engagement from noble Lords right across the House and the generous engagement and time provided by the Minister, particularly between Committee and Report, and the many meetings she had—I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sports made themselves available for meetings as well. We are grateful to them all, and I am pleased that we secured some two dozen important concessions on the Bill.

In particular, my noble friends Lady Brady, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Moynihan secured a new duty to protect the growth of English football. My noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, along with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, consistently raised the importance of having light-touch regulation, which I am glad to see reflected in the changes to Clause 8. My noble friend Lord Markham and I also pushed for the interest rate the regulator might charge on unpaid levies to be capped; we are pleased that the Government accepted that.

I want to give particular thanks to my noble friend Lady Brady, who cannot be in her place today but who, as the Minister said, missed a number of important fixtures of her own club to scrutinise the Bill. She brought her extensive and first-hand experience of the commercial workings of football clubs to highlight some of the issues in the Bill. While it is unfortunate that we were not able to persuade the House to protect parachute payments from the redistributive backstop, I know that my noble friend will continue to highlight in your Lordships’ House and beyond how important they are for the financial sustainability of the whole football pyramid.

I would also like to highlight the role of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, from the Benches opposite. They probed many areas of the Bill with a perceptible love for the game and secured important amendments, particularly to create a register of interests for those appointed to the new board and expert panel.

I am pleased that the Government saw sense and removed the power of the Secretary of State to amend the definition of the “football season”, which always struck us as an unnecessary power. Of course, I am particularly grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for their considerable engagement with the College of Arms and me to ensure that the Bill avoided the incorrect use of heraldic terms. I am sure that this was not an issue that the noble Baroness and the Bill team thought they would be spending quite as much time on, but I am very glad that we got it right. I hope that, when she receives her own grant of arms, the noble Baroness will find a way to record this legislative monument in her heraldic achievement.

Finally, there was welcome vindication of the hard work of my noble friend Lord Goodman of Wycombe, who argued throughout for the need for post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill; he was joined by others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. We are glad to see the five-year statutory review that the Government have added. It may prove to be particularly important because, despite the many improvements that your Lordships have made to the Bill, a number of areas remain that we have not been able to resolve.

My noble friend Lord Moylan ably led the charge on trying to ensure that the regulator will not fall foul of UEFA or FIFA rules; I am sorry that we were not able to persuade the Government or the Liberal Democrats of the merits of his rather modest amendment. My noble friends Lord Maude of Horsham and Lord Hayward raised the cost of compliance; we remain concerned about that, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ranger of Northwood, who highlighted the impact that this could have on ticket prices. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Birt, who was joined by an impressive team of his noble friends on the Cross Benches, for their hard work in trying to improve the backstop mechanism; I hope that the Government will continue, as I am sure they will, to engage with noble Lords on this matter, as they said they would as the Bill heads to another place.

This post-match analysis and focus on areas for improvement should not distract us from the considerable progress that we have made together. I am grateful to all the noble Lords whom the Minister highlighted. I am particularly grateful to my teammate—my noble friend Lord Markham—who saved me from describing football terms inaccurately, to the excellent Jamie Tucker from the Opposition Whips’ Office, and to the Minister, the Bill team and her excellent private office. I am sure that the Minister has spent longer on the pitch than she anticipated, but she can pass the Bill to her colleagues in another place much improved thanks to her patient and generous engagement with us all.

As I said at Second Reading, my knowledge of football does not compare with that of other noble Lords. It has always bemused me how a truncated icosahedron kicked around a pitch for 90 minutes can arouse such passion and anguish. We have seen some of that during our debates on the Bill, but, as the referee’s whistle blows, I think that all sides can look back with some satisfaction and say, “Good game”.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I too thank the Minister, the Bill team and the Secretary of State for the exceptional level of engagement that they have shown in relation to the concerns and interests of noble Lords around the House. It has resulted in a much better Bill, which is of course the function of this House.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their comments.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Tuesday 25 March.

“As the right honourable Member is aware, the Home Office discharges its statutory duty to provide accommodation and to support destitute asylum seekers through seven asylum accommodation and support services contracts. Those contracts were entered into by the previous Government, commencing in 2019, and are split between three providers: Clearsprings Ready Homes Ltd, Serco Ltd and Mears Ltd.

Significant elements of the behaviour and performance of one of the subcontractors of Clearsprings Ready Homes fell short of what we would expect from a government supplier. That is why the Home Office has informed Clearsprings Ready Homes that it must exit the arrangements with a subcontractor in its supply chain, Stay Belvedere Hotels. We will not hesitate to take further action in respect of Clearsprings and its wider supply chain if that proves necessary, and we are conducting a full audit of our supply chain.

We expect the highest standards from those contracted to provide essential services, and this Government will always hold them to account for delivery, performance and value for money. Where there are concerns about how contractors or their subcontractors are discharging their contractual obligations, we will not hesitate to take swift and decisive action.

The Home Office progresses matters relating to these contracts with its providers in commercial confidentiality. I will not give a running commentary, but I assure the House that whatever the position with any of its providers, the Home Office remains focused on maintaining continuity of service and ensuring that our statutory obligation is met at all times, and has contingency plans in this regard. None of that takes away from our commitment to reducing the huge cost of asylum hotels, which remains our priority.

In relation to channel crossings, this Government have put forward a serious, credible plan to restore order to our asylum system, including tougher enforcement powers, ramping up returns to their highest levels for more than half a decade, and a major crackdown on illegal working to end the false promise of jobs, used by gangs to sell spaces on boats. Increased law enforcement action and disruption is already showing some indication of pressure on the business model of the gangs, and we are introducing new powers for law enforcement to use against the vile trade in people smuggling and trafficking.”

16:08

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister claims that this is an entirely inherited issue, the Government have, since taking office nine months ago, put up an additional 8,500 illegal immigrants in hotels, and the number of small boat crossings since 1 January 2025 is up 37.5% on the same period last year. These are shocking numbers that are careering in the wrong direction, and the taxpayer is picking up the tab while the Government fail in their election promise. Can the Minister say what new, concrete steps the Government are taking to deter those who are currently on the cusp of crossing the channel? How do they intend to terminate the use of hotels in housing illegal immigrants without reducing the number of homes that should be prioritised for British citizens and those who have travelled to the UK legally?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I just remind him that, in 2016, there were no hotels in use; in 2023, there were 400. We have a manifesto commitment to end the use of hotels. That is because his Government failed in their process, did not manage asylum claims properly, allowed small boat crossings to increase and wasted £700 million on a Rwanda scheme which deterred nobody. We will have some discussions and lessons from that, but let us look at what we are doing. Between the general election on 4 July and 31 January this year, we have removed 19,000 failed asylum seekers, increased enforced returns by 24%, increased illegal working arrests by 38%, removed 2,591 foreign national offenders and had the four biggest return charter flights in the history of return charter flights. I hope I can look forward to his co-operation to pick up the mess that he left behind.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I know that the Minister accepts that hotels are unsuitable accommodation and that there are other forms of accommodation which should be provided. I have two questions about how to do that, one of which is about reducing the numbers of people who are waiting to have their cases heard. First, can he tell us what efforts are being made to ensure that individuals can have their appeals heard in a timely way, with adequate legal representation, so that correct decisions are taken when they are first heard rather than having to go through many following steps? Secondly, we could remove this problem by allowing people to work and pay for their own accommodation, so have the Government assessed allowing people who are being kept in this long queue the opportunity to work?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The real opportunity we are trying to take is to reduce the asylum backlog in the first place. If people claim asylum on arrival in the United Kingdom, from whatever source, we have a duty to assess that asylum claim. Sadly, the previous Government allowed that asylum claim backlog to balloon. We have tried to put in place 1,000 extra staff—funded by the resource that we have saved from scrapping the Rwanda scheme, which deterred nobody—who are now doing the very things that the noble Lord mentioned: reducing the asylum backlog and making sure that we deal with asylum claims. Those who are here can then go on to work and to provide their own accommodation. But there are also those who are not here, including the 19,000 we have removed between 4 July and 31 January, because we are speeding up asylum claims.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that in this movement out of hotels, which I understand, unaccompanied immigrant children in particular will be protected and not lost, as we have lost so many already? We do not want to lose any more.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an extremely valid point. I know he has a long-standing interest in safeguarding and that he has raised previously with me and others the children who went missing under the previous regime. We intend to ensure that we put in place proper safeguarding measures with the local county council, and that we now assess those children on arrival to make sure that they are safeguarded properly.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the tone with which he always discusses these very thorny questions in your Lordships’ House. Does he agree that a convention refugee, once designated as such by the authorities, was never illegal, and that we should not be demonising these most desperate people, who were not deterred by the Rwanda scheme because of the appalling treatment that they faced back home?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. We intend to uphold and keep to our international obligations.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this Government have decided to continue the practice of scoring 100% of in-country migration costs as official development assistance. In the Statement made by the Chancellor today, that overall figure is being cut by half a billion pounds in this coming year, and then by £4.8 billion next year. However, the Government are seeking to protect the Home Office costs of scoring ODA, which means that there will be profiting in this country as a result of the protection and the cuts elsewhere. Can the Minister say what is the level of private sector profiting scored as official development assistance which this Government are protecting?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting question. I will, as ever, examine that in detail and get back to him with a specific figure, which I do not have in front of me. The Government are undertaking a reprioritisation of resource to tackle this issue. As we have said, that means ending the Rwanda scheme, putting in place a proper Border Force through the immigration Bill, if passed, and ensuring that there are additional staff to speed up the asylum backlog. This will ensure that people are assessed properly and quickly, that those who have a right to claim asylum in this country are accepted and that those who do not are returned to a place of safety.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the patron of ASSIST Sheffield, a charity which supports refugees and asylum seekers in our city of sanctuary. What consideration has the Minister given to the introduction of a guardianship scheme, such as the one piloted in Scotland, to provide specialist support to unaccompanied children seeking asylum—not least given their acute vulnerability if accommodated in hotels?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As with those of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I take on board the points that the right reverend Prelate makes. It is important that we ensure that children who arrive here unaccompanied are safeguarded. That has been a failure in the past and it must be prevented now. I will examine with my colleagues in ministerial office with direct responsibility for these issues how best we can ensure safeguarding. I will report back in writing to the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I return to the question of the noble Lord, Lord German, about employment rights. The ban on these migrants working dates, in its current form, from about 2002 and was tightened a bit in 2005. Prima facie, the rise in claims since then suggests that it has not worked very well. There may be other factors, but it certainly has not deterred all the illegal migration. In the spirit of saving money, instead of banning them from working, might Ministers look at banning asylum seekers from claiming benefits—at least for four, five, 10 years or whatever—as a more effective and much cheaper deterrent?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Lord visits the Library and asks which benefits migrants receive, he will find that the Government have a responsibility to pay certain amounts of resource for upkeep but it is not a question of access to a benefits system. We are trying to ensure that we assess those individuals extremely quickly. If he is interested in illegal working then, as I mentioned earlier, we have increased visits and working arrests for those who have slipped into the country and are now working here illegally by 38%.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, everybody—with one or two exceptions—knows that the Government inherited an incredible mess. Are we satisfied that we are doing everything we can to ensure maximum co-operation with the French and with Interpol in catching the people traffickers? Secondly, surely in anything but the very short term we must have wider international co-operation, particularly with our EU friends, to deal with the problem of asylum seekers in a more sensible and balanced manner.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has met her French, Belgian and Dutch counterparts and is looking at a group which we have named, imaginatively, the “Calais group” to see how we can act on these issues. That co-operation has led to increased convictions and arrests of people traffickers and will do so further. There are discussions with the German Government to see what we can do downstream about some of the equipment that is being supplied in Germany. When the immigration Bill comes before this House, noble Lords will recognise that there are measures in it which further criminalise those gangs and give further powers to the state to take assets from criminals who are people trafficking.

Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill)

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons

16:19

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1, Motions B and B1, Motions C to F, Motions G and G1, Motions H and H1, Motions J to M, Motions N and N1, Motions P and P1, and Motion R. These Motions concern the measures in the Bill to enable the introduction of new multipliers from April 2026 in line with the Chancellor’s intention set out at the Autumn Budget.

As a reminder, it is the Government’s intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and for that permanent tax cut for those RHL properties to be sustainably funded to also introduce one higher multiplier for all properties with a rateable value at or above £500,000. Given the challenging fiscal context, this prudent approach is essential to ensure that the new lower RHL multipliers can be adequately funded from within the business rates system.

Motions A to M ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 1 to 12. The other place disagreed to these amendments on the basis that they interfere with public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has tabled Amendments 1B and 7B in lieu of Amendments 1 and 7. These amendments seek to allow the Treasury to exclude healthcare hereditaments from the higher multiplier. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has tabled Amendments 2B and 8B in lieu of Amendments 2 and 8. These amendments seek to allow the Treasury to exclude anchor stores from the higher multiplier.

We have discussed during the passage of the Bill the importance of having a higher multiplier that applies to all properties at £500,000 rateable value and above, and why this is the only fair way of raising the revenue needed to fund the lower multiplier. We have ensured that the Valuation Office Agency has published data on those hereditaments in the healthcare and retail sectors with a rateable value of £500,000 or above. The impact is very limited and, for retail, mostly limited to supermarkets and retail warehouses. I have previously provided the House with the statistics that show that, and they have been published by the VOA.

Nevertheless, I assure the House that the powers already contained in Clause 3 would allow the Treasury to exclude from the higher multiplier classes of hereditament based upon their use. The amendments put forward to Clause 1 are therefore unnecessary. Therefore, I respectfully ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, not to press these amendments.

Motions N, P and R ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 13, 14 and 16. The other place disagreed with Amendments 14 and 16 on the basis that they interfere with public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient. The other place disagreed to Amendment 13 on the basis that the Government have already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has tabled Amendment 13B in lieu of Amendment 13 and Amendment 14B in lieu of Amendment 14. Amendment 13B seeks to require the Government to undertake a review of how provisions within the Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000. The amendment requires that this part of the review be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on which the Act is passed. Amendment 13B also sets out that that review must consider the merits of a separate use class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets. Amendment 14B is similar to the amendment previously tabled by the noble Lord but removes the requirement for the recommendations of that review to be implemented.

As set out previously in this House and the other place, Amendment 13, and now Amendment 13B in lieu, probe the way that the multipliers in business rates currently operate and whether this may serve as a disincentive to invest. This is something the Government have already committed to looking at through their work in Transforming Business Rates. The Government have published a forward look that shows that an announcement on reforms to be taken forward will be coming later this year. Reforms will be phased in over the course of this Parliament.

Furthermore, the objective set out now in both Amendments 13B and 14B, to identify fulfilment warehouses used by online retailers that do not have a material presence on our high streets, is something the Government believe they are already exploring through the existing digitalising business rates project. As set out previously in this House, that project will allow the Government to match property-level data with HMRC business-level data. This will help us to improve the way that we target business rates and identify property and businesses within the business rates system.

For these reasons, the amendments are not necessary as they are already being pursued through other government work. Therefore, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press these amendments. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—

1B: Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that occupied hospitals, medical and dental schools, and any other healthcare settings as may be prescribed in the regulations are not subject to the higher multiplier.””

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, the higher rate or multiplier being introduced in this Bill is to apply to all properties with a rateable value of more than £500,000. This is a worthy attempt by the Government to have a fairer approach to business rates.

However, 290 hospitals are captured by this new banding. It means a considerable increase in their business rates—potentially, a 20% increase—for which government funding has not made provision, so hospitals will have less funding to drive down waiting lists, which is an aim that has all our support. I give just one example: University College Hospital here in London has a rateable value of nearly £12 million. With the new higher multiplier, its business rates will increase by over £1.2 million.

Amendment 1B, in lieu of Amendment 1, would provide the Government with the option, by regulations, to exclude hospitals from this higher banding. At this late stage, I urge the Minister to agree. None of us wants to see waiting lists not going down as fast as they could because of the Government’s reluctance to exclude hospitals—not from business rates, just from the higher multiplier.

I will speak very briefly to the other Motions. Motion B1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, is very important to the viability and vitality of our town and city centres. We on these Benches are minded to support the noble Baroness on this issue if she wishes to take it to a vote.

Motion N1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would provide the Government with a way forward to address cliff-edge issues when there are hard divides between different multiplier levels. This is of concern to businesses and, again, we will support the noble Lord if he intends to divide the House on this issue. I beg to move Motion A1.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. This group of amendments addresses the ongoing issues with Clauses 1 to 4 that have been debated throughout the progress of the Bill. These clauses present two major problems. They do not reflect the Government’s previously stated ambition to reform the business rates system in order to protect the high street and ensure that online businesses pay their fair share. The higher multiplier will damage businesses on the high street and drive them out of town centres.

The Bill is an attempt by the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to reform the business rates system, but they have instead used a blunt instrument as a cut-off. That means that a number of businesses will be paying this higher multiplier, which they should not be doing. The Government will be hitting stores up and down the high street. Despite promises that reform will follow, the Bill leaves a number of important high street businesses paying higher rates, with no certainty at all as to when the situation will improve.

16:30

My Motion B1 seeks to give the Secretary of State the discretionary power to retain the higher standard multiplier for anchor stores. This would allow the Secretary of State to remove the higher multiplier if it becomes apparent that there are a number of integral businesses leaving the high street or opening new stores outside town centres. It does not require any action, but instead gives the Secretary of State the discretion to exempt these shops should our fears that the Bill will harm our high streets prove to be correct. Nothing that I have heard from the noble Lord at the moment gives me any reason to believe that this has been dealt with. Therefore, I intend to test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.

It is also important to protect our healthcare properties. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as she said, is seeking to protect our health sector. Should she choose to divide the House on this issue, we will support her.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, calls on the Government to review both the £500,000 threshold and a specific use class for fulfilment warehouses. It is important that the Government follow through on their manifesto commitments, so I see no reason why they should not accept any amendment that calls on them to do so. If the noble Lord chooses to divide the House, we will support him, too.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion N1. We have already had reference to this, but I have noted the Commons’ objections to my amendment on Report, and I have revised it and wish simply to sketch the alterations. This revised amendment, therefore, is about reviews exclusively—first, a review of the £500,000 threshold of rateable value, which is the cliff edge that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to, and the impact it will have on businesses. This is a vital review because at present, it will be untenable for organisations that just exceed the £500,000 rateable value and will be compelled to pay a higher band of rates. The second review concerns how to address the appropriate tax rateable value on the big warehouse retailers—the internet retailers such as, but not exclusively, Amazon. Fairness between the high street and these big-box retailers is what we seek. We want to establish a new use class, purely for the benefit of business rates and no other reason, but without insisting upon implementation, which was in the previous amendment and rejected in the other place. The Government will then be able to apply the new rateable value to these big gorilla retailers at the flick of a switch at any time in the future, but they are not compelled to do so.

All sides of the House want fairness for the high street against these big retailers. Let us not duck it or leave it in the long grass. I am afraid I am not convinced by the comments of the Minister so I, in turn, wish to press my Motion at the appropriate time.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire. I rise to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and his Motion N1. The noble Lord has been persistent in his efforts to get the Government to listen and bring forward a serious review of the case for a separate use class for retail fulfilment centres that are not on the high street. He is an excellent example of a Peer who brings his experience and expertise to your Lordships’ House. As a professional chartered surveyor, he has brought that expertise to bear during the debates on the Bill, and I am very grateful to him for that.

The Bill fails to deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to replace the business rates system and level up the playing field between the high street and the internet giants—a so-called Amazon tax. It fails on both counts. The reviews proposed in this amendment would provide the basis to achieve this. The new £500,000 threshold for the higher multiplier is a blunt tool that will impact many organisations that were never intended to be hit with higher business taxes. It does not deliver on the Government’s objective of targeting online giants. I have consistently made the point that a £500,000 threshold is a cliff edge that will create perverse incentives at the margins, disincentivising investment, particularly on the high street.

The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has gone further arguing forcefully that the Government must review the case for a separate use class for retail fulfilment centres that are not on the high street. I am grateful to him for including my concerns about the impact of the £500,000 threshold in his Motion N1, and I am pleased that my party will vote for it should he choose to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I realise that I omitted to refer to Motion P1, which is in the same group. It is consequential on Motion N1 and will depend on the outcome of that Division.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate. We heard concerns that the measures in the Bill for new multipliers do not deliver on the stated intention of the policy as announced at the Budget. I do not agree with that. At the Budget, the Government announced their intention to introduce two lower multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure properties and, in particular, to end the uncertainty of annual RHL relief. RHL is a temporary stopgap measure that has been extended year on year since the pandemic, and it does not provide the certainty that businesses require. The Government, through this Bill, are taking steps to address that. It was also announced at the Budget that the permanent tax cut for RHL businesses needs to be sustainably funded. This is an appropriate and prudent approach. The challenging fiscal environment that the Government face requires this, but it goes without saying that any tax cut must be funded as part of sound financial management. To do this, the Government intend to introduce a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties, those with a rateable value of £500,000 and above. The higher multiplier will affect less than 1% of properties in England. This delivers on the policy set out at the Budget by the Chancellor. Furthermore, it represents the Government’s first step to delivering on their manifesto commitment to transform the business rates system to one that is fairer, protects the high street and is fit for the 21st century.

I have explained to noble Lords here today while the amendments tabled in lieu are not necessary. For these reasons and the other reasons I have already set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their Motions containing Amendments 1B, 2B, 7B, 8B, 13B and 14B.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response, which gave me no hope that the Government are considering relieving hospitals of the higher multiplier. We agree with him that retail, hospitality and leisure businesses should benefit from the lower multiplier in the Bill, but it should not be at the expense of the NHS. There are other ways of doing it, and I am appalled that the Minister has not sought to find alternative sources of income. So because we on these Benches wish to make sure that our hospitals do not lose a penny more in business rates to the Government, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

16:40

Division 1

Ayes: 278

Noes: 165

16:52

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—

2B: Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that occupied anchor stores are not subject to the higher multiplier (and may define “anchor stores” for this purpose).””

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, in support of businesses on high streets up and down this country, I intend to test the opinion of the House.

16:53

Division 2

Ayes: 277

Noes: 172

17:05

Motion C

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion C agreed.

Motion D

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.

5A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion E agreed.

Motion F

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.

6A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion F agreed.

Motion G

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

[Baroness Pinnock]

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 7B in lieu—

7B: Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that unoccupied hospitals, medical and dental schools, and any other healthcare settings as may be prescribed in the regulations are not subject to the higher multiplier.””

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lord, this is a consequential amendment on Motion A1. Presumably, that one has passed.

Motion G1 agreed (as an amendment to Motion G).

Motion H

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 8B in lieu—

8B: Clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may specify that unoccupied anchor stores are not subject to the higher multiplier (and may define “anchor stores” for this purpose).””

Motion H1 agreed (as an amendment to Motion H).

Motion J

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.

9A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion J agreed.

Motion K

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.

10A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion K agreed.

Motion L

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.

11A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion L agreed.

Motion M

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.

12A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion M agreed.

Motion N

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13A.

13A: Because the government has already agreed to publish information about the new multipliers and further provision is not necessary.

Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)

Moved by

[Lord Thurlow]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu—

13B: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Review: threshold effect
(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review of how the provisions in this Act may affect businesses whose rateable value is close to £500,000.
(2) The review must consider the merits of a separate Use Class and associated multiplier for retail services provided by fulfilment warehouses that do not have a material presence on local high streets, to apply in England.
(3) Experts in the sector must be consulted to inform the review, including but not limited to—
(a) the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors;
(b) the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation;
(c) the Rating Surveyors’ Association.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the review under subsection (1) before Parliament within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.””

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to divide the House.

17:08

Division 3

Ayes: 277

Noes: 162

17:18

Motion P

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 14, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 14A.

14A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion P1 (as an amendment to Motion P) not moved.

Motion P agreed.

Motion Q

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A.

15A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion Q, I shall also speak to Motions S, T and U. These Motions relate to the measure in the Bill to remove charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities.

This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and raising standards for every child and young person, no matter where they come from or their financial background. To do this, the Government need to concentrate on the broader picture towards the state sector, where most children are educated. That is why the Government committed in their manifesto to remove the eligibility for charitable rate relief from private schools that are charities in England to raise revenue to help deliver these important commitments.

This is a tough but necessary decision. This Government must act to restore public services and improve opportunities for all. Removing the eligibility of private schools for charitable relief will raise approximately £140 million per year. Taken together with the removal of the VAT exemption from private school fees, these policies are expected to raise £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30, which will help to deliver the Government’s commitments in relation to education and young people. The approach to this policy has been carefully considered. The Government have sought to ensure that the impact of this change on those children with the most acute needs is minimised.

Motions Q and S to U ask noble Lords not to insist on their Amendments 15, 17, 18 and 19. The other place disagreed to Amendments 15 and 17 on the basis that they interfere with the public revenue and affect the levy and application of local revenues. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason was sufficient. Similarly, the other place disagreed to Amendments 18 and 19 on the basis that these amendments are consequential on Amendment 15, with which the other place disagrees for the reason stated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has tabled Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E in lieu of her original Amendment 15. These amendments move the decision to remove the charitable rate relief from one made by this Parliament to one which would be made by the Secretary of State by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument.

17:21

Sitting suspended.

17:27

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has tabled Amendments 15B, 15C, 15D and 15E in lieu of her original Amendment 15. These amendments would move the decision to remove the charitable rate relief from one being made by this Parliament to one which would be made by the Secretary of State by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for that statutory instrument.

As I have said, this Government are clear that the relief should be removed from private schools. We believe that this is a matter that Parliament should decide, and we have invited Parliament to do so through this Bill. The amendment therefore seeks unnecessarily to move this decision from Parliament to the Secretary of State. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments. I beg to move.

Motion Q1 (as an amendment to Motion Q)

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

At end insert “, and do propose the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill—

15B: Clause 5, page 5, line 14, after “But” insert “the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that”

15C: Clause 5, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

15D: Clause 5, page 6, line 14, after “But” insert “the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that”

15E: Clause 5, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(2C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 15B to 15E would allow the Secretary of State to reverse this policy in future.

The Bill introduces two things with which we fundamentally disagree: a tax on education and a two-tier charity system. Both are political choices made by this Government and both are, we believe, mistakes. I cannot see why the power for the Secretary of State to reverse this decision would be rejected. It does not require the Secretary of State to do anything but offers the flexibility and ability to change, if this policy—coupled with the introduction of VAT on independent school fees and the increase in employer national insurance—has wide-reaching and damaging impacts, not just on independent schools but on their neighbouring state-funded schools. That is particularly the case in areas of tight capacity, where there are not spare places for children to go if their independent school closes as a result.

The Government talk about wanting to remove barriers to opportunity. I hope that every single Government always want to remove barriers to opportunity, but there is a risk that this policy does the reverse and that there will be a lag before we see its impact, as parents strain every sinew to try to continue to send their child to the school of their choice.

17:30

The data in one or two years’ time will be much more telling. If that paints a negative picture and shows that pressure is being put on local state-funded schools—schools that have not had time to prepare and create additional capacity— as a result of the closure of independent schools, my amendments would give the Secretary of State a way to reverse this policy in the interests of children.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate throughout the progression of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, accept my amendments.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. I have not taken part in any of the debates around independent schools in your Lordships’ House, and, for the record, I am entirely the product of the state education system in the east of Leeds. However, I have been prompted to get to my feet today on the back of the very sad news that was announced yesterday of the closure of Fulneck School, in Pudsey, Leeds. It was established in 1753, during the reign of King George II, and will now close its doors for the final time in July.

Fulneck, for those who do not know, is famous for educating, among others, the great Liberal Prime Minister Herbert Asquith and the late great Dame Diana Rigg—otherwise known to some as Mrs Peel—along with a very close friend of mine, who was absolutely devastated to hear the news this morning. Fulneck is part of a Moravian settlement in Pudsey, which includes a grade 1 listed church and many other listed buildings. It is a unique part of the heritage of Leeds and the broader West Riding of Yorkshire, a large part of which will now be lost for ever.

I will not argue that the imposition of VAT is the only reason for the closure of the school; in fact, the school’s own statement refers to problems of falling numbers in recent years. However, the statement points to significantly rising administrative costs. Surely the broader point here is that, for a large number of small, independent schools across the country that have been struggling to keep their heads above water in recent years, the imposition of VAT and increases in employer national insurance are policies that will sink them.

As a result of the closure, 300 or so students will now have to be educated elsewhere within the locality; most, presumably, will have to find places within the state sector. I note that the school lies within the parliamentary constituency of Leeds West and Pudsey, which is represented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I support my noble friend.

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in sport as set out in the register.

I have spoken in Committee and on Report about the damage that retaining Clause 5 will do to the sporting success of many talented young people in the UK who gained admission to independent schools from the state sector through sports bursaries and scholarships. The reason for this was that, in response to parental demand, many independent schools have invested in state-of-the-art sports facilities, top-level coaches, and the sports psychologists, nutritionists, physios and support staff whose presence in many of our independent schools have delivered success at international and national level, while offering those facilities, out of hours and during the holidays, to local communities through their dual-use policies.

The costs imposed by VAT on school fees, increased by higher national insurance contributions and now by business rates, means that to balance the books those schools which survive will have to reduce the many sports scholarships and bursaries currently available to talented young people. Talented young people from a wide range of backgrounds in the maintained sector would otherwise never have access to facilities and coaching expertise of this type.

To demonstrate the scale of the support, I previously drew the Minister’s attention to 14 athletes on Team GB at the Paris Olympic Games who came from Millfield School, 13 of whom came through its means-tested financial support mechanism. Those athletes brought home seven Olympic medals and one Paralympic medal—four gold, three silver and one bronze. The career path for our talented athletes has provided opportunities for thousands of young sports men and women who could not afford to go to independent schools and benefit from their sporting facilities without the bursaries and scholarships on offer. At the Paris Olympics in 2024, 33% of Team GB’s medallists had been given the chance to attend independent schools, many of whom had their fees paid in part or in whole through means-tested bursaries and scholarships.

The statistics prove the point. I would not be worried if facilities in the state sector were a substitute; that they are not is not a party-political point. Sports facilities at local authority level and state school level have been in decline for years. We had a magnificent Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. The regeneration of the East End of London was a resounding success, but we did not leave a sports legacy to London or to the country. Playing fields continue to be sold; public swimming pools are closed. Even Sport England has this month lost its statutory ability—which has had a great effect in keeping playing fields open—to appeal against the loss of sports facilities removed as part of the proposed planning reforms.

I see no evidence that these arguments were addressed in another place yesterday. By raising them today, I urge colleagues from across the House to vote for this amendment and protect the opportunities afforded to many of our aspiring young Olympians and Paralympians. I ask noble Lords not to deny those young people the same number of bursaries and scholarships that independent schools have been able to make over many years. I hope that every Member of your Lordships’ House will bear these arguments in mind when they consider whether to vote to retain Clause 5 in its current form.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have not to date spoken on this Bill, but there are couple of matters which need to be aired regarding the history of charity. I am a director of a charity, and my daughter attends a private school—let us get those on the record.

The history of charity in this country goes back a very long way, with a particular flourishing during Elizabethan times. The charities of that era were often health related, certainly education related and often to do with hospice and almshouse care—of course, this Government have decided to raise a jobs tax on hospices, which we have been discussing this week. The concept of charity was founded very much on education.

Through the latter end of my illness, my wife would drive me home at weekends for home visits. We found all manner of routes through south-east London to avoid the worst of some of Mayor Khan’s blockages that have been created through London—it did not stop us from paying the ULEZ, of course. On one of the small roads, I came across a charity called the Portuguese speakers community centre. I thought, “Well, well, well, there is such a thing”. I am sure that it does the most amazing work. On most high streets, we see a variety of charities. Lots are to do with animal support—the PDSA, Cats Protection and all manner of other charities. They all do very good work. However, they were not envisaged as the charities of the day when the big flowering of charities came to pass in Elizabethan times, but education most certainly was.

So, for the first time in the history of this nation, we are deciding to have a two-tier charitable system. Whereas that charity route of old—education—is no longer deemed of charitable-worthy status, the Portuguese community centre, for instance, which I am sure does good work, is. It is a strange day that we pass through with this legislation—it is a very sad day. The amendments in Motion Q1 will at least give the Secretary of State pause for thought and an easy way out in the future. I almost guarantee that those thoughts on raising lots of revenue will never be realised. Schools will close and, because of the VAT increase, children will move to the state sector and be a cost to the state in their education. Let us note this day and heed what is being told to the Government: “You will rue this decision”.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and ask that noble Lords note my register of interests. I have not spoken on the Bill before, but we need to consider the impact on sport.

Over many cycles of Olympic Games, many of our medal-winning athletes have gone through the independent school sector and a significant number will have been supported with scholarships. The access it gives to high-quality coaching and facilities, and balancing education with that pathway, is important.

The Sutton Trust has noted that private schools are overrepresented among the medal-winning athletes that we have. Its data probably does not support the argument that I am about to give. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was right that 33% of Team GB’s medallists at the Paris 2024 Games went through private schools—down from 40% for the Tokyo Games. Yes, that compares with just 7% of the general population. Is it right that it is disproportionate? No, it is not, but the independent sector offers amazing opportunities for athletes to succeed.

The reality is that there is so much work that we need to do in our state schools. They should provide access to good-quality sports facilities and coaching and care about our children’s education, but the reality is that we are still quite a long way from that. We already know that the state sector is struggling to deliver sports such as cricket; the ECB has noted that. We need to think about the consequences in the short term for our medal-winning athletes and our place on the medal table.

I did not think I that I would be in a debate defending independent schools, but it is important that we are able to offer the right support to young people. A lot of young people on scholarships in independent schools will lose out on the chance to represent the UK. That is not right for the foreseeable future of our elite sporting environment.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

I want simply to add to these very moving and persuasive comments. It seems to me the most terrible act of self-harm to tax the schools again and again. It is not just VAT and the non-domestic rates but national insurance increases on staff and employees, and, in recent years, a compulsory increase to pension provision outside any private arrangements the schools may make. Those are four separate recent taxes. When is this bleeding going to stop?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches believe that there is a principle at stake of not regarding independent schools as charities. Education is not a profit-making business, although independent schools have to cover their costs—which, as I have sadly heard, Fulneck School has failed to do. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, if she wishes to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their important contributions in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has stated her firm belief that no education should be taxed. She has also reminded this House of her view, shared by the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, that the Government are creating a two-tier charity system. The measure delivered through this Bill is a tough but necessary choice to ensure that the Government can deliver on their commitments and break down barriers to opportunity for all. Tough choices are difficult—the Government know this—but they are also necessary. This Government will take these tough decisions because of the financial climate out there.

17:45

Let me come back to some really important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and followed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in relation to children and their access to sporting provision. The Government are committed to improving access to sports and physical activity for everybody, wherever they live. No matter where people are in this country, or who they are, they should have access to the best sports facilities and opportunities to get active. I hear the noble Lord strongly and share a lot of his passion and annoyance. As a former Olympian, he speaks from experience and depth of knowledge.

I would just reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the Government provide the majority of funding for grass-roots sport and continue to do this through our arm’s-length body, Sport England, which invests more than £250 million of Exchequer and lottery funding each year. In addition, Sport England is investing £120 million across 2025 to 2029 to increase participation in sport and boost diversity at grass-roots level to give more opportunities for young people to develop their potential. This funding will increase and enhance opportunities for talented young athletes in England. We want to see more young children go on to compete at the Olympics and win more medals—gold medals in particular.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, talked about the impact on the state sector of pupil moves. All children of compulsory age are of course entitled to a state school place if they need one. Funding is also provided for post-16 education in all parts of the UK. Local authorities are responsible for ensuring sufficient state school places. The Department for Education already works with local authorities to identify pressures and take action where necessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Caine, is a former state school pupil from Yorkshire; speaking as a former state school pupil from Lancashire, I share his passion for education. I reassure him that we expect the number of private school closures to remain relatively low and be influenced by various factors, not just the removal of VAT and business rates tax breaks. Parents can seek places in other private schools or find a state school place through their local authority. Around 50 private schools, excluding independent special schools, close each year. The Government are aware that there may be some temporary increase in the school closure rate over the normal rate during the few years after implementation. The Government estimate that this may be broadly equivalent to 100 schools in total closing over the next three years, in addition to the normal levels of turnover, after which closures will return to historic norms.

As I have set out previously during the passage of the Bill, the rules in relation to the application of charitable relief are set out in primary legislation and can be amended only through primary legislation. It is for Parliament to agree to pass primary legislation, as per normal parliamentary processes. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that this Bill is not and cannot be the first step in removing charitable relief from other charities. Should the Government, or any Government, wish to make further changes to charitable relief in future, they will require parliamentary consent.

This is a matter which we consider Parliament should decide on the face of the Bill. That is what the Bill does and moving these measures to a power in the way suggested by the amendments under Motion Q1 is, we consider, not appropriate. For these reasons and the other reasons that I have already set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their Motions containing Amendments 15B to 15E.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm clearly that, through this measure, the country will obtain, for the first time ever, a two-tier charitable system? That is what he appeared to accept. This must be thoroughly undesirable. To remove a set of arrangements that independent schools, the vast majority of them very small schools, have enjoyed over centuries and to create two tiers must be a thoroughly retrograde step. To describe the exemptions that independent schools, like all other charities, have hitherto enjoyed as “tax breaks” is deeply unfair. Independent schools have been properly treated, along with other charities, for centuries—a position that ought to endure—and it is really shameful, given that independent schools are overwhelmingly small and cannot bear these burdens, for this state of affairs now to come into existence as a consequence of this legislation.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with the noble Lord. We are putting the Bill through because we, as the Government, want to deliver on our commitments and break down barriers to opportunity for all. Ninety-three per cent of students are in the state sector. The measures are necessary, tough decisions. We know they are tough choices, but they are necessary to make sure that we can support the state sector, where 93% of students attend.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister and I think he did not satisfactorily address the points made by my noble friends Lord Caine and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which addressed, in different ways, how independent schools form part of the fabric of our society. Nor did he really address the points of principle raised by my noble friends Lord Mackinlay and Lord Lexden, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. He understandably repeats the point about tough decisions and tough choices, but these amendments do not force the Government to do anything: all they do is allow the Government to change their mind gracefully if they find that their policy actions do not raise the funding that they had hoped. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

17:52

Division 4

Ayes: 267

Noes: 151

18:04

Motion R

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.

16A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion R agreed.

Motion S

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A.

17A: Because the Lords Amendment interferes with the public revenue and affects the levy and application of local revenues, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion S agreed.

Motion T

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 18A.

18A: Because the Lords Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 15 with which the Commons disagree.

Motion T agreed.

Motion U

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.

19A: Because the Lords Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 15 with which the Commons disagree.

Motion U agreed.

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]

Report stage
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (1st Day)

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

18:05

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose: improvement of bus passenger services(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services in Great Britain.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group fall into three parts. Amendment 1 stands on its own and Amendments 2 to 8 work together to a single effect and will be dealt with as such. Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks clarification. All I will say on it is that I look forward to hearing both what she has to say and what the Minister has to say in reply. I will attempt to be brief, given the hour and the amount of business that we have to get through.

Amendments 2 to 8 give me an opportunity to thank a group of people who have been largely ignored in debates on this Bill: the private companies, entrepreneurs, capitalists and workers—the people who invest their money in providing a service for this country and who are being simply rubbed out as businesses by this Government and will become merely servants of the state, not entrepreneurs or businessmen, as the Minister was when he ran a private bus company. They are not to have those opportunities but simply to be wiped out. The work they do should be acknowledged because they have worked diligently for us over the years.

We are told that what we will get in its place is something better, run by the Government, and we are pointed to places such as London for examples. In London, when the subsidies run out—there are hundreds of millions of pounds of subsidies to operate the buses—we see routes sometimes being cut altogether or having a cut in their frequency. This group of amendments would allow private bus companies to continue to operate without seeking a special permit so as to meet demand. I do not intend to press this group of amendments to a Division. I am sure that the Minister will explain that it is all going to be sunny and wonderful under the state-managed regime, but it is not. We know that from our experience of when the subsidies run out.

In that connection—the notion that it is all going to be better because the Government, or, in this case, local transport authorities, will run the buses—I turn to Amendment 1. There is nothing in the Bill, nor have the Government even made the case, as to why it is going to be better, what the purpose of this Bill is, what it sets out to achieve and what the prime focus is. We know that the unions want to see this happen. We know that many, often Labour-run, local authorities want to see this happen, but they should not be the heart and the driver of the way we manage our public transport services. The heart and the driver should be the passengers, in this case bus passengers. Amendment 1 gives us a purpose to the Bill and puts bus passengers at the heart of it.

I am grateful, incidentally, for an earlier amendment, now withdrawn, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which reminded me that accessibility needed to be included alongside performance and quality of service with regard to bus passengers. That has improved the amendment and gives us what we see today. I strongly believe that this Bill needs such a purpose. The Secretary of State needs to be required to put the passenger at the heart of the Bill. There is no sign that that is the intention at the moment. There are only promises and pledges, but nothing in writing. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for recent meetings with him and his officials. I have tabled Amendment 61 in this group and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his kind comments about my previous amendment—I thought his revised one looked a little familiar.

Amendment 61 is not only about disabled access to buses, which is why I wanted to debate it right at the start of Report. Rather, it would confirm the importance of the Equality Act 2010 in relation to bus operators, local transport authorities and, of course, passengers. The Equality Act 2010 sets out, in Section 149, the public sector equality duty of public bodies delivering services to people. Anyone under it must have due regard to the need, and take steps to advance, equality of opportunity, not only for disabled passengers.

In this Bill, it is the local transport authorities which are under the PSED directly and plan, implement and monitor bus services in their area, as outlined in Section 108 of the Transport Act 2000. LTAs’ responsibilities are not limited to contracting for certain franchised bus services but include the responsibility for planning services for all their passengers, including the non-franchised. That does not mean that LTAs run the free market commercial bus routes, but they must ensure that everyone in their area has usable bus services.

In Committee, the Minister said that the regulation for public sector vehicles—PSVs—includes the duty to make reasonable adjustments. However, in practice, it is often a “best efforts” provision, leaving many disabled passengers frustrated when they cannot access a bus service. The actual compulsory provision includes wheelchair spaces, announcements and visual displays on the next stop, et cetera, and is way stronger than just reasonable adjustments.

I have continued to meet some pushback in meetings with government officials outside your Lordships’ House on the formal powers that all PSVs have to comply with. There seems to be something of a mindset that the commercial bus services are not included, but it is clear that they are covered by the Equality Act, which does not say that the definition is about commissioned or franchised services; it is any bus service that qualifies as a PSV, and its work must be monitored under another part of the Equality Act—the PSED—by the local transport authority, which will assess whether bus services in its area are meeting the needs of the people.

I have checked the case of FirstGroup Plc v Doug Paulley. The Supreme Court’s judgment, delivered in January 2017, sets out in paragraphs 11 and 12 the position that the bus operator had

“failed to comply with its duties under the Equality Act”

and confirmed that it was a public service vehicle under the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000. The House of Commons Transport Select Committee’s report, Access Denied: Rights Versus Reality in Disabled People’s Access to Transport, published last week, explains in paragraphs 10 to 17 the entirety of the law, including how the Equality Act—and within that, the PSED and the PSV section—and the PSV regulations I mentioned all fit together, as well as retained Regulation (EU) No. 181/2011.

The key to all this is the Equality Act, and my amendment simply restates that, as barrister Catherine Casserley said in evidence to the Commons Transport Select Committee, rights to accessible transport

“should be enforced in the same way as any health and safety requirement. As part of any operation, any business has to comply with a range of obligations. These should be no different”.

The Select Committee concluded that, despite the legal framework, much needs to happen to improve compliance and practice on a daily basis. Disabled passengers agree. We need to remind bus operators and LTAs that the Equality Act duties are at the heart of provision for truly accessible bus services. It needs to be in the Bill.

[Lord Bradshaw (LD)]

My Lords, I have spoken in the House before about the need to increase bus speeds. In discussion, the Minister has come forward with a method of bringing some discipline to local authorities with bad congestion problems that make the running of a proper bus service almost impossible—I note Oxford, Cambridge and London as among those places where this is the case.

18:15

I welcome the alternative solution that the Minister prefers, which is that traffic commissioners should summon the local authorities which have painfully slow bus routes to ask them what they are doing about congestion. Most local authorities have access to powers to speed up bus services; some are very reluctant to use them. I believe that if the local authorities, the officers and the officials were summoned to a traffic commissioner’s court to give an explanation of their lack of action, this may be a better way of proceeding than imposing financial penalties, which are apparently not the Government’s preferred route.

So far as the equipment on the buses is concerned, I am satisfied that most buses now have the equipment to deal with anti-social behaviour on the bus and from those surrounding it—drivers, cyclists and others, who frequently hurl abuse at the driver.

The compromises that the Minister put forward are acceptable alternatives to what I have said. I make the point that traffic commissioners have very few staff indeed. When the whole apparatus is reviewed, I hope that they will have enough enforcement staff to make these penalties effective in bringing about a speeding up of bus routes.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act—namely, the improved performance, quality and accessibility of bus passenger services. I am grateful that His Majesty’s Opposition has taken onboard the amended wording from my noble friend Lady Brinton to include accessibility in the purpose of the Bill.

At face value, it is impossible to disagree with this statement. It is fundamental to this legislation, and the range of areas covered in it, that it is about improving bus services across the country. As we heard in Committee, in many parts of the country our bus services have reached a crisis point and are virtually non-existent. Therefore, improved performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services must surely be a clear aim of this legislation.

My noble friend Lady Brinton’s Amendment 61 would extend the public service equality duty to cover all aspects of bus services, and it is really important. Whether bus services are run commercially, as is the current situation, or as part of an enhanced partnership or a future LABCo, there is the potential that not all aspects of bus services are fully covered. This will ensure that buses and bus services are covered by the public service equality duty. It is an important amendment.

On the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, regarding service permits, I am not convinced by the arguments put forward and see them as trying to compete with the franchised service in a problematic way. These feel like they are creating unnecessary bureaucracy and diktat from the centre, rather than allowing local transport authorities to provide the best service that suits their local communities and letting local government thrive. It feels at odds with what this Bill is trying to achieve. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, before I begin to address the amendments, I thank noble Lords for their continued contributions to the Bill. It remains clear to me that we share a common goal to improve bus services for passengers. This is precisely why the Government introduced this Bill: to empower local areas to design the bus services that their communities need, and to reverse decades-long nationwide trends in declining patronage and services.

Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said earlier, there are real choices in the Bill for local transport authorities, and rightly so. Nor is the Bill a threat to good private sector operators in the way the noble Lord implies. He referred to the entrepreneurial period in my own career. He should note that it was very largely in the provision of contracts for one of these evil public sector authorities—none other than London Transport—that the company I ran made a modest amount of money.

Your Lordships have provided insightful views and challenge throughout the Bill’s passage through this House. As I noted in my letter to all Peers, the Government have taken the time to reflect on the arguments put forward by noble Lords to strengthen the Bill’s measures in detail. I will speak to amendments that have been tabled in my name during this session. It is my view that these amendments would improve the Bill, and I hope they will be welcomed by your Lordships.

I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the recommendations in its 13th report. I note that the Government have welcomed and taken on board the suggestions therein.

I will take this opportunity, if I might, to briefly update the House following an exchange in Committee about the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency reporting channel for bus safety incidents and standards in the sector. I noted in Committee, in response to an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that this channel could be more user-friendly. I have since written to the DVSA, which has confirmed that it is in the process of updating all online reporting forms to improve accessibility and streamline the reporting process. Changes will be designed to allow direct reporting to the DVSA intelligence unit, including from the staff of operators, which should enable more timely interventions. Following updates to heavy goods vehicle reporting, the DVSA will be prioritising public service vehicle and coach reporting. This will include carrying out user research, to ensure that the revised forms enable the accurate and timely reporting of issues. I hope this is a helpful update and that it addresses any outstanding concerns about the adequacy of this reporting channel.

I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 1. This would place a direct requirement on the Secretary of State to have regard to improving the performance, accessibility and quality of bus passenger services in Great Britain as the main purpose of the Bill. As I stated in Committee, I understand why the noble Lord has drafted this amendment. I absolutely share the aim to achieve a better bus network that is more reliable, improves accessibility and performs well.

During the passage of what is now the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Gascoigne, tabled a similar amendment. At the time, I explained that the Secretary of State’s and the Government’s wider plans and objectives for the rail network included improving performance, but that this was not the sole purpose. I offer the House the same rationale for this Bill.

The objectives of the Bill of course include improving reliability, accessibility and performance; these are important aims. However, the Bill seeks to improve safety, provides local leaders with the powers to make the right decisions for their local areas, supports reaching net zero and puts passengers at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. To single out a limited number of objectives would undermine the message that the Government are trying to convey to local authorities, passengers, operators and the wider industry. I would not support this idea or place it in the Bill.

Extending this requirement across Great Britain, as the amendment seeks to, would presents significant difficulties with devolution. In tabling the amendment, the noble Lord appears to be seeking to apply all of the Bill’s measures across the whole of Great Britain. That would raise the potential of cutting across the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide how to run their own bus networks and what is best for their local communities. I am sure noble Lords opposite would not want this outcome. As some noble Lords will be aware, the Welsh Government are due to introduce their own Bill into the Senedd in the coming months. I hope the noble Lord understands the reasons why I do not believe this amendment should stand, and therefore will withdraw it.

I will briefly address Amendments 2 to 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on service permits. As the noble Lord knows, the Bill introduces new tests which franchising authorities can use to assess service permit applications. These applications are made by operators seeking to run commercial services in a franchising area, including cross-boundary services. The new tests set out in the Bill give franchising authorities more scope to grant service permits. They do so by allowing authorities to consider a wider range of benefits that the proposed commercial services could provide, and then to weigh these up against any adverse effect on franchised services.

While some of the noble Lord’s amendments would remove these new tests and others would alter them, the impact would be the same: franchising authorities would be significantly restricted in their ability to take into account any adverse impacts on franchised services made by the proposed commercial service. This would open the door to authorities being compelled to grant service permits for commercial services which directly compete with franchised ones, undermining the coherence and financial viability of franchising schemes.

I underline again that I recognise the additionality that commercially operated services can provide and how they can complement franchised networks; that is why the Bill gives authorities more freedom to tap into this provision. However, these amendments would diminish franchising authorities’ ability to control their networks, and they would likely make franchising as a model unviable. This is not in the interests of places with franchising schemes or of providing all local transport authorities with a range of tools to deliver the best possible bus services.

Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to prevent bus services being provided in a manner which discriminates against disabled people. I hear the noble Baroness’s concern about the barriers that disabled people continue to face when making day-to-day journeys on local services, and I absolutely share her determination that they must be overcome. As she says, we have had several substantial discussions about this topic.

However, as I know the noble Baroness will be aware, Section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 defines the concept of discrimination arising from disability, and Section 29, in turn, places requirements on service providers to not discriminate against users, including where arising from disability. This already applies to operators of local services, as it does to local authorities. Furthermore, requiring authorities to ensure compliance with the duty contained in this amendment could only ever have effect where authorities exercise direct control over the day-to-day operations of bus operators—control which does not exist in relation to the vast majority of services, except in franchising.

Here, it would be helpful to clarify remarks I made in Committee. The Bill permits local transport authorities to decide whether to pursue bus franchising and enhanced partnerships, or to set up new local authority bus companies. No single model is mandated; that is a decision for local leaders to take. This is directly relevant to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 makes local transport authorities subject to the public sector equality duty. These are listed as public authorities by that Act. That means, for example, that franchising authorities which have assumed responsibility for contracting their bus services are clearly within scope of the public sector equality duty.

Furthermore, noble Lords versed in the provisions of the Equality Act will know that an entity that exercises a public function is subject to the public sector equality duty. Therefore, any bus company that exercises such functions, which includes a local authority bus company, would be captured by the duty. This means that a new local authority bus company, enabled by the Bill, would be expected to consider the public sector equality duty whenever exercising public functions.

The situation is less clear-cut when it comes to enhanced partnerships between LTAs and private operators. As I have explained, bus companies are captured by the public sector equality duty to the extent to which they are exercising public functions—this would include privately owned bus companies. However, enhanced partnerships will include services that are commercial. Ultimately, it is not for me or the Government to determine what constitutes a public function—that is a question for the courts.

Therefore, although I am sympathetic to the noble Baroness’s concerns, I am unable to stand at this Dispatch Box and confirm that all bus operators must comply with public sector equality duty requirements even when not exercising public functions. In fact, to make private entities subject to the duty would be likely to require a substantial rewrite of the Equality Act. I hope that noble Lords would agree that this Bill is not the right place for that.

18:30

I recognise entirely what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve here: she wants reassurance, as I do, that disabled passengers are not discriminated against when travelling on buses. That is why I have tabled a series of substantive amendments to strengthen the accessibility provisions in the Bill. They include ensuring that enhanced partnerships, including private bus operators, can now include within their schemes accessibility measures that support independent and safe travel. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has played a critical role in shaping the Government’s thinking, for which I thank her; it will make a practical difference to how franchising and enhanced partnership schemes are designed, altered and implemented.

I am also aware that, as the noble Baroness mentioned, this issue has been examined by the Transport Select Committee, which published its report last week. Again, I recognise that whether and how different parts of the Equality Act apply to all those delivering transport should be clear for operators and transport users alike. Given that the Transport Select Committee has made recommendations in this space, I am keen that this issue be considered holistically as part of a wider review, rather than in isolation. The noble Baroness has my assurance that this consideration will form an important part of the Government’s work, which will be set out in their response to the committee’s report. I would welcome further engagement with her on this topic.

I hope that all this provides reassurance to the noble Baroness and others that the Government have listened and heard their concerns, and that my reassurances have done enough to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I turn briefly to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I am very grateful to him for the dialogue we have had about the importance of local highway and transport authorities making traffic flow properly to enable adequate and reliable bus services. Of course, where there is or will be a franchising scheme, the local transport authority has a direct interest in making sure that the highway network copes with buses and will therefore, as has happened in Manchester, naturally take a much greater interest in the reliability of the local road network. However, as the noble Lord says, across the bus networks in general we will look at reissuing Local Transport Note 1/24, and guidance, including revisions to reflect changes in bus policy resulting from this Bill. That will add weight to this. Some 98% of local authorities in England have powers to enforce parking offences, 87% have powers to enforce bus lane offences, and authorities outside London have, since 2022, been able to apply to the Department for Transport to take on the role of enforcing moving traffic restrictions such as yellow box junctions.

I return to the point that the noble Lord made. The senior traffic commissioner’s statutory documents give guidance to traffic commissioners when operators are in front of them for inadequate reliability. I look forward to a revision of those documents this year to reinforce the power of the traffic commissioner and their willingness to bring local highway and transport authorities in front of them where it is believed that they have contributed to the unreliability of bus services. In answer to the noble Lord’s point about staffing, local transport authorities can of course refer, with detailed data about bus reliability, directly to the traffic commissioner in order for a hearing to take place.

Finally, I note the noble Lord’s comments on the importance of recording incidents both in and outside buses. Some 96% of buses now have CCTV, which is a great fillip for both bus drivers and passengers, ensuring that crime and anti-social behaviour is recorded and properly dealt with. In addition, the department’s bus and coach safety best practice guidance was updated last year to ensure that, alongside CCTV, there is nationwide best practice regarding security and anti-social behaviour incidents.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord; I listened carefully to what he said. On Amendment 1, he says that we can trust the Government that performance, accessibility and quality of service for bus passengers are safe in their hands and those of local transport authorities, and that this does not need to be in the Bill. Yet, when one looks at Marshalled List, there are half a dozen—welcome—amendments on accessibility. Why are they there? They are there because the Government forgot about accessibility when they drafted the Bill. They are there because of the work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Grey-Thompson, and others, who, in Committee, put this issue right at the heart of the discussion.

The truth is that there are a number of drivers influencing the Government in their direction on bus policy. They include the unions, local authorities—many of which are Labour or left-wing led—and the passengers. But the passengers should not have to compete with other parties. As I and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, have said, passengers’ interests should be at the heart of the Bill. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 1.

18:36

Division 5

Ayes: 238

Noes: 156

18:47

Clause 6: Criteria for granting service permits

Amendments 2 to 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

9: Before Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Franchising statementIn section 123A of the Transport Act 2000, after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The power in subsection (1) cannot be exercised until the franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, has published a statement, subject to the requirement in subsection (1B), stating—(a) their objectives in making the franchising scheme, and(b) their reasons and evidence for believing that the making of such a scheme is the best option for achieving those objectives.(1B) It is a requirement that a statement in subsection (1A) must be published before the franchising authority complies with the requirements in sections 123B to 123G.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that before initiating the formal franchising process under sections 123B to 123G of the Transport Act 2000, franchising authorities must first publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons, and supporting evidence for believing that franchising is the best option to achieve their aims.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this group consists of three amendments that are sufficiently related to merit being included in one group but are each distinct from each other, and each requires a degree of explanation that, given the hour, I shall try to keep as short as possible, and I hope I will do a sufficiently good job at explaining what their purpose is.

Amendment 9 carries forward the notion of accountability that was contained in Amendment 1 relating to the purpose of the Bill. Amendment 1 related to the Secretary of State. Amendment 9 would place upon a duty upon a local transport authority that was considering embarking on a franchising proposal to make a statement as to what their objectives were in doing so. The franchising process itself is set out in some detail as a result of the amendments here to the Transport Act. I have no quarrel with the process, which is quite elaborate and involves half a dozen steps, including an external audit. It starts when a local transport authority, singly or jointly, decides to start it, and it concludes when that local transport authority decides whether or not to make the scheme. It is perfectly lawful for the local transport authority, having gone through all its process, to reach the conclusion that it should not make the scheme and not therefore proceed with franchising. But at no point does the local transport authority have to say to the public, although it may do as a matter of politics and local communications, what its objective is in doing this, what success is going to look like or what it is trying to achieve. Amendment 9 requires that. I think that is very sensible, and should be welcomed by the Minister, so the public know exactly what their local authority is embarking on and with what purpose.

Amendment 12 relates to the effect of the franchising scheme on incumbent private bus operators, which are companies that have staff and that have to make investment decisions and so forth. It says that, if having gone through that franchising process a local transport authority quite legitimately decides that it will not make a scheme, then it is not allowed to re-embark on the process for another five years. I would be open to persuasion if the Minister were to say that the period should be three years or even two years, but there must be a period of respite for the incumbent private transport operators during which they and their employees know that they can get on with a future, with a prospect, with reasons for investment and know that they are not necessarily going to be taken into a franchise arrangement. Otherwise, they could live in a state of perpetual uncertainty, with all the effects that would have on investment, business planning and staff morale. Amendment 12 intends to prevent that happening. It involves no criticism of anybody and would be the result of a perfectly legitimate outcome of the process as it stands. But it would be an adverse effect if through change of control, which of course does not have to follow an election in a local authority—change of control happens quite often without elections taking place, because councillors defect or change to one side and coalitions change in local authorities—the bus company does not have that period of respite.

Finally, we come to Amendment 13, on which I will listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say. The Bill does not contemplate giving the Secretary of State any power to step in if everything goes horribly wrong. What I mean by horribly wrong is something equivalent to bankruptcy of a local authority. In that case, the Government have the power to send in commissioners to rescue the situation. A situation of perpetual drift and financial incoherence will not be allowed to persist because that would not be good for the local people served by that local authority. Commissioners are sent in, and everything is somehow brought back into order so that services and so forth can continue. What is contemplated in this amendment—and it is carefully worded—is that

“If, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there is a persistent failure”—

not a bad weekend—

“to deliver a service specified by the contract, the Secretary of State may”—

it is permissive—

“take over the management of the service”.

In exercising this power, he may become the counterparty to the contract and continue to do this until

“a new contract is let, or … another permanent solution is found”.

The Secretary of State should welcome having this power because it is possible for things to go horribly wrong. You can imagine a situation where bus services in a particular area simply collapse and stop running. What is to happen if that was to occur? This gives an answer to that question and gives the Secretary of State the power to step in.

I want to listen very carefully to what the Minister will say because it is just conceivable that he has this power or an appropriate power he can use. I have had the advantage of a brief discussion with him about this beforehand. The Transport Act, which this Bill amends, is a very large document and I do not have the resources of the Government Legal Service at my hand ploughing through it, looking for the necessary power. If the Minister replies that he has such a power and can point it out, my amendment would fall away. If not, it is something that I would want to press and something he, I hope, would welcome. With that, I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, the variety of amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seem to put even more obstacles in the way of any local transport authority which wishes to introduce franchising or any elected representatives who decide to franchise services. It feels to me that it is even more bureaucracy. These amendments feel like an ideological response rather than a genuine concern about bus service provision.

Local government should have the tools to implement what it assesses is suitable for its area and will be judged on whether it is providing the service that local communities need. Ultimately, the electorate will decide what they think of their services through the ballot box. I do not think we need the Secretary of State to intervene. I have confidence in local government to deliver what is needed for its communities. I am sure the Minister may have a similar viewpoint. I am interested to hear whether the Secretary of State does have a power if it is ultimately needed, but I await the response with interest.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, requires authorities to publish a statement outlining their objectives, reasons and supporting evidence. My department has established franchising guidance to support authorities through the franchising process. Requiring local authorities to provide an upfront statement is redundant as at that point franchising is still in the exploratory stage, making the statement premature. The franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to present the evidence and rationale behind a decision to franchise. While local authorities might choose to develop a feasibility assessment to start with, this should remain optional to allow them the flexibility to adopt the approach that best suits their needs. The amendment undermines recent efforts by my department to streamline franchising, making it faster and more cost-effective. I believe the amendment is unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it.

Amendment 12 seeks to impose a five-year moratorium on repeating franchising scheme assessments if the previous attempt was unsuccessful. The aim of this Bill is to simplify the process for authorities wishing to pursue franchising, ensuring decisions are made at the appropriate level and in a timely manner. I would contend that this amendment introduces unnecessary constraints on local transport authorities by proposing and adopting an overly rigid approach. Many factors might lead an authority to initially decide against pursuing franchising, only to reconsider later. Imposing a blanket restriction limits the ability to respond flexibly to evolving conditions and opportunities. Assessments are costly and time-consuming, so they will not be undertaken lightly. The noble Lord referred to a change of control, which might happen more frequently than five years, which is one possibility. Another possibility is that commercial bus services in the area, presumably served by an enhanced partnership, change over time, so that franchising becomes, in the local transport authority’s view, the best way of dealing with bus services in the locality. Since bus operators can give but 42 days’ notice of quite radical changes to bus services, including large-scale withdrawals, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate to have a situation where a commercial bus company had given notice on quite a large number of services and the local transport authority found itself unable to propose a franchising scheme as a consequence in any reasonable time. For those reasons, I would say that the amendment is unnecessary and I hope the noble Lord will not move it.

19:00

Amendment 13, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, looks for the Secretary of State to have the power to intervene when franchised bus services persistently fail. The noble Lord mentioned that the Transport Act might give the Secretary of State such a power—if it does, I do not know of it. The proposition here is that, contrary to the noble Lord’s strongly held principles—which he has explained to me over many years—of the sanctity of local authority decision-making and their responsibility to local communities, he would like the Secretary of State to step in if a bus service is failing. I would say—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, on this—that this is entirely a matter for the local electorate and the local authority.

I do not believe this is very likely to happen. What is more likely is the situation I described when discussing Amendment 12, where a commercial bus operator discovers at quite short notice that it is no longer making any money providing a comprehensive service to a town or a small city and proposes the wholesale withdrawal of those services in 42 days. This would leave the community with no viable services and, if we were to adopt Amendment 12, the local transport authority with no opportunity to replace them via a franchising scheme.

I contend strongly that Amendment 13 is not necessary. The core principle of this Bill is the devolution to local transport authorities of the power to organise or provide, or have provided, bus services in their areas. I see no reason for the Secretary of State to have the power to intervene. I hope the noble Lord will not press this amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for what they had to say. I do not intend to press Amendment 9. I think it is a missed opportunity on the part of the Government. It certainly is not, and was never intended to be, an obstacle—how could it possibly be an obstacle to embarking on a franchising scheme that one has to issue a notice explaining what one is doing?

However, on Amendments 12 and 13, I am simply unconvinced by what the Minister said. You can be totally devoted to local decision-making and still expect the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint commissioners in the case of a failed local authority. That happens—and of course it should happen—rarely and in appropriate circumstances.

I think the Minister almost sounded frivolous. Let us say people were stranded in the Yorkshire Dales, waiting for a bus that never comes because of the persistent mismanagement of their local scheme. We would be able to quote the Minister and tell them that it is entirely a matter for local democracy—that when the local council elections come, in two or three years, they will be able to put this right, and the bus may then come and collect them. That is complete nonsense.

When the time comes, I may wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendments 12 and 13. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Clause 9: Report on assessment of proposed scheme

Amendment 10

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

10: Clause 9, page 6, line 2, at end insert—
“(A1) Section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 (assessment of proposed scheme) is amended in accordance with subsections (A2) to (A4).(A2) In subsection (2)(a) omit “and”.(A3) After subsection (2)(b) insert “, and(c) assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provision of bus services under the scheme.(2A) The assessment under subsection (2)(c) must include—(a) an evaluation of whether available funding is sufficient to meet the projected costs of the franchising scheme;(b) an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve service levels across all affected communities.”(A4) After subsection (6) insert—“(6A) An assessment under this section must be made publicly available and submitted to the Secretary of State.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of central government funding to support the provisions of bus services under franchised schemes.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I point out that it is not my choice that this is the single amendment in the group. I believe there was some degrouping, which left this amendment stranded as the sole survivor of a group.

The principle of bus franchising is one that we on these Benches fully support. The reason for abandoning the privatised model introduced 40 years ago is that it has quite simply not worked. There is no competition between bus companies, as each has gradually dominated particular routes and given up on those that are less well used. Under that model—which exists everywhere in England, except in London—there is a spiralling downwards of the expectation of a regular and reliable bus service. The consequence is the growing frustration of those who absolutely rely on buses, and it puts off from using buses those who would like to.

Franchising will provide the powers for local transport authorities to ensure growing improvement in bus reliability and connectivity. It will not be achieved overnight, but progress will stall without additional funding from the Government. The £670 million that the Government announced will be allocated in the coming financial year for improving bus services is a start, but the majority of that funding, as I understand it from government figures, is earmarked for capital expenditure. What is desperately needed is revenue funding to support more operators in providing additional services on which people can rely.

My concerns are shared by professionals in the industry. Graham Vidler, head of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which represents the bus industry, said:

“In most franchising arrangements it’s the local authority who takes the revenue risk, so if passenger numbers aren’t where they expect to be, they and their council tax payers take the hit”.


I am sure the Minister has this in sight, but my concern, which is shared by the industry, is that it will be left without funding to get this franchising scheme on the road and working well—hence my Amendment 10 asks for an assessment of the adequacy of central government funding. This must include an evaluation of funding sufficiency and

“an analysis of the funding required to maintain or improve”

bus services everywhere.

I hope the Minister can say that there is a big pot of money waiting in the Department for Transport, which he has the keys to, and that he will unlock it and enable us to have the bus services that this country deserves but does not have. Bus services that people can rely on will enable more people to move out of private transport on to public bus services, to the benefit of the environment as much as anything else. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I support the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. It gave a dose of realism—there is nothing for free in this world and we all know that.

In Committee, enormous numbers were bandied around on the cost of franchising, so I did some research. The Greater Manchester franchising bill was £134 million. That money came entirely from Greater Manchester; there was not a penny of government money involved, so it can be done. In Greater Manchester, they did it with £78 million from the mayoral earn back fund from GMCA’s devolution agreement; £33.7 million from the mayoral precepts; £17 million from local authorities; and £5 million of existing and forecast business rates. It can be done from within, but, where there is not a mature combined authority, it is more difficult. That is where the Government need to step in and give funding.

The question might be asked: why would we do that? From the very start, this debate has been about the public and making transport more accessible and reliable. All I can tell you from Greater Manchester is that patronage, revenue and punctuality are up and the cost of running the network per kilometre is one-third lower than when it was run by private operators. If we had not franchised in Greater Manchester, we would have a smaller bus network, which stifles growth, and a more expensive network, which supports no one.

This is not a lot of money, and I just hope that the Government can look at this. Everything is about capital expenditure, but sometimes you have to create the opportunity for revenue, which can be delivered by having a better bus service going where people want it to go: hospitals, outlying villages and where people live and commute to work from. That is the difference. In Greater Manchester, we now have a night bus that goes to north Manchester—it never did before, but for people to get employment and jobs it is invaluable. It shows that, with imagination and the right funding, franchising does work, but sometimes it needs a bit of help from the Government.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Goddard have raised, with Amendment 10, the elephant in the room: the adequacy of central government funding to support local bus services. While this legislation has the potential to transform bus services and empower local transport authorities, ultimately money is needed for this. This is not the view just of local and regional government—they would say that, wouldn’t they?—but the bus industry as well. Securing long-term clarity and certainty around funding for the sector—revenue and capital—will help enhance the benefits delivered to local communities. I look forward to the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I have only two things to say. First, I look forward to the Minister confirming that the Greater Manchester franchising scheme was carried out without any government subvention at all, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, explained to the House was the case. It is something of a revelation to me, but of course I may be wrong and I look to the Minister to say whether he was right.

Secondly, I am surprised and saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, whom I see in his place, has not intervened in this debate because, at Second Reading, he was voluble in explaining what we all know: that this Bill will make no difference at all if a very large amount of government money is not made available throughout the country to support it. Yet one listens to the Chancellor today with some sadness on behalf of the country that she has not been able to announce the growth rates she was hoping for, that inflation is higher, that growth rates are lower and that the tax yield is less. Where is this money to come from in these sad circumstances that we find ourselves in?

I do not know whether “elephant in the room” is the right expression, but the Bill is to some degree bogus, and the House is grateful, I am sure, to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for pointing that out so acutely.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his intervention. It is helpful of him to have quoted those figures, which I concur with, if only because, earlier in the process of this Bill, some completely different figures were quoted—very high ones—which were incorrect. One reason why the figure in Manchester is so high is that the franchising process that the Mayor of Greater Manchester has had to go through has been tortuous. That is one of the reasons why this Bill is in front of this House—to make franchising simpler and easier to carry out. It is a great achievement for Transport for Greater Manchester and the mayor to have got to the place that they have. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, remarked on the success of the bus service in Greater Manchester, with night services, more reliability and greater revenue than anybody expected.

I am sure that noble Lords will recall that I had the pleasure of standing here at the end of last year to announce a settlement of just under £1 billion to every local transport authority in the country. That was the first for some time; previous settlements had been partial and selective between different local transport authorities. Of course, the majority of that money could now be spent rather more economically on a faster franchising scheme, if that is what local transport authorities want to do. Some of them will not want to do that, because it is clear that bus services are a patchwork across England and plenty of towns and cities have adequate local bus services provided through enhanced partnerships. I have no doubt that a local transport authority will see no need to change them in those circumstances. I can name some of those places, but it is probably better if I do not.

In any event, the affordability of the proposed franchising schemes, and therefore funding, is already an integral aspect of franchising assessment, which is hard-wired into this legislation. Assessments’ financial case should include consideration of funding available from government, as set out in the statutory guidance. Indeed, the guidance for franchising schemes allows local transport authorities to choose whether it applies to all or part of their area, or to some small part of their area, for a necessarily much smaller expenditure. The franchising assessment must be published alongside the independent assurance report if an authority decides to proceed to a consultation, and that will ensure transparency about the proposed scheme’s financial viability and impact on communities.

For those reasons, although I absolutely respect the noble Baroness’s regard for the general measures in the Bill, I hope she will feel able to withdraw this amendment.

19:15

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The noble Lord referred to the £1 billion last year. Of course, £250 million of that went to bus companies, and £750 million went to local transport authorities, of which there are roughly 140. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that it was about a £5 million one-off sum to local transport authorities. I am not sure how far that takes you in terms of franchising and the subsidies that go with it, given that in London the subsidy is closer to £700 million than £7 million. If this Bill is to go forward, can the noble Lord give us any assurance that sums of that order or greater will be offered to local transport authorities in the future—or have we seen the best of it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord quotes a subsidy figure for London, which is a world city of 10 million people. A choice is made by the Mayor of London in respect of the balance between fares and subsidy, amounting to the balance of subsidy that needs to be put into the network. The subsidy in Manchester will be nowhere near what the Mayor of Greater Manchester thought it would be, because of the relative growth in patronage after a long period of decline. I cannot promise any particular numbers, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, well knows, because that is a matter for the Chancellor, for future years and for a spending review. But I will say that that funding, and the fact that it was universally awarded to every local transport authority, is a clear indication of the Government’s commitment to devolution and local bus services in a way that was not apparent with the previous Government.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the positive way that he always responds to our queries and concerns. My concerns are based on the fact that effective, reliable and regular bus services are essential for people to access employment and the growth agenda that the Government are rightly pursuing. They are also essential to help reduce the number of cars on the road and move people to using public transport more often to help our environmental agenda. That is the backdrop to my concerns. I live in West Yorkshire, and we are desperate for a bit of extra funding to support schemes for franchising there. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

Amendment 11

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

11: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to consult persons with disabilitiesIn section 123E(4) of the Transport Act 2000 (consultation), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a franchising authority to consult disabled persons, or organisations representative of disabled persons, before making a franchising scheme.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I turn to a series of four government amendments which place requirements on franchising authorities relating to accessibility. The first of these amendments, Amendment 11, requires that where an authority gives notice of its intent to make a franchising scheme and begins a consultation, the people and organisations with which it must consult includes disabled people and organisations that represent them.

The remaining three amendments require that, when a franchising scheme is varied, local transport authorities must consult with disabled people or with organisations representing them. The only difference between them is the type of franchising scheme they relate to. Amendment 62 applies the consultation requirement where schemes are varied to add to the existing area that they cover; Amendment 63 applies it to variations affecting the extent of the franchising scheme but not resulting in the addition of new areas; and Amendment 64 applies it to all other forms of variation. For all three categories of franchising scheme variation, the Bill already proposes that organisations representing passengers must be consulted, as the authority sees fit, but Amendment 11 requires specifically that disabled people and organisations representing them be included.

Together, these measures will help to ensure that the voice of disabled people is heard by local transport authorities when franchising schemes are varied, with the aim of ensuring that plans take proper account of the needs of those people. With that in mind, I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment, as well as the wider package of accessibility amendments that I have tabled in my name. Once again, I thank your Lordships for making the interventions that have helped shape the Government’s approach.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Amendments 11, 62, 63 and 64, all of which add to the Bill a duty to consult local disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. Will that cover not just the geographic area of the local transport authority but the range of disabilities? In particular, will it ensure that a range of local disabled people’s organisations are consulted. There is a real frustration when, for example, only one particular disabled organisation is talked to.

On my train this morning, I talked to a woman with vision impairment who said that she has real frustrations in this regard. She is on the co-production committee in Hertfordshire, and she said that too often, one organisation for disabled people is gone to, and it is assumed that it understands all the different needs of, say, blind people, deaf people, people in wheelchairs, people with autism—I could go on. I would be grateful for an answer to that question, but on balance I am grateful that these measures are here. They are helpful, but they are not what I was seeking in my earlier amendment, which I shall not go over again.

Amendment 18 covers enhanced partnership schemes requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities. I note that new subsections (1) and (2), relating to the enhanced partnership schemes, use the word “may”, not “must”. If an enhanced partnership does not specify, for example, how safe a bus stop area is, or that bus stop areas must be safe, will it still have that responsibility, given that Section 174(1)(a) of the Equality Act states:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations … for securing that it is possible for disabled persons … to get on to and off regulated public service vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty”?


It says, “may make regulations”, but the point is that there is a duty to ensure that disabled people can get on and off buses easily. If one of the enhanced partnerships decided not to check in a rural area, for example, whether there was street lighting or a pavement wide enough for a wheelchair to 2get off, would that be regarded as acceptable by the Government? There is no compulsion on the enhanced partnership to consult on that.

Amendment 19 says that local transport authorities in England must make a bus network accessibility plan. We on these Benches think that is helpful. It is a shame, though, that there is no common framework. It also means that the background behind a plan, who they consulted and what the details were, can continue to remain private.

My Amendment 37 is slightly different, in that it proposes an annual report with a common framework, according to which all LTAs would have to compile that report, using certain types of data and looking at certain types of accessibility issues. I said in Committee and I say again now that sometimes, there is nothing like an authority being required to consult, create and publish a plan with its results every year, in order to make the change we were talking about in group 1. We have heard from the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that there is much to do in practice, not just on buses themselves but on LTAs enforcing proper accessibility. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on that.

On balance, I am grateful for these amendments, but they are not the legislative sureties that I was looking for in the earlier group.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is very important and improves the legislation. I am pleased to read the many amendments from the Government, picking up the issues that many of us raised in Committee, for which I am grateful. But far more consultation and engagement with disabled persons and representative organisations is essential as franchising and enhanced partnerships are adopted by local authorities, and as routes are amended or changed and a new way of working settles down.

I am also pleased to see government Amendment 19, which ensures that local transport authorities in England make a bus network accessibility plan. That responds in part to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Brinton in Committee. However, as my noble friend has set out in Amendment 37, we need to take that further; it is essential that we get changes across the bus sector. We hope that the Government respond positively to that amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Official Opposition welcome and support the government amendments in this group, and we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to the very pertinent questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in relation to her Amendment 37.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on the Government’s amendments. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, had to say and her comparison of Amendment 37 with government Amendments 18 and 19. The Government believe that tabling these makes a real difference to the provision of services for disabled people. Amendment 19 in particular, which relates to the bus network accessibility plan, will enable local transport authorities to provide properly for people with disabilities.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to the range of organisations in areas, and I am very comfortable with reassuring her that the intention here is that there should be such a range; it is not that local transport authorities should choose only one or two organisations, which does not seem right to me. I need to think about what she said on the wider duties to ensure that disabled people have access to all places. We will come on to accessible bus stops and how they should be dealt with in this legislation. I look forward to the opportunity—probably not on this day of Report, but the following day—to debate that, and I shall respond very carefully when we get there.

In the meantime, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this worthwhile debate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, still feels able to withdraw her Amendment 37 in favour of government Amendment 19, so that we can have a package of measures for people with disabilities that covers the whole range of solutions for local transport. I hope that noble Lords can accept the amendments in my name.

Amendment 11 agreed.

Amendment 12

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

12: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Franchising scheme: restrictionWhere a franchising authority, or two or more franchising authorities acting jointly, prepare an assessment of a proposed franchising scheme under section 123B of the Transport Act 2000 but fail, for any reason, to make and publish a scheme under section 123H of the Transport Act 2000, they must not initiate another franchising assessment for the same area, or a substantially similar area, for a period of five years from the date on which the assessment was prepared.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment prevents franchising authorities from repeatedly conducting franchising assessments for the same or substantially similar areas within a five-year period if they do not proceed to make and publish a franchising scheme.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the private sector—the private bus companies—will remain absolutely integral, even under a franchising arrangement and certainly under an enhanced bus partnership, to the provision of bus services in this country under the Government’s scheme. It is incumbent on us to treat them properly and with respect. They cannot be held constantly in a state of suspension, potentially not knowing what their future is, as a result of repeated franchise operations.

Amendment 12 is absolutely necessary in order to maintain the sense of investment and purpose that private bus companies need if they are going to go forward, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:31

Division 6

Ayes: 133

Noes: 185

19:43

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

13: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Poor performance of franchising(1) If, due to poor operational or financial management by the franchising authority or franchisees, there is a persistent failure to deliver a service specified by the contract, the Secretary of State may take over the management of the service.(2) In exercising this power, the Secretary of State may substitute themselves for the franchising authority in the relevant contract.(3) The Secretary of State shall continue to manage the service until such time as—(a) a new contract is let, or(b) another permanent solution is found.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide the Secretary of State with the power to intervene in cases where franchised bus services are persistently failing due to poor operational or financial management.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is common ground between the Minister and me that, in the event of a local authority failing financially, it is possible for the Secretary of State to send in commissioners to sort out the matter. It is also common ground between us that, in the similar event of a local transport authority failing financially and not being able to deliver the bus services that it has contracted, or a franchisee falling into bankruptcy, the Secretary of State would have no power under this Bill, and no power under the Transport Act that the Bill amends, to step in and do anything about it.

I think that every noble Lord in this House would agree, if they were entirely disinterested, that that is a power the Secretary of State should have. Amendment 13 would simply give the Secretary of State the power to step in, in those limited and prescribed circumstances, in the interests of passengers. It has been barely an hour since the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that the interests of passengers were absolutely at the heart of the Bill. Of course the Secretary of State should have this power, and for that reason I wish to test the opinion of the House.

19:45

Division 7

Ayes: 129

Noes: 185

19:54

Clause 12: Socially necessary local services

Amendment 14

Moved by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

14: Clause 12, page 9, line 20, at end insert—
“(iv) health care services, or(v) schools and other educational institutes, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that health care services, schools, and other educational institutes are considered under the provisions of “socially necessary routes”.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, one of the main purposes of this legislation is to transform bus services across the country. The deregulation of buses in the 1985 Act has seen bus route after bus route thinned out and then cut completely, especially in many rural and suburban areas such as Shropshire and Hampshire. That is why the new socially necessary routes clause in this Bill is so important to ensure that bus services provide the routes that meet the needs of local communities rather than simply those which are profitable.

Amendment 14 specifies that access to education, including schools and colleges, and health services, from a GP surgery and primary care to an acute medical setting such as a hospital, are included in the definition of a socially necessary route. These seem to be obvious places to connect communities to in a timely manner. But, as I highlighted in Committee, this is not the current case. In Tonbridge, Kent, bus services have been cut so much that school bus services either drop children off far too early, leaving students hanging around the streets before school, or they are actually late for school. Naming education institutions as part of socially necessary routes will help to address this as we move forward.

As a Londoner, I am very fortunate to be able to access local health facilities and world-leading teaching hospitals with ease on public transport. But this is not the case across the country. If we want communities to stay healthy and fit, they need good access to health services wherever they are located.

I am sure we all know family and friends who have been diagnosed with a condition or illness. They often require regular, routine appointments at different health buildings throughout their treatment. These are not just in a traditional hospital setting but right across the community. In rural areas, these can be located some considerable distance away. That is why we believe that socially necessary services need to be explicit regarding health services to ensure that patients can get to appointments at different locations without having to rely on family or volunteers to drive them there and back.

Amendment 16 in this group puts a duty on local authorities to implement a socially necessary service as far as is reasonably practical should alternative operators fail to do so, with provisions for financial support if needed and the possibility of transferring responsibility to an alternative operator once the service is established. We on these Benches felt that that was important, given that the Bill allows for a clear definition of socially necessary routes but no clarity on how these routes will be provided. If, either through franchising or enhanced partnerships, it has proven impossible to secure a provider for a service, what then happens? This is the back-up clause, but we felt it was important to ensure that such crucial services for communities are picked up and provided.

I have no doubt that, where franchising is used, local authorities will package profitable routes with socially necessary services to ensure that comprehensive bus services are provided. But our amendment picks up those services which are just not securing an operator, to ensure that communities have access to essential services.

I hope the Minister will be able to respond to these important points shortly to ensure that socially necessary bus routes properly serve local communities. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on their amendments in this group and I beg to move Amendment 14.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

For those listeners with visual impairments, I state that my name is Jones of Moulsecoomb.

I have Amendments 15 and 53 in this group. I will speak to Amendment 53 first. As we have heard a lot during the progress of the Bill, we need buses in villages. Having them does all sorts of things. It boosts people’s health because they do not use their cars as much and it improves air quality within the villages themselves. It is quite an important aspect of village life to have good buses to good services. Here, I am slightly nervous about asking for a review, because reviews take time and cost money and we have to be sure that they are properly targeted. However, I care about this, I think we could tweak it and perhaps it will find acceptance from the Minister.

My Amendment 15 basically cuts out the need for a review, because it states that bus services that were in place should be replaced. That is an option that we could look at. I take buses all the time and it seems to me that, when we reduce bus services, we reduce all sorts of opportunities that people cannot access any more. So I feel very strongly about this and I hope to hear that the Minister looks favourably on these amendments.

20:00

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, has put her finger on what might be described as the other elephant in the room. The whole purpose of this Bill is defeated if it does not result in uncommercial services being run on the basis of subsidy. We have discussed in a previous group the complete absence of any information from the Government about where those subsidies are coming from. In this amendment, the noble Baroness draws attention to the types of routes that should be included and what a socially necessary service is.

To the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I say that no party cares for villages more than the Conservative Party. While I cannot sympathise with her attempt to resurrect bus routes as old as 15 years, I have great sympathy with what she has to say about villages. I hope that the Minister shares that and can reach out to her to achieve the sort of compromise that she is offering—and which can only improve the Bill.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 14. I know through discussions with her that she has a keen interest in protecting vital services, especially those outside large towns and cities. The Bill sets out that a socially necessary local service is a local bus service which

“enables passengers to access—essential goods and services … economic opportunities (including employment), or … social activities”

and which

“if cancelled, is likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access those goods, services, opportunities or activities”.

However, as there has been concern that not all essential services are covered by this definition, particularly healthcare and schools, I want to confirm through this statement to the House that “essential goods and services” includes healthcare, schools and other educational institutions. Therefore, a socially necessary local service may include a bus service which enables passengers to access healthcare and schools. The Government intend to produce detailed guidance to assist in the interpretation and application of this measure. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness also for Amendment 16 and want to reassure her that under Clause 12, when an operator wishes to cancel or amend a service, the operator and the local transport authority will need to give due consideration to the benefits that a bus service provides to the local community. LTAs will also need to consider alternatives to mitigate any adverse effects of changes to such services. Under the Transport Act 1985 and the Transport Act 1968, local authorities are already under a duty to secure public passenger transport services that they consider appropriate to secure to meet the requirements of the area and which would not otherwise be met. This is likely to include services that have been identified as socially necessary.

Clause 12 should result in additional transparency by identifying the number of socially necessary local services in an area where an enhanced partnership is in place. This in turn will provide government with additional information which can be used to inform the decision-making around funding for local bus services. Local transport authorities have the best understanding of the needs of their local communities. Any additional obligations introduced through legislation would place an undue burden on local authorities and undermine their independence. They should be able to consider all the possible options to deliver the best outcome for passengers.

On Amendment 15 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, there was a similar amendment in Committee. I reaffirm that this Government recognise that local transport authorities are best placed to understand and address the needs of the communities that they serve. This Bill is about giving them real powers to decide what is best for their local area. We can recognise that a service that has been cancelled within the last 15 years may no longer be a service that would meet the current needs of the community given that these will inevitably change over time, but I also recognise that some might still be relevant to the needs of the community. As local transport authorities address need for their communities, they can of course consider former routes if they believe that they would represent a contribution to socially necessary local services. In that, I recognise the rather unfortunate nature of some of the funding for rural bus services in recent years, which has provoked new services, cancelled old ones, had the new services withdrawn and had the old ones brought back. She is right in her assumption that local transport authorities should look at the recent past in considering the best pattern of socially necessary services.

I also recognise the need to serve villages just like the rest of the communities in a local transport authority area, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out that this is rather more about making sure that the socially necessary services chosen by local transport authorities serve the complete community, including villages, and rather less about a review which, as she said, generally costs time and money—almost certainly, such reviews do. In terms of this Bill, however, it will take up to five years for local transport authorities either to transition to a franchise network or to form a bus company, with a period for the review itself. I agree that it is much better for local transport authorities to consider the needs of villages in their areas and the right options of routes to serve their local communities. I hope therefore that she will not press her amendments.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his clarification on socially necessary bus services and his confirmation that healthcare, schools and education institutions are covered by this. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

Amendment 17

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

17: Clause 12, page 10, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap on passengers’ ability to access socially necessary local services identified in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.”

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, the Conservative Government maintained a cap on individual bus fares of £2. We pledged in our manifesto—and had we been re-elected we would have put into that effect that pledge—that we would continue the £2 bus cap. I suppose that I do not need to remind noble Lords that the Conservatives did not win the general election last year.

When the cap expired, the current Government replaced it with a £3 cap, with no examination whatever of the effect that might have. We are now in a position, as the months have rolled by, to carry out a review of its effect. We know from studies done independently by Frontier Economics and SYSTRA when the Conservatives were in power that the £2 fare cap delivered significant benefits. The report concluded that the scheme had had a positive impact on bus patronage and had helped to support the cost of living by reducing travel costs. It also noted an increase in the number and proportion of single bus journeys since the scheme began.

It would be a very strange thing indeed if the Government said that they did not wish to know the effects of their own policies. The Conservatives wanted to know, and commissioned reports to find out, what the effects of their fare policies were, but the current Government simply do not want to know. I cannot believe that that it is the response from the Front Bench. This amendment requires the Government to carry out that research and bring it to the House so that we can all understand the effect of this large increase in the bus fares cap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches were saddened that the Government cancelled the £2 bus fare cap. It was an incredibly successful scheme that saw an increase in passengers on buses and made bus travel more affordable. I have an amendment to bring back a £2 bus fare cap scheme, which we will debate next week. I believe it is far stronger than this amendment before us today.

However, I am glad to see that His Majesty’s Opposition are highlighting this issue through an assessment of the scheme. As I said earlier, the key issue here is always the level of funding for bus services and, indeed, the costs to the passenger. If we want more people out of their cars and using buses, we need to ensure that fares are more attractive and services are provided where passengers need to go. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said that he deplored the fact that the £2 bus fare had been increased to £3. This is, even for him, an act of great cynicism. The £2 maximum bus fare was introduced by the last Conservative Government on 1 January 2023 —coincidentally, of course, in the run-up to the next election. It was initially introduced for three months. There is nothing that makes the bus industry despair more than this sort of short-termism. You cannot plan ahead for three months so far as bus services are concerned.

That £2 limit was increased on numerous occasions in the run-up to the election, and if the Opposition spokesperson is going to tell us that it would have remained at £2 in the foreseeable future, I would be more than impressed. I suspect that this is a plot that has succeeded in luring the Liberal Democrats into the same Lobby. The House would be better served if we waited for the actual debate on the Liberal Democrat amendment rather than suffered what is, I repeat, a cynical operation on the part of the party opposite.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make just a few points about the former £2 national bus fare cap. The first is quite obvious. The previous Government left no forward funding for that scheme at the time of the election and, indeed, left a rather large hole in the public finances, which, in effect, prevented its continuation.

The second point is that it is very easy to assume that somehow the maximum cap of £3 meant that all fares went up by 50%. The vast majority of travellers on bus services travel for a short distance and many of them paid less than £2 in any event. Fares between £2 and £3 went up only by inflation, and the cap still applies to longer-distance journeys that would cost more than £3.

In any event, in February, the Government published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 fare cap. Evidence from that suggests that the scheme had a relatively greater impact on leisure trips compared with those for education and employment and was, in fact, rather poor value for money. So I believe that a legislative requirement for further evaluation is unnecessary and, on that basis, I would ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to be drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who intends only to provoke me. But I am to some extent provoked. I am provoked to the extent of pointing out that there was a solemn pledge by the Conservative Party in its manifesto to continue the £2 bus cap and that the Conservative Party keeps its pledges. He should not find that astounding.

As far as the Minister is concerned, we suddenly discover that leisure trips on buses are of no account and no real value. “It is much better if people use their cars for leisure trips”. I mean, really, this an astonishing convolution of his arguments: “Now we don’t value leisure trips”. Of course we want people to use buses for leisure trips—and not merely people who are economically active. This is something the Government should understand properly. They should look into the effects of their own policy. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

20:15

Division 8

Ayes: 155

Noes: 127

20:25

Amendment 17A

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

17A: Clause 12, page 10, line 7, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must undertake an assessment of the impact of the level of employers’ National Insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and lay it before both Houses of Parliament within 3 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require for a review of how the increase in National Insurance contributions from 6 April 2025 would affect socially necessary bus services, including transport services for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, in the last week or two, your Lordships’ House has occupied itself extensively with the effects of the increase in national insurance contributions on various parties, often vulnerable and small operations. One of those is the private sector providers of special educational needs transport. They are vulnerable to the increase in national insurance contributions, for reasons that have been spelled out at considerable length in earlier debates on another Bill.

In the end, it seems likely that your Lordships’ House will, with its customary sense of responsibility, give way on the NICs Bill and allow the Government to have their way, and to do so very shortly. After all, in the end, the King’s Government must go on and the King must have supply; it is a financial matter. Fortuitously now, we have in front of us a Bill on bus services, where we have an opportunity to return to the matter—I shall speak only briefly, because it has been well aired—and come forward with a measure which is not financial in character and against which the other place will not claim financial privilege.

Amendment 17A simply calls for an assessment by the Government of the consequences for SEND transport of the increase to and changes in national insurance contributions. Noble Lords will not need reminding that it is not merely the rate that has an effect but the threshold at which the national insurance contributions are payable. In a way, this is the least the Government can offer, after the way in which your Lordships’ House has, as I say, indulged them with its customary sense of responsibility.

We should look at this carefully. This form of transport is absolutely crucial to schools and it is part of the bus service, in the broadest sense. I hope very much that the Government will be able to support this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have consistently advocated for sufficient funding to meet the transport needs of those requiring accessible services, particularly those relying on special educational needs and disabilities—known as SEND—bus services. Given our support on this issue, in this Bill and other legislation, we feel it is essential to assess the impact of NICs increases on these vital services.

A review would ensure transparency, protect accessibility for SEND passengers and mitigate financial pressures on operators that could jeopardise these services. Without a proper review, there is a real risk that rising costs could force operators to cut routes or reduce service levels, leaving many SEND passengers without reliable transport. This would undermine efforts to create an inclusive and accessible bus network. A thorough bus assessment would help identify any necessary mitigations, to ensure that SEND services remain sustainable, well-funded and fit for purpose.

Protecting these services is a matter not just of policy but of fairness, ensuring that no one is left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. We therefore support this amendment and look forward to the Minister’s response.

20:30

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 17A concerns the impact that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will have on socially necessary bus services, including those for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant effect on home-to-school travel for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so it would not be proportionate to conduct the assessment that this amendment suggests.

Local authorities are responsible for arranging home-to-school travel and delivering this through a range of providers. Department for Education officials engage regularly with local authorities to understand the challenges that they face and will continue to monitor this situation. It is expected that private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes to their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.

The Government have already announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This is not ring-fenced funding, and could therefore be used to fund contracted services should a local authority wish to. Moreover, I understand that a large proportion of special educational needs and disabilities transport operators are self-employed and therefore exempt from this charge. The Government are protecting the smallest businesses and charities by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500. Next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, more than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package, and employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance contributions.

On socially necessary services more broadly, excluding special educational needs and disabilities transport, the Government have already confirmed, as I said, an additional £925 million for the 2025-26 financial year to support and improve bus services in England outside London. The Government recognise that local transport authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their communities and can use the £925 million to introduce new bus routes, make services more frequent and protect crucial bus routes, ensuring passenger access to essential goods and services. I contend that this amendment is not required.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a sorry reply from the Minister. The modest amounts of money he splashes around seem to have an awful lot of work to do, since they are the response to nearly every group of amendments we have discussed. It is very sad that he does not want to accept this amendment, and, in that light, I feel I am obliged to test the opinion of the House.

20:33

Division 9

Ayes: 150

Noes: 126

20:43

Amendments 18 and 19

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

18: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.(2) After section 138C (requirements in respect of local services) insert—“138CA Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities(1) An enhanced partnership scheme may specify under section 138A(5)(b) requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.(2) The requirements may include requirements about securing alternative means for the carriage of a person with a disability where—(a) the person cannot travel on a public service vehicle being used to provide a local service because the vehicle’s wheelchair space is occupied and cannot be vacated readily, and(b) it is possible for the person, together with any wheelchair, mobility aid or assistance dog which the person has with them, to be carried in safety and reasonable comfort to the person’s intended destination by a taxi or private hire vehicle.(3) Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services that have one or more stopping places in the area to which the scheme relates.(4) In this section—“assistance dog” has the meaning given by section 173(1) of the Equality Act 2010;“mobility aid” has the meaning given by section 164A(6) of that Act;“persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of that Act.” (3) In section 138F(6) (consultation), after paragraph (b) insert—“(ba) such persons with disabilities (within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010) who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority or authorities to be representative of such persons, as they think fit;”(4) In section 138K (variation), after subsection (8) insert—“(9) Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services that have one or more stopping places in the area to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.(10) In this section, “persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”(5) In section 138A(5)(b) (requirements which may be specified in enhanced partnership schemes), for “section 138C” substitute “sections 138C and 138CA”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a local transport authority to consult disabled persons before making an enhanced partnership scheme, and to impose requirements to enable travel by disabled persons on local services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort.

19: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Bus network accessibility plansIn the Transport Act 2000, after section 113B insert—“Bus network accessibility plans: England
113BA Bus network accessibility plans(1) A local transport authority whose area is in England must, before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, publish a bus network accessibility plan in relation to the authority’s area.(2) A bus network accessibility plan must—(a) identify what (if any) provision is made to assist persons with disabilities to travel on local services that have one or more stopping places in the authority’s area;(b) set out the extent to which, in the authority’s opinion, the provision made in the authority’s area enables persons with disabilities to travel on such local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort;(c) describe what (if any) further action the authority intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such local services independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort.(3) The authority must review the plan—(a) if there is a substantial change to the provision of local services in the authority’s area, and(b) in any event, at least once every three years.(4) The authority must alter the plan—(a) following any review carried out as required by subsection (3)(a), or(b) if the authority considers it appropriate to do so for any other reason.(5) The authority may replace the plan as they think fit.(6) In preparing and reviewing a bus network accessibility plan, a local transport authority must consult—(a) persons operating local services in the authority’s area, (b) such persons with disabilities who are users or prospective users of local services, or such organisations appearing to the authority to represent such persons, as they think fit, and(c) any other persons whom the authority considers it appropriate to consult.(7) In this section “persons with disabilities” means persons who have a disability within the meaning given by section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for local transport authorities in England to make a bus network accessibility plan.

Amendments 18 and 19 agreed.

Clause 18: Local government bus companies

Amendment 20

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

20: Clause 18, page 13, line 35, at end insert—
“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—“(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I hope noble Lords will agree that in my speeches so far this evening I have been as brief as possible. This amendment is of some technicality and legally quite complex. Not being a lawyer, I hope that I can get it right and explain it correctly in as brief a compass as possible, but if I go on a little bit longer than I have otherwise, I hope noble Lords will indulge me.

I will start at some distance from the Bill, with European Union procurement law, to which we were subject for so many years. Anybody involved in local government or any departmental procurement will remember that it obliged us to put out to tender any contracts that were above a certain threshold. We had to advertise them and go through what was known as the OJEU process.

At that time in European law, a question arose: what was the situation of a public authority which had set up its own company? Could it award work to a company which was its own subsidiary, without going out to tender? This case, which was called Teckal, went to the European Court of Justice, which determined that in certain circumstances, especially those in which the subsidiary was doing substantially most of its work for the public authority, contracts could be awarded to it without the need for any tendering. So, you have a public authority which has a subsidiary, the subsidiary does most of its work for that public authority, and contracts can be awarded without going out to tender—the Teckal exemption.

Of course, we left the European Union and in the course of time we replaced that procurement legislation with our own Procurement Act, seen so ably through the House, if I may so, by my noble friend Lady Neville- Rolfe. That procurement legislation carried forward the provisions of the Teckal exemption—I do not know whether it is still called that but I am going to call it that because everybody in the procurement universe does—so that the situation I described still pertains in UK law.

The Bill offers to local transport authorities three ways of carrying forward the provision of bus services: through an enhanced bus partnership, through the franchising route, or through establishing their own bus company subsidiary. It is manifest to me, even as a non-lawyer, that a bus company that was established and owned by a local transport authority, which inevitably would provide practically all its services to that local transport authority, would qualify for the Teckal exemption —that is, work would be given to it without going out to tender. I am going to park that for a moment.

Let us now travel to a different part of the Bill, relating to the franchising route. Permission is given to local transport authorities to make initially what is called a “direct award”, which is to give to the existing incumbent bus company the contract to carry out the franchised service without going out to tender. This provision would apply for only a limited period. One understands the Government’s thinking on this: if you are going to adopt a franchise model and you have only one bus company operating, then perhaps you should be able to give it to that company for the sake of continuity and smooth operation and then develop the market later, so that when you next arrange your franchising there is a market into which you can tender. The direct award route is not in itself objectionable— I am not saying that anything in this is objectionable.

I come to the interaction of the two, because the anxiety is that the legislation is so drafted—not deliberately, I imagine, but I will come to that—that it may be possible for a local authority on the one hand to use the route of setting up its own subsidiary bus company: a so-called LABCo, which seems to be the terminology that is going round; I depreciate it as much as I think the Minister does, from the shaking of his head. On the other hand, a local authority could then use the direct award mechanism to give the whole contract to its own subsidiary immediately and without any tendering.

I think the Minister can respond to what I have said by saying one of three things. Fortunately for him, I have given him my own inadequate explanation of this case in advance, so he has had some time to think about it. He can say that I have got the law wrong—he has the benefit of the Government Legal Department behind him, and I have my poor resources, so that may be the answer. He will be able to explain why I have got the law wrong and put the House right as to what the legal position is. That is one thing. He could say that I have alighted upon a loophole and a weakness in the legislation which should be addressed, that he is going to take steps to address it, that my amendment is therefore unnecessary and that something will be done between now and Third Reading. Or he could say words to the effect that I have got the law right, the loophole exists, and he is going to do nothing at all about it. In the last case, I give notice that I suspect I would want to the test the opinion of the House, but in the first two cases, if I was corrected on the law or if the Minister said that he agreed with me on the law and was going to do something about it, then I would of course expect to withdraw my amendment.

I am very interested to hear what noble Lords have to say about this exciting argument that could, for all I know, provoke widespread debate in the House, but I am particularly interested to know what the Minister has to say when he comes to reply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

This is a rather technical amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, stated, and one about which I have received several pieces of correspondence in the last 24 hours. Although I understand the intent of the amendment, I am not sure that it is actually necessary. I find it hard to imagine that local authorities, which often struggle with capacity and the financial means to deliver, will want to suddenly introduce their own bus company just ahead of awarding contracts directly to this new company. I hope the Minister can clarify the situation and allay any fears.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Amendment 20, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, seeks to prevent new local authority bus companies—I will not say LABCos; I cannot make that work—from being able to directly award franchising contracts using what he described correctly as the Teckal-style exemption in the Procurement Act 2023.

Clause 18 will help to support public ownership where desired by repealing the ban on new local authority bus companies, but the Bill is not prescriptive about the structure of any of those new companies. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One of these options could be to establish a new company as a Teckal company, which would, as he says, allow a local authority to directly award service contracts to that company without the requirement for a competitive procurement exercise at any time.

The noble Lord referred to Teckal as a loophole, but it is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, which, as he says, was enacted in the Procurement Act 2023 by the previous Government. Use of the Teckal exemption is complex and subject to challenge, given that it allows contract awards outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime, and specific and rigorous tests are required to use the exemption. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that these companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option, which would likely require significant funding and investment in organisational capacity and capability, as the noble Baroness referred to. All this means that any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether this is appropriate for its local context.

Existing precedent for Teckal local authority bus companies in the UK, while limited, is that Teckal has been used only in scenarios where private operators are not interested or fail—for example, as an operator of last resort. For existing Teckal companies, the exemption is utilised only in the event of private operators being unable to do so, rather than as the default option for providing local bus services. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company; it does not apply only to local authorities, only to local authority bus companies, or only to transport companies. Removing Teckal as an option only for new local authority bus companies would be an unusual—and, I believe, unnecessary—departure from the status quo around existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be a compelling reason to isolate new local authority bus companies as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal, and no evidence has been provided to support what would be an extraordinary diversion from established procurement rules.

My department plans to publish guidance on local authority bus companies after the Bill comes into force, which will address the use of the Teckal exemption. We will of course work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance to help ensure that the exemption, if used, will not be about local authority bus companies having the upper hand over the private sector but about genuinely improving bus services for local passengers in that area. I therefore hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.

It might be convenient if I briefly move on to Amendments 21, 22 and 23, tabled in my name, which are also about helping to provide a level playing field between new and existing local authority bus companies. Clause 18 gives all local authorities the freedom to set up a new bus company if they choose to. Under this clause, new companies are not subject to restrictions regarding how they might secure funding or financing. This is at odds with the five existing local authority bus companies that are. Restrictions, as set out in the Transport Act 1985, mean that the existing local authority bus companies are unable to access private finance, which creates inconsistencies. My department has engaged extensively with stakeholders while developing the measures for this Bill and feedback has been strongly in favour of greater parity between how new and existing local authority bus companies can finance their operations.

The amendment will remove restrictions on existing local authority bus companies accessing private borrowing, if they are doing so for the purposes of, or in connection with, providing local services. As I have mentioned, this will help to provide a level playing field for both new and existing local authority bus companies. It will provide greater choice for local authorities in how they potentially fund a local authority bus company, which will give them more freedom to achieve ambitious and far-reaching improvements to local bus services. Amendments 21 and 22 are consequential to Amendment 23.

I finish by saying that I do not believe that there is likely to be a large-scale establishment of new local authority bus companies, but the powers contained in this Bill are necessary because, frankly, the bus market is not what it was. There is not much competition in some areas, and in others there is none. In those cases, a new local authority bus company might well be the way in which a local transport authority seeks to provide bus services in the future. It would be, as a postscript, a fitting riposte to some of the excesses of previous eras of competition in bus companies. I will not repeat it now, but if noble Lords were to look at the sorry story of the Darlington bus wars, where a perfectly satisfactory municipal bus company was reduced to being put into liquidation by the predatory activities of private companies, they would see why there might be some interest in local authorities to set up new local bus companies in the future. There might even be a little interest in using Teckal to do so.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not addressing in my opening remarks the government amendments in this group, which I am happy to say I am content with. I mean, if one is as short of money as the Minister and his department probably are then giving local transport authorities the power to borrow money is probably the best that you can hope to get away with. We have no objection to those amendments.

I am disappointed—well, not entirely disappointed; I am rather thrilled—that the Minister has more or less agreed that I got the complex legal position right, but I am disappointed that he feels that the loophole should stay open. It should not. One of the purposes that the Government have set out is to encourage competition, where it can be stimulated, between bus service providers. To allow those two provisions to operate together in a way that would exclude competition would be an abuse. The abuse should be closed down. It is simple to do so: they could just say it was not going to be allowed. It would not upend procurement law. It would not overturn the sacred rules of procurement. It would simply say, in this specific case, because of the way these two statutes will interact, you cannot actually do the thing that would be an abuse. So I am sorry to say, because I know it is getting on—actually, we have made good progress and there is time—that I am afraid I am going to have to ask the House’s opinion on this matter, because I do not think the Government should be allowed to take this lackadaisical approach.

21:01

Division 10

Ayes: 54

Noes: 125

21:10

Amendments 21 to 23

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

21: Clause 18, page 14, line 23, leave out “73(5) (activities” and insert “73 (control over constitution and activities”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 14, line 27.

22: Clause 18, page 14, line 23, after “end” insert “of subsection (5)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 14, line 27.

23: Clause 18, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“(ii) after that subsection insert—“(5A) Subsection (3)(b) does not apply in relation to borrowing money for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision of local services by a public transport company to which subsection (5B) applies.(5B) This subsection applies to a public transport company the controlling authority of which is—(a) an authority the functions of which are exercisable in relation to an area in England, or(b) two or more authorities the functions of which are exercisable in relation to areas in England.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the restriction on public transport companies in England borrowing money where the money is borrowed in order to provide local services.

Amendments 21 to 23 agreed.

Clause 20: Information provided on registration of local services

Amendment 24

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

24: Clause 20, page 15, line 36, leave out “as follows” and insert “in accordance with subsections (2) and (3)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 20, page 17, line 9.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, this group covers data provisions. Before I speak to the amendments in my name, I note that there have been questions from stakeholders about releasing commercially sensitive information. I reassure noble Lords that the department will be mindful of publishing information that could be seen as commercially sensitive under the powers in Clauses 21 and 22. Officials will engage with industry on the Government’s intentions for and the use of this data before exercising the power. I will be as brief as I can on the other amendments in this group—Amendments 24, 25, 26 and 29.

Amendments 25 and 26 are necessary to clarify that regulations made under Section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 that may involve the processing of personal data do not operate in contravention of data protection legislation. This is engaged due to the potential for information being processed under these provisions to contain personal data. Amendment 24 is consequential on Amendment 26. Amendment 29 does the same job as Amendments 25 and 26, and for the same reasons, in respect of regulations made under Section 141A of the Transport Act 2000.

Amendment 27 enables the traffic commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State and enables it to be uploaded to the new registration database. It enables registration, variation and cancellation applications which are pending when this clause enters into force to be uploaded to the new database once they have been processed. Like Amendment 28, which I will turn to next, it supports our ambition to provide the public with the right information to help them make better-informed travel decisions.

Amendment 28 has been tabled to ensure that the Secretary of State can receive the same information about franchised services as other registered bus services are required to provide. In essence, the amendment creates consistency in the data provided by franchised and non-franchised services, enabling the public, via a new registration database, to make better decisions regarding their journeys. It also future-proofs the power in Clause 21, ensuring that, if changes are made to the information gathered under the 1986 regulations, this is reflected in what can be gathered for franchised services under Clause 21.

Amendment 33 is a further minor and technical amendment. It is necessary to ensure that Clause 24 functions in a manner consistent with the provisions in the Data Protection Act 2018. Amendment 24 is consequential to this amendment.

Amendment 43 to Clause 27 clarifies that provisions made under the powers in new Section 144F of the Transport Act 2000 that may involve the processing of personal data do not operate in contravention of data protection legislation. That is necessary due to the potential for information being processed under Clause 27 to contain personal data, given that it includes requirements to keep records about staff who have undertaken training in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour.

21:15

Amendment 44 seeks to clarify a Bill measure’s interaction with data protection legislation. It relates to powers under Clause 29 and, once more, the functioning of this clause may involve the processing of personal data. I confirm that this will be carried out in a manner consistent with the Data Protection Act 2018. Amendment 45 is consequential on this amendment. I beg to move.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to see these amendments from the Government around the issue of data transparency and the use and processing of personal data relating to the bus sector. I am assured by the Minister’s introductory remarks on this group of amendments.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we have no objection to these amendments.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I commend these amendments to the House.

Amendment 24 agreed.

Amendments 25 to 27

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

25: Clause 20, page 16, line 43, at end insert—
“(13) Where regulations under this section impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(14) In this section “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 6 of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.

26: Clause 20, page 17, line 9, at end insert—
“(c) after that subsection insert—“(7A) Where the regulations impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”;(d) in subsection (8), at the appropriate place insert—““the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly;””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 6I of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.

27: Clause 20, page 17, line 9, at end insert—
“(4) Information received by a traffic commissioner under section 6 or 6I of the Transport Act 1985 before this section comes into force may be provided by the traffic commissioner to the Secretary of State (in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use).(5) Subsection (4) does not authorise the disclosure or use of information in contravention of the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the disclosure or use does contravene that legislation).(6) In this section “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables certain registration information held by the traffic commissioners when this clause comes into force to be published by the Secretary of State.

Amendments 25 to 27 agreed.

Clause 21: Information about local services

Amendments 28 and 29

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

28: Clause 21, page 17, line 31, at end insert—
“(g) any other information which may be prescribed under section 6(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to the registration of a local service under that section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to obtain the same information under section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 as may be obtained under section 6(2)(a) of the Transport Act 1985 in relation to local services which are required to be registered under that section.

29: Clause 21, page 17, line 40, at end insert—
“(6) After that subsection insert—“(8A) Where the regulations impose a duty or confer a power to process personal data, the duty or power does not operate to require or authorise the data to be processed in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(8B) In subsection (8A) “the data protection legislation”, “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act), and “process” and “processed” are to be construed accordingly.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that provision contained in regulations under section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the processing of personal data does not operate in contravention of the data protection legislation.

Amendments 28 and 29 agreed.

Clause 24: Local transport authority byelaws

Amendment 30

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

30: Clause 24, page 20, line 2, leave out “after section 144” and insert “before the italic heading preceding section 145A”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that new section 144A is inserted in the correct place in Part 2 of the Transport Act 2000.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 35, tabled in my name, seeks to apply the local transport authority by-laws powers contained in the Bill to London. Clause 24 will enable local transport authorities to introduce by-laws to tackle anti-social behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure. Giving these powers to all local transport authorities is intended to give them the flexibility they need to effectively enforce against anti-social behaviour on the transport network and ensure that there is greater consistency across England.

When I first introduced the Bill, these powers did not apply to London. However, after engagement with Transport for London, it asked to be included in these provisions. This is because, while its officers can deal with anti-social behaviour at bus stops and bus stations under existing by-laws, it cannot easily enforce against anti-social behaviour on buses themselves. Closing this loophole will give TfL the same powers as other local transport authorities in England, and it will help make buses in London safer for passengers and staff.

While on the subject of bus by-laws, I will speak briefly to three further amendments tabled in my name. Amendment 30 is minor and technical. Its purpose is to ensure that the powers being granted to local authorities to make bus by-laws are inserted correctly into the right part of the Transport Act 2000. Amendment 31 intends to ensure parity between by-laws powers being granted to LTAs and London. In expanding the application of the local transport authority by-laws measure in Clause 24 to London, it was necessary to take account of the prevalence of smart card payments. This is reflected in the drafting of Amendment 31. However, the Government have also identified the need to allow local transport authorities outside London to deal similarly with smart card payments on bus services in drafting bus by-laws. That is what this amendment achieves. Amendment 32 is consequential on this amendment. I beg to move Amendment 30.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, this Bill has been about bus services outside the capital, yet at this stage there is suddenly a lengthy amendment about London and giving Transport for London the powers it needs more easily and effectively to support by-laws on London buses. The Minister has provided clarity on this and the other government amendments in this group; they have provided the assurance needed, and we are content with them.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, we have no objections.

Amendment 30 agreed.

Amendments 31 to 35

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

31: Clause 24, page 20, line 15, at end insert—
“(za) with respect to tickets and other things (whether in physical or electronic form) which authorise a person to enter and travel on local services;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that byelaws made by local transport authorities can allow for the use of smart card tickets on local bus services.

32: Clause 24, page 20, line 16, leave out from the first “to” to “the” in line 17
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 24, page 20, line 15.

33: Clause 24, page 23, line 41, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsection (3)(a) does not operate to require or authorise the processing of personal data in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the duty to give reasonably detailed particulars in a fixed penalty notice does not operate in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation.

34: Clause 24, page 24, line 23, at end insert—
““the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines terms used in new section 144E(3A), inserted by my amendment to clause 24, page 23, line 41, and is consequential on that amendment.

35: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause—
“TfL byelawsIn the Greater London Authority Act 1999, after Chapter 8 of Part 4 insert—“Chapter 8ABus byelawsLondon local service byelaws
244A Power to make byelaws for London local services(1) Transport for London may make byelaws regulating one or more of the following—(a) travel on London local services;(b) the maintenance of order on London local services;(c) the conduct of persons while travelling on London local services.(2) The byelaws may, in particular, make provision—(a) with respect to tickets and other things (whether in physical or electronic form) which authorise a person to enter and travel on London local services;(b) with respect to the evasion of payment of fares or other charges;(c) with respect to interference with, or obstruction of, London local services;(d) prohibiting vaping by persons on London local services;(e) with respect to the prevention of nuisance.(3) The byelaws may provide that a person contravening them is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding—(a) level 3 on the standard scale, or(b) such lower level or lower amount as is specified in the byelaws.Enforcement
244B Powers of authorised persons(1) An authorised person may—(a) issue a fixed penalty notice (see section 244C) to anyone who that person has reason to believe has committed—(i) a bus byelaws offence,(ii) a premises byelaws offence, or(iii) an offence under this section; (b) require a person who the authorised person reasonably suspects of committing or attempting to commit a bus byelaws offence to do one or both of the following—(i) to give their name and address;(ii) to leave any vehicle in relation to which the byelaws under section 244A apply.(2) An authorised person may use reasonable force to remove a person who has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b)(ii).(3) A person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1)(b) commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.(4) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the exercise of functions under this section and section 244C, and Transport for London and authorised persons must have regard to the guidance when exercising those functions.(5) The Secretary of State may at any time vary or revoke guidance issued under subsection (4).(6) The Secretary of State must publish—(a) guidance issued under subsection (4), and(b) any variation or revocation of the guidance.(7) In this section—“authorised person” means a person authorised for the purposes of this section by Transport for London;“bus byelaws offence” means an offence under byelaws made under section 244A;“premises byelaws offence” means an offence under byelaws made under section 25 of the London Transport Act 1969 committed on premises used by a London local service.244C Fixed penalty notices(1) A fixed penalty notice issued under section 244B is a notice offering the person to whom it is issued the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty to Transport for London.(2) Where a person is issued with a fixed penalty notice in respect of an offence—(a) no proceedings may be taken for the offence before the end of the period of 14 days following the date of the notice;(b) the person may not be convicted of the offence if the person pays the fixed penalty before the end of that period.(3) A fixed penalty notice must—(a) give reasonably detailed particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence;(b) state the period during which (because of subsection (2)(a)) proceedings will not be taken for the offence;(c) specify the amount of the fixed penalty;(d) state the name and address of the person to whom the fixed penalty may be paid;(e) specify permissible methods of payment.(4) Subsection (3)(a) does not operate to require or authorise the processing of personal data in a way which contravenes the data protection legislation (but that subsection is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing contravenes that legislation).(5) An amount specified under subsection (3)(c) must not be more than £100.(6) A fixed penalty notice may specify two amounts under subsection (3)(c) and specify that, if the lower of those amounts is paid within a specified period (of less than 14 days), that is the amount of the fixed penalty.(7) Whatever other method may be specified under subsection (3)(e), payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to the person whose name and address is stated under subsection (3)(d), at the stated address, a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).(8) Where a letter is sent as mentioned in subsection (6), payment is regarded as having been made at the time at which that letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.(9) In any proceedings, a certificate that—(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of Transport for London, and(b) states that payment of the fixed penalty was, or was not, received by the date specified in the certificate,is evidence of the facts stated.(10) In this section“the data protection legislation” , “personal data” and “processing” have the same meanings as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act).””Member's explanatory statement
This clause will allow TfL to make byelaws local bus services in London. It also provides for those byelaws, and TfL’s Road Transport Premises Byelaws, to be enforced by authorised persons, including by means of fixed penalty notices.

Amendments 31 to 35 agreed.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

21:20

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 March be approved.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument, which was laid before the House on 4 March 2025, forms an important part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that energy-related products are sustainable and efficient by enabling new regulations to be enforced as they apply in Northern Ireland. Ecodesign policies aim to reduce the environmental impact of energy-related products by reducing their energy consumption and use of material resources, reducing carbon emissions and saving businesses and consumers money on their energy bills. Energy labelling regulations help better inform consumers and encourage them to purchase more efficient products.

Following our departure from the European Union, Great Britain assimilated its regulatory regime for energy-related products standards into domestic law, which we may in future amend. Noble Lords will also be aware of the agreement reached by the UK and EU regarding the Windsor Framework, which helps to ensure the flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing trade burdens and safeguarding Northern Ireland’s place in the union. It allows Northern Ireland to maintain dual market access by continuing to apply EU rules with respect to the regulation of energy-related products. We see it as a necessary element of the commitment to keep the enforcement legislation for Northern Ireland up to date.

This statutory instrument is therefore required to enable market surveillance authorities properly to enforce the latest EU rules which apply in Northern Ireland, ensuring legal consistency and fulfilling the UK’s international obligations. The instrument will update both the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 with respect to Northern Ireland. These updates will ensure that the specific Northern Ireland tables in the 2010 and 2011 regulations accurately reflect the latest product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling measures and enable these measures to be enforced by the relevant market surveillance authorities.

Seven new EU product regulations will apply in Northern Ireland. The ecodesign regulations include: smartphones, mobile phones, cordless phones and slate tablets, which will be regulated for the first time; fans driven by motors with an electric input power between 125 watts and 500 kilowatts; household tumble dryers; and local space heaters. The energy labelling regulations cover household tumble dryers. The ecodesign regulations seek to improve the energy efficiency of all products, while new energy labelling regulations reflect new labelling standards.

Repairability and recyclability of products has been included for the first time under EU ecodesign, and certain energy labelling regulations, to ensure further sustainability and benefit consumers. The statutory instrument will extend the current ambulatory references to EU measures in the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 and the Energy Information Regulations 2011 for Northern Ireland. This will ensure that these schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of these EU ecodesign or energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to the enforcement regulations.

The requirements updated by this instrument will not restrict manufacturers’ ability to sell into the EU or Northern Ireland, unless they are not willing to meet the EU’s regulations. The EU’s higher standards are likely to become the industry default, and we can assume that manufacturers are likely to choose to meet those standards. If this is the case, the measures will have no impact on traders who abide by the relevant standards.

Since in Great Britain we will look to achieve higher product efficiency, it is very likely that Great Britian will seek to attain similar standards. As such, we will consult as soon as possible on the merits of mirroring the new EU regulations, with the first of these, on tumble dryers, expected to be launched shortly. Our intention is to apply the measures on a UK-wide basis to maintain the smooth functioning of the UK’s internal market and because we share similar goals on product energy efficiency. Our consultations will be on the appropriate means to achieve this aim.

I acknowledge that we are currently on a journey, reflecting on the benefits and processes of such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their initial scrutiny of this statutory instrument. This included their reflections on how these types of instruments should be handled. I reiterate our commitment to continue to publish Explanatory Memorandums on EU regulations, consistent with our commitments to Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I recognise that issues relating to Northern Ireland and protecting its continued status as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s internal market are important to Members of this House, just as they are to the Government. We take these matters seriously, and we are determined to act in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and in line with the international agreements that reflect the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I commend these regulations to the House.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations treat Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom and have been introduced without consultation.”

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, before I speak to my regret amendment, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State for Defence and the Defence Minister in this House for their very welcome decision to judicially review the decision of coroner Justice Humphreys, who ruled that soldiers who killed the IRA terrorists in Clonoe in 1992 should face trial. This has been widely welcomed by members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces and all decent, law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.

Turning to these regulations, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of why they are needed. It is a change to have him here, giving the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, a night off from dealing with Northern Ireland statutory instruments. He will not be surprised to hear that I disagree with some of the points he made.

We have had many regret amendments on statutory instruments, and they are a very important way of getting such issues on the record, even if there is not much chance of stopping these statutory instruments. These regulations really will hit home with people going about their day-to-day lives. They affect electrical household goods, household tumble dryers, smartphones, mobile phones and numerous other goods in everyday use. There are two central difficulties with the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2025. The first is democratic, and the second pertains to the division of the United Kingdom.

In the first instance, the standards set by this legislation have been drafted by a body of which we are not a part—the European Union—and which the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave in the biggest every manifestation of democracy in our history. I remind noble Lords that people in Northern Ireland had the exact same ballot paper as the rest of the United Kingdom. Yes, like Scotland, there was a majority in Northern Ireland to remain, but it was a United Kingdom vote which all political parties had promised to honour, whatever the outcome.

We voted to leave the EU in part because, even when we were represented in it, there was a democratic deficit in the way it worked. The way the EU does politics is entirely alien to our tradition, arising from the fact that the power of legislative initiative in the EU rests not with democratically elected politicians, as in our tradition, but with the unelected European Commission.

So now, for Northern Ireland citizens, the power of legislative initiative rests not only with an unelected body but with a foreign unelected body—what might be called a double whammy. We did not vote to leave the EU so that we would have no control over our laws in one part of our own country. The European Union has made absolutely no attempt to consult people and businesses in Northern Ireland on these changes, and now our own Government are rushing through the powers to enforce them, again without even the tiniest bit of consultation. They then have the cheek to suggest that this is not a problem.

21:30

Their Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 7.1, states:

“There was no legal duty to undertake a consultation. As this instrument does not make any substantive policy changes, no consultations were undertaken”.

Can the Minister define for me what is meant by “substantive”? That they have no answer is demonstrated very eloquently by the following paragraph 7.2:

“However, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will consult as soon as practicable on the merits of applying equivalent measures in Great Britain, and will conclude these consultations no later than by March 2026”.

The Government readily acknowledge, in paragraph 7.2, that UK citizens not subject to these regulations should, unlike the people of Northern Ireland, be afforded the principle of consultation, completely invalidating the attempted suggestion in paragraph 7.1 that consulting the people of Northern Ireland is not necessary. Can the Minister acknowledge that the Government, by doing this, are authenticating the sadly—I am afraid to say—widely held belief that UK citizens in Northern Ireland are treated as second-class? If it is imperative for GB citizens to have consultation before introducing legislation, surely citizens of another part of the same country must have that same principle applied. If that is not being seen as second-class, I really do not know what would be.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Can the noble Baroness share her views on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s assessment of this? When Mr Allister from another place raised the issue of consultation, the Minister there gave a very off-handed response; the Minister actually did not come to the committee until after it had commented on it. That adds to the sense that the Government are saying, “For Northern Ireland, we’re going to impose it—that’s the way it is. But for the rest of the country, we’re going to have a consultation”.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Baroness. She is absolutely right: this is par for the course when it comes to anything to do with Northern Ireland. It is always treated as something that can be waved through. Of course, what they have said this time is that, in relation to the Windsor Framework, what the EU says has to be followed. The letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Minister in the other place—in response, as the noble Baroness said, to Jim Allister, the MP for North Antrim—was even more dogmatic. It said:

“We have assessed the impact of this regulation on Northern Ireland and have found its impact on businesses and consumers to be minimal”.


Where is that assessment? Where have they done that? Earlier, I asked the Minister here to define “substantive”, but can he now define “minimal”? What does that word mean in that letter from the Minister in the other place? The businesses dealing with all these products certainly do not find this minimal, given the bureaucracy and the worry they now have around complying with this law.

Surely His Majesty’s Government are supposed to stand up equally for the interests of all their citizens, but here they are bowing down, once again, to the EU, without any sign that, even if they have to do this because of the law of the Windsor Framework, they are actually not happy about it and they wish they did not have to do this. As we look around the world today, there is no other developed western country that has agreed, in the face of pressure from a group of 27 foreign countries—including one that aspires to annex the part of the United Kingdom that we are talking about, Northern Ireland—to subject a portion of its citizens to this almost neocolonial situation.

The anger arises on two bases from this. The first is the substantive effect of the removal of the rights of equal citizenship that we have enjoyed for over a century. The second is what I would describe as hurt arising from our being rendered, as I said, second-class compared to the rest of the country on account of the fact that, while our rights to consultation can be dismissed as not important, the rights of other UK citizens must be defended.

Another difficulty arising from paragraph 7.2 relates to the fact that it demonstrates how the mistreatment of Northern Ireland is creating pressures, not for this mistreatment to end, which would be great, but for attempts to be made to limit the destructive effects of divergence with the rest of the country. This is a huge issue, because it demonstrates how the failure to try to deliver Brexit for Northern Ireland is actually undermining Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, aligning Great Britain—drip, drip, drip—with Northern Ireland and thus the European Union. This demonstrates how, rather than respecting the biggest democratic vote, we are undermining and destroying Brexit freedoms for the whole United Kingdom and, I believe, greatly weakening the integrity of our political system and a belief in that referendum result.

Of course, we know that the European Union stated that the price of Brexit for the United Kingdom would be Northern Ireland, and I am afraid that weak leadership was shown by the former Prime Minister, now the noble Baroness, Lady May, who started this whole process by almost kowtowing to the European Union in the way that we started to discuss Brexit.

It is striking that, when challenged on these matters by the already mentioned honourable Member for North Antrim, Jim Allister, the Government made no attempt whatever to defend themselves. They simply acknowledged what the Explanatory Memorandum failed to acknowledge: namely, that there had been and would be no consultation in Northern Ireland because the laws from the EU apply to us automatically. Just let that sink in, because I genuinely believe that many noble Lords in this House, Members of Parliament and very many members of the public just do not realise that Northern Ireland has been left in the EU for so many areas of law.

Once again, the Minister in the other place was blunt:

“There is no requirement to consult on this legislation. These regulations apply automatically in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor Framework and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act”.


There was not a single sentence of regret, or a statement that the Government understood the outrageous nature of what the protocol had done to their own citizens in Northern Ireland, or perhaps a commitment to work to withdraw from that agreement with the EU. But no: nothing. Just a simple acceptance: the EU says; we must accept. Put bluntly, our citizenship has been traded away to get a trade and co-operation agreement for GB, despite it violating the cross-community consent principle of the Belfast agreement.

The Minister also plainly stated the Government’s intention to undermine the Brexit gains of Great Britain by consulting on the introduction of the EU Commission’s legislation in GB:

“We will therefore consult on the introduction of aligning regulations in the rest of the UK as soon as possible”.


That was in March, but in February I got a letter from the Minister for Energy Consumers telling me about this statutory instrument and saying at the end of it, on GB:

“We will consult as soon as practically possible on the merits of alignment with new EU regulations and will align where it makes sense to do so. GB may not align unless in the interests of consumers, businesses, and our wider policy goals”.


So can the Minister say what has happened since that letter in February from the Minister saying that they would align only where it made sense to do so, and that they would be taking into account the interests of consumers and businesses, and the Government’s statement, which said very clearly that they would want to align as soon as possible? So there has been a change, and is it part of the Government’s reset policies which we keep hearing about?

On the difference in respect to Northern Ireland, it was said that the EU regulations automatically apply under the terms, and we know that. This idea that, if we in Northern Ireland have EU laws and GB then aligns with them in order to bring Northern Ireland and Great Britain into alignment, that somehow changes things, is deeply flawed.

The application of the same laws to GB will not save the integrity of the UK’s internal market for goods. This has already been lost for most purposes by the imposition of the international SPS and customs border, which cannot be crossed either on the so-called red or green lanes without an export number, customs and SPS paperwork and checks. Even if we align, all that still goes on. Alignment with the rest of GB does not change the fundamental issue of over 300 areas of law in Northern Ireland continuing to be imposed on citizens by a foreign entity, with no say in those laws for the people of Northern Ireland.

I have a few questions that could have been dealt with earlier had this legislation been developed in line with the norms of respect for citizenship and had there been more time for consultation—indeed, had there been any consultation. One of the distinctive things about Northern Ireland, as my colleagues here from Northern Ireland know, is that a significant proportion of people locate their tumble dryers in garages or outhouses. Not surprisingly, this was not taken into account in the development of the legislation. I am not sure how much the Minister knows about tumble dryers, but there is now real concern because unlike condenser and vented tumble dryers, which work at any temperature, the new heat pump tumble dryers work only at ambient temperatures. Below 5 degrees centigrade, they do not work at all. From 5 degrees up to ambient temperatures, they work, but very inefficiently, and will waste far more energy than condenser and vented tumble dryers. To save energy, many people in Northern Ireland with these new tumble dryers will be spending more on energy. Has any consideration been given to this by the Government?

Can the Minister confirm that it will be illegal for a shop in Northern Ireland to bring in new condenser or vented tumble dryers after 1 July, while it will still be quite legal for similar shops in England, Wales and Scotland? As he may know, there is much toing and froing between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Many people from Northern Ireland who have relatives in Scotland go over on the boat for holidays there. After July, can a member of the public who is perhaps in Scotland for a holiday in their car buy a tumble dryer there and bring it back to their home that few miles across the water? Will they be arrested for having a non-EU-regulated tumble dryer or hairdryer or any of the other goods affected by this regulation if they bring them in from Great Britain? Will shops holding the various utilities mentioned in these regulations be able to continue selling after that date? There is huge confusion among small businesses and how this is being rushed through is not helpful. Those are just a small number of questions that this statutory instrument raises. I appreciate that if the Minister cannot answer them directly, he will write.

This SI should be opposed as wrong in principle and wrong in practice. It is another way of making another hole in the unity of the United Kingdom. I beg to move my amendment.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and explaining the purpose of them and some of the detail behind them. I also thank him for the meeting that he facilitated and chaired with us in which we were able to look at the matters in a little more detail. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for the regret amendment that she has tabled, because it has enabled, once again, a full and better examination of the details of legislation applying to Northern Ireland.

21:45

We should not have to debate matters of detail on these kinds of issues on the Floor of this House, but I am afraid it is necessary because the way in which Northern Ireland is now governed in 300 areas covering vast swathes of our economy means there is no input for any politician or representative from Northern Ireland into the formulation of legislation any more. Indeed, when it is published, I would recommend that noble Lords look at the evidence given today to your Lordships’ Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and on which I have the privilege to serve, about the frustration felt by businesses, consumers and trade organisations at the lack of input at an early stage into legislation, at legislation being imposed at very short notice, at the lack of ability even to consult their own members about the details of legislation and at the fact that there is so much confusion out there.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned, it is the level of confusion. Some £650 million has been spent in the last four years on the Trader Support Service and the Movement Assistance Scheme—£650 million, at a time when we are told that there is no money for anything. That £650 million would buy an awful lot of nurses, hospitals and teachers in Northern Ireland, but it is spent instead on officials trying to process customs forms.

I also urge noble Lords to look at the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee just two weeks ago, on 12 March, by a range of trade bodies—do not take our word for it, do not take the noble Baroness’s word for it, do not dismiss it, listen to what they are saying. They are saying that lorries are being turned back. Marks & Spencer is saying that it is spending millions on filling in forms. Millions of pounds are being spent on all this nonsense—it is totally unnecessary. It is a disgrace, quite frankly.

That is why we need to take the opportunity on the Floor of this House in Parliament—we cannot raise it anywhere else—to highlight what is going on within our own country and to try to bring some measure of comfort to people who are suffering as a result of the trade restrictions and barriers that at least some people are willing to understand the issue and to ventilate their concerns. There are some people in this House and in the other place who would prefer that we just do not talk about these things—“Go away. Don’t keep raising it”—but I am afraid that is not what the people who sent Members to the other place or the people with whom we live and reside alongside in all communities want us to do. They want us to raise these issues and to find solutions for them if we can.

This legislation is about allowing the competent authorities here in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to enforce legislation that has been formulated and applied by a foreign political entity to part of the United Kingdom. The scope of these regulations is pretty wide, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has gone into considerable detail about what they cover—everything from heaters to smartphones to tumble dryers, and so forth.

Again, I look forward to the Minister being able to answer some of these questions, but if he is not able to do it tonight on the Floor of the House, perhaps he could write to us. I was asked to seek answers to a number of questions. With these regulations in place, is it possible that retailers selling any of these items in Northern Ireland—I am not talking about stuff moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland—could receive a knock on the door or a telephone call from an inspector or other compliance officer seeking proof that their goods meet EU standards? Is it possible that they could be prevented from selling or trading them if they do not meet the relevant standards, even if they meet British standards?

Again, this question was asked but, despite the £650 million spent on the Trader Support Service and others, people just cannot get the answers. They are told to go from one department to another and to seek legal advice. It all costs money—public and private money. Is there the possibility of people being visited in their own homes, or their offices—remember that this is about office equipment as well—and asked to prove that a range of items complies with EU legislation? If that is regarded as somewhat fanciful—“Oh, come on, this wouldn’t happen”—what is the point of the regulations?

The regulations are about giving powers to people to ensure that there is compliance, so what is the point of these powers if not to force people into revealing whether they are complying? What are the consequences if they do not? Perhaps the Minister could give us a definite answer tonight, so that consumers and businesspeople in Northern Ireland can know what the facts actually are, instead of having to scrabble around all the time trying to find out for themselves the answers to these difficult questions.

As has been said, we are told that the changes are pretty minor. In our meeting, as the Minister will recall, we were told that we would have access to some impact assessments that were previously carried out. I would be grateful if he would ensure that those actually arrive with us. I am sorry that they are not here tonight, in advance of this debate.

Again on the issue of the rest of the United Kingdom, the noble Lord said that it might at some point align and that there would be a consultation on that. The noble Baroness referenced this, but the question is: what happens in the meantime? If the rest of the United Kingdom comes into line with EU regulations, whether you think that is a good idea or not, there is going to be a gap. There will be a considerable time in which there is no alignment.

While consideration is being given to aligning the rest of the United Kingdom and consultation has been carried out—a concession not afforded to anyone in Northern Ireland—what are the problems that will arise? Even if we end up in a situation of alignment at some point in the future, there is no guarantee that it will be across every aspect of the contents of these regulations in any case, because the noble Lord—I listened very carefully—talked about starting with tumble dryers. When will there be consultations on the other products and when will those products be aligned in relation to the matters contained in the regulations?

On a wider point about alignment, I will say this: there is an idea around that all our problems in Northern Ireland will be solved by just aligning the rest of the UK with EU legislation. The idea is that it will get rid of the problems in Northern Ireland, but of course it will not. It will be applied piecemeal, in some areas and not others. Since this Government came in, we have already seen them renege on a commitment to introduce UK-wide “Not for EU” labelling. That was supposed to be given as a means of ensuring that Great Britain aligned with Northern Ireland, to ensure there would be no question of companies saying “Well, we can’t afford just to do these labels for Northern Ireland alone. We’re going to make it UK-wide”. That was reneged on, so there is absolutely no confidence in Northern Ireland that there will be any kind of alignment right across the board when it comes to the best interests of GB industry and trade, and all the rest of it. It is understandable that the Government may take that view because come under considerable pressure. Some of these groups are very strong and hold an enormous amount of economic clout.

There is no comfort in saying, “Oh, well, in some areas we may align”. Of course, in four or five years’ time, there may or may not be a change of Government, who knows? There may not be, but there may be. A new Government might say, “You see all that alignment stuff? We’re doing away with all of that”. Then we are back at square one. So I am afraid to say that we need better answers in relation to the wider issue than simply saying that we are going to align the rest of the United Kingdom with EU laws for the benefit of Northern Ireland. It may help in some areas, but it will not be the solution.

I regret the fact that there has been no consultation carried out—I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I note that there is no requirement to consult in this legislation. Yeah, there may be no requirement, but it is a pretty poor situation when we have laws applying specifically to Northern Ireland, and only Northern Ireland, with no consultation whatever. I hope the Minister will agree to give a commitment tonight that this sort of approach will not be replicated in the future, that we will give proper consultation and that people will be asked what they think and what ideas they may input.

The other significant thing to note is that the SI is proposing to extend existing provisions in UK domestic law, which currently automatically cross-refer to relevant updates of EU law where it affects Northern Ireland. The effect of the extension would be that, in future, the legislation always automatically reflects the most up-to-date EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling. That removes the need for further secondary legislation to implement updates in UK law when the EU rules are replaced in a way that affects Northern Ireland. That is effectively dynamic alignment of Northern Ireland law. Do not be under any illusion that it is anything else. It is the dynamic alignment of British law in Northern Ireland as we go along, because there will not be any need to bring in statutory instruments or UK legislation if this goes through. I do not think that is a good way of proceeding.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at the matter, as has been said, in its 20th report, published on 20 March. It suggested that, in order to publicise future changes, if the Government do proceed down this slide, there should be a parliamentary Statement made to both Houses. The Minister has made pledges in relation to Explanatory Memorandums: will he give a pledge tonight that there will be, as the committee recommended, a parliamentary Statement made in both Houses when changes are made, since we will not have a chance even to debate the matter and there will be no further legislation, because we have dynamic alignment? Again, this is despite the talk of some people who told us that after Safeguarding the Union and all, we had nothing to worry about and that we should keep quiet.

It is also significant to note the department’s reply to the committee when it was asked whether it would retain the ability not to implement future EU law changes. It responded by saying effectively, and I paraphrase, “Well, we could always remove the piece of legislation”. It went on to say, and here I quote from the committee, that

“any future decision not to enforce”

EU laws

“may be inconsistent with our obligations under the Windsor Framework Agreement”.

That is a pretty clear statement. Basically, the Government’s position is that we are subject to EU law in this area and, whether it is good or bad, whatever the effect, we intend to follow it.

The Government, again, keep repeating—the Minister said it tonight—that they are committed to the integrity of the UK internal market, yet at every turn we have these types of regulations, some even more draconian and more worrying, that undermine that statement and cause diversion of trade, trade friction and real economic problems for many traders and consumers in Northern Ireland, and also restrict choice. So I have every respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing this regret amendment. Obviously, if she did press it to a vote, we would support her in that, but I hope that the Minister will have heard our concerns, will reflect on them and will take them on board seriously.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his statement tonight and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for introducing her amendment. I say in passing that her speech on a regret Motion in this place has been part of a significant rethink of policy arising out of the Clonoe judgment. The decision by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to have a judicial review in that case owes a lot to a wide public argument, but it also owes something to the noble Baroness’s important speech on that subject. It is a welcome decision by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to have a judicial review.

22:00

On the key issues that we face tonight, I have some sympathy for the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I do not accept his view that we face a world where dynamic alignment is now back on the cards simply because the Windsor Framework no longer applies on this subject. The Windsor Framework, which this Government have fully backed, states quite clearly:

“Inherent in this new way forward is the prospect of significant divergence between the two distinct economies on the island of Ireland—from food and drink to plants and pets, building on the existing differences in every area of economic and political life such as services, migration, currency and taxation”.

I think that it is an overstatement to talk about dynamic alignment still being on the cards. This Government have supported the Windsor Framework, which clearly and firmly moves away from that prospect.

There is also a way of talking about the Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union that does not really recognise what has been achieved under both. I have just given an important example of what the Windsor Framework has achieved. I will take another dramatic example, one of great importance to the DUP in its last election manifesto: the decision that there should be no drugs available under the National Health Service in the rest of the United Kingdom that were not available in Northern Ireland. There is total equality of treatment in that respect. Again, this is a change.

The fact that these things existed at all is an indication that the EU sometimes loses the run of itself. You sometimes look at some of these regulations and say, “Where’s the brain in the brontosaurus?” The hope has to be that, with the changed relationships between the EU and the United Kingdom and the fact that, frankly, the United Kingdom is a lot more important to the countries of the EU than it seemed to be several months ago, there will be some scope for more flexibility than the EU has tended to show throughout this whole crisis.

I also remind noble Lords about paragraph 34 of Safeguarding the Union on the defence industries in Northern Ireland, which says that the UK Government will be committed to developing fully the expertise that exists in this area. In the past few months, we have seen dramatic proof from this Government of that promise fully to exploit the defence industry in Northern Ireland.

I mention these things because there is a way of talking about Northern Ireland as though there is dynamic alignment with the Irish Republic and the UK Government are not fulfilling any of the commitments made under either Safeguarding the Union or the Windsor Framework. That way of talking is quite clearly not right. It is a complicated process. The Windsor Framework is a historic compromise. To be blunt, Northern Ireland looks both ways in its allegiance. We simply have to accept that. We cannot talk all the time as if there is just one unionist community in Northern Ireland. We have to take into account that a significant number of people in Northern Ireland would prefer to remain in the European Union. All these things remain brutal political facts that cannot be ignored.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, talked a lot about paragraph 7 in the Explanatory Memorandum, and everything she said about it is completely correct. Paragraph 9 of the impact assessment says that the Government believe that there will be no significant impact on individuals or businesses from these new regulations. That may or may not be right, and I have listened with respect to the reasons why the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, suggest that it may not be. However, previous regret amendments have been accompanied by explanatory memoranda. They have also claimed that there would be a significant effect, and that the Government’s assessment is that there would be no significant impact. I recall no significant impact, and the proof of this pudding will be in the eating, but we have been here before. If there is a significant impact, I have yet to hear of it. I have heard what businesses in Northern Ireland are saying. What has always surprised me is the degree to which they supported even the original protocol, let alone the changes in the Windsor Framework.

I asked the Minister about the UFU, and my understanding is that, on the last regret amendment that we had, it supported the what the Government were doing. So, we need to be careful when we say that we reject the terms of the Explanatory Memorandum.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I am listening to the noble Lord with interest. I do not know if he has read the evidence given to the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee on 12 March, or indeed more recent evidence to the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House. I urge him to read that, because it sets out the problems in excruciating detail. It is not a question of hypotheses or guesses; this is hard evidence of what is happening on the ground. People are deeply upset and concerned, and losing money.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for that information. I have not heard today’s evidence—although I did watch last week’s evidence to the Select Committee—and I am therefore in the dark. I will simply say that it is essential to accept that we are dealing with a very messy historic compromise. It does not help that there is a tendency on the part of those who are unhappy with the messiness of that compromise to discuss the working out of the Windsor Framework and safeguarding of the union without dealing with the obvious, palpable benefits to a narrowly defined unionist community in Northern Ireland. That is the problem. The consequence is that the people of Northern Ireland still have a sense of pessimism about their future, because there is no answer. Everybody knows that the Windsor Framework passed in this House and the House of Commons by a majority of several hundred, and that if there were another vote like the that on the Windsor Framework—under which, essentially, these regulations exist—there would be an even larger majority. There is no help.

People say that this is terrible and there is not political answer to it. My argument is that it is better and more accurate to describe exactly what is happening under the Windsor Framework and the strengthening of the union, and not just to list the frustrations, of which, I accept, there are many. It is better to have a balanced approach to the meaning of these two documents and their impact in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he reflect on the fact that things could move along better if there were more genuine openness on consultation? He knows the democratic deficit that exists, hence your Lordships’ Select Committee inquiry. That is the difficulty: the consultation issue is key, and yet it has not been acknowledged in the other place. I hope that it is acknowledged in this House.

[Lord Bew (CB)]

I accept completely the point made by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, I have high regard and respect for the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am always interested in listening to what he has to say on subjects such as this. I do not take lightly what he says, but I detect a sense of—although perhaps this not how he meant it—“If you see something that is not right, just turn your head and look the other way, and it will be all right”. It will not be all right. This House and the other place need soon to learn that it will not be all right when we have been removed and we have 300 areas of law which we cannot do anything about. If anyone thinks that that is acceptable in this wonderful, modern and democratic age in which we all live, then frankly, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

Lots of things are written down but they have been trumped by legislation. This evening, I do not so much blame the Minister. He has inherited a lot of bad things, but sometimes, you are better disowning some inheritances, and saying, “I’d prefer not to have that, thank you very much”. I have always found him to be courteous and respectful, and I thank him, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has, for facilitating a meeting quite recently which gave us an opportunity to look at things just a wee bit closer. He did not push back from that, and I hope he continues to do that in the future.

I support the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. As the noble Baroness has explained to the House, there are two principal problems with the regulations before us today. The first pertains to undermining the citizenship of the people of Northern Ireland, such that this legislation applies to them automatically. It derives from the EU Commission, from which we are alienated twice: first, on account of it being unelected by anyone; and, secondly, on account of the fact that it is also foreign and thus effectively colonial. I have used that word in the past in debates and I know I got a frosty response, but I still think that it has to be said.

When challenged by the honourable Member for North Antrim, as has been raised not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, the Minister in the other place replied saying:

“There is no requirement to consult … These regulations apply automatically in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Windsor Framework and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”.


So, it does not matter what the people of Northern Ireland have to say—we are being treated as a colony now and not as a democratic place to live. Rather than providing an answer addressing the assault on the integrity of UK citizenship in Northern Ireland, the Minister’s response only served to set out a problem; it did not go for a solution.

The second problem pertains to the effective undermining of the citizenship of the people of the rest of the United Kingdom, as they are effectively encouraged—albeit with the covering dignity of the consultation which we are now denied—to surrender the freedoms afforded by Brexit to develop our law, and instead to become a rule taker from Brussels, like Northern Ireland. In short, the dead hand of Brussels still has its unwelcome grip on the region of the United Kingdom in which I live.

There may be some who would be tempted to say that in this, we are having our revenge, that we are showing those who thought that they could sacrifice Northern Ireland in order to get Brexit done for Great Britain that this is not possible. However, people who think like this do not understand unionism at all; they have no concept of it at all. The essence of unionism is that we are not just concerned about the well-being of the part of the United Kingdom from which we come; the essence of unionism is about recognising that we are more than the sum of our parts and that the well-being of each part is tied up in the well-being of every other part. It is the inherently relational nature of unionism that should make it, and not nationalism, the winning creed of our time.

So, no, I am very troubled about the prospect of Great Britain losing the benefits of Brexit, just as I have been very distressed by the undermining of the union by means of denying Brexit to Northern Ireland. Let me be very clear: to those who might stand in your Lordships’ House today or on another occasion and say that this is the cost of Brexit, I remind them that we did not get Brexit. I want your Lordships’ House today to take note of that.

I believe not only that we should benefit from Brexit but that the whole United Kingdom should do so, and that nothing should place that in jeopardy in any part of our country. The question on the ballot paper was, “Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union?”. It was not, “Should the United Kingdom break up and parts of it leave and parts of it stay?” Over 17 million people, in the biggest manifestation of democracy in the history of our islands, said yes. We are often told that Northern Ireland voted to remain. Well, so did Scotland and so did London. But we are never told that, for whatever reason. Maybe one day we will be.

22:15

What possible justification might the Minister deploy to justify the truncation of United Kingdom citizenship in Northern Ireland and the creation of the two-tier citizenship to which these regulations testify? That is, the full citizenship of the UK citizen in GB who can stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject, and the partial citizenship of UK citizens in Northern Ireland who are now worthy of the right to stand for election to make only some of the laws to which they are subject. There are two potential responses, but the difficulty is that, as we study them, we find that they turn from being defences of the Government’s position into a further indictment of it. One possible line of defence is that, while it would normally be indefensible that anyone should be encouraged to give up their citizenship to subject themselves to legislators who are not accountable to them, it is justified in this particular case because of 10 December: this is the proposition that the Government asked the MLAs to support.

I want to deal with one point that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, raised. He said that Northern Ireland looks in two different directions and that we cannot continue—I did not know we were continuing, but anyway—as if it were one solid block or just orientated towards the United Kingdom. I understand that, but why is it that unionism’s voice is not important any more, or not as important as, for instance, nationalism? Let us suppose for a moment that what has been done to those of us who cherish our citizenship of the UK had been done in reverse. Not for a single, solitary second would the Government, past or present, have implemented it. They would have said “We have to take the views of all the people of Northern Ireland”. I refer again to what the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said. “No consultation. The idea is, just ram it down their throats. They’ll get to like it and, if they don’t like it, tough—just swallow hard and you’ll get rid of your impediment”. That will happen once too often. Let us be very clear tonight that that will not suffice for a remedy that is so urgently needed.

It is quite wrong to say that the business community is not overexercised about all this. Why do you say that when, in fact, we are getting different messages from that very community? Back at the time of the Jubilee, I thought that it would be a nice thing to buy a tree and plant it. I got on to one of the suppliers in GB, who asked “Where are you phoning from?” I said, “I’m phoning from the United Kingdom”. “Oh yes, but what part?” I said, “Northern Ireland”. “Oh, no, sorry, we can’t supply Northern Ireland. First of all, we daren’t do it, because some of the roots might have a bit of soil on them and that would be a dreadful thing. Secondly, we can’t do it because it would not be profitable to do it. There is too much red tape and too many forms to fill in”.

I was talking to a trader some time back. He had arrived in Northern Ireland with about £30,000-worth of goods, but his lorry was within an inch of being impounded because there was a simple, small document that was not clear. He said, “I went on my hands and knees and begged for that load to get through because it was so vital to my business”. Those are things that are happening, but that seems to be okay—or maybe it seems that we are exaggerating.

My noble friend Lord Dodds outlined very clearly the evidence that the committee he is a member of listens to, and I know he has commended it to the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I am sure if the noble Lord has given a commitment to read it then he will do so, and I hope he might then find that what he is trying to articulate tonight is not absolutely accurate.

I plead with the Government. They have to consult. They have to treat people with respect. I take your Lordships’ minds back to what I said earlier: I do not think the Minister is that type of person. I watched him when he was in opposition and I have corresponded with him on issues. I have always found him to be a person who listens and tries to see if there is a way through. I urge the Government: please listen to what we are saying. Please do not treat the people of Northern Ireland as second-class citizens or as if some are now surplus to requirements, and as if the only voice that you have to listen to in Northern Ireland is that of militant republicanism and nationalism. I could say a whole lot more, but I will stop there.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing this SI. I will concentrate most of my remarks on the details of the SI before us rather than the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

Before I do that, I turn to the reasons for the regret amendment. Once again, the strength of feeling on these matters is clear to see, as shown by the speakers on various sides of the House. We on these Benches supported the Windsor Framework as a means of moving on from the stalemate following Brexit, but it is far from perfect and there clearly remain real and legitimate concerns about the lack of parliamentary oversight on these matters and the impact that Brexit itself and the Windsor Framework are having on businesses in Northern Ireland.

It is strange that the Government chose not to consult Northern Ireland on this SI. Given its political sensitivity, it would surely always be better to have consulted. I note that there is no legal duty to hold the consultation as the instrument does not make any substantial changes, but I view consultation with Northern Irish authorities as a different class of consultation and more a matter of common courtesy.

I note that the full impact assessment has not been produced. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the changes brought in

“are expected to have no significant direct or no significant indirect, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.

As part of the reset in our relationship with the EU, I hope the Government will review the oversight mechanisms for how they consult the relevant sectors in Northern Ireland. I would welcome a response from the Minister on this point.

I turn to the tabling of the amendment. I must say, although it is absolutely the noble Baroness’s right to table her amendment, that it is hard to see, in my mind at least, that this SI justifies it. Everything that she may wish to say in the main Chamber could have been spoken just as clearly in the Prince’s Chamber at a more convenient time for everyone involved.

The SI itself will ensure that the latest EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling automatically apply to Northern Ireland and can be enforced there, as required by the Windsor Framework. The new rules are updating previous Northern Ireland regulations from 2010 and 2011. The new regulations seek to ensure that household and some office items, such as tumble dryers, have a standby mode, and that for other items, such as mobile phones or tablet computers, consumers can acquire some spare parts.

The Government rightly argue that these regulations will bring benefits to Northern Ireland’s residents as they will save money on reduced electricity usage and be able to repair mobile devices if they break, saving the need to buy again from new. If the Department for Energy and Net Zero thinks that these regulations are good for energy efficiency for the people of Northern Ireland, while I welcome the fact that the Minister wants to bring the regulations to the whole of the UK, why can that not happen until March 2026? Is it possible to bring that forward? Clearly, if we could align these regulations across the whole of the UK and get these benefits for everybody, to my mind at least, that would be a good thing. There are staggered start dates for the regulations coming into force to replicate the staggered nature of the EU regulations themselves. The first will come in on 9 May 2025.

This statutory instrument has not been drawn to the special attention of the Houses by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. However, the SI was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It points out that

“while manufacturers from Great Britain (GB) selling into NI or the EU will have to meet the EU’s new product standards, the Department says that “the majority” of the products covered by this instrument will also still be compliant with GB standards”.

The committee also notes that the impact of enacting this SI is that, further forward,

“the legislation always automatically reflects the most up to date EU rules on product-specific ecodesign and energy labelling, removing the need for further secondary legislation to implement updates in UK law when the EU rules are replaced in a way that affects NI”.

The committee recommends that

“it would be helpful to also publicise future changes through a Parliamentary Statement to both Houses”.

Will the Minister respond to this suggestion? In his opening remarks, I think he talked about memorandums of understanding; if could he just clarify that point for me, it would be appreciated.

I note the Minister’s points about being on a journey on these matters. In general, we welcome these measures for ecodesign and would like to see them implemented across the UK.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing this SI, which seeks to update the existing ecodesign and energy labelling regulations for Northern Ireland in line with the Windsor Framework. These amendments ensure that Northern Ireland continues to adhere to EU rules on energy-related products, reflecting the requirements of the framework. While the Government’s intention behind this statutory instrument is understood, there are several aspects that warrant closer scrutiny and further clarification. I note the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, about the ramifications of these regulations on small businesses and consumers, as reiterated by other noble Lords in the House.

Before examining the impact and provisions of the current measures, we should consider the history behind them. The previous Conservative Government had a long-standing commitment to improving environmental standards while ensuring that businesses and consumers were given the tools necessary to thrive in an energy-efficient economy. When the ecodesign and energy labelling regulations 2021 were first introduced in this House, they focused on reducing carbon emissions through ensuring that products in the market met higher energy-efficiency standards. These regulations set minimum standards for products that consume energy, helping to lower energy bills for consumers and reduce the environmental impact across the economy.

In practice, products placed on the Northern Ireland market will remain subject to the EU energy-efficiency and labelling standards. These updates are designed to ensure that Northern Ireland’s product offerings continue to meet the high environmental and energy-efficiency standards set by the EU. These amendments to the ecodesign regulations seek to enhance energy efficiency by imposing stricter performance requirements on a wide variety of products, including household appliances, lighting products and electronics. Can the Minister provide further details on the specific impact these regulations will have on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland? How do the Government intend to ensure that businesses are not burdened by excessive compliance costs or administrative hurdles when adapting to these new requirements?

22:30

Moreover, the introduction of an energy labelling system is an important step towards empowering consumers by providing information on the energy efficiency of products. While this is a positive development, we must consider whether the required improvements in product efficiency result in higher upfront costs for the consumer. How will the Government ensure that these new labelling requirements do not inadvertently place an additional financial burden on consumers?

Finally, in terms of compliance, we must ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are adequately supported in meeting these requirements. How will market surveillance be co-ordinated between the UK and EU to ensure smooth implementation? While the intention behind this statutory instrument is clear—to align Northern Ireland’s regulations with the EU energy efficiency standards—there remain several key issues that warrant further attention. The potential impact on businesses and the affordability of these measures for consumers, especially those already struggling with energy costs, must not be overlooked.

It is crucial that we strike a balance between ambitious environmental goals and the economic realities faced by businesses and consumers. We must ensure that these regulations are not only effective in promoting energy efficiency but also fair and manageable for all affected parties. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response and clarification on these important concerns.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate on this statutory instrument for their contributions. I also note also the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, to my noble friend Lord Coaker and the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to the JR position, which I am sure is much appreciated by them.

Obviously, I have listened with great care to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Morrow, in relation to the Windsor Framework and the interrelationship with the EU. I also listened with care to the input of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and his assessment of the framework. As he said, despite the frustrations it has also brought achievements.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was very supportive of the Windsor Framework, but suggested there were some issues that needed consideration. We will look with great interest at the outcome of the independent review by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned evidence that has recently been given to that committee.

On the issue of our response, consultation and the Select Committee’s recommendation on how we should handle such instruments in the future, we are committed to publishing further changes through parliamentary Statements to both Houses. I recognise that issues relating to Northern Ireland and protecting its status as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s internal market are important to the Members of the House, as they are to me and to the Government.

I said in opening that we are on a journey. We will very much reflect on the comments that have been made by noble Lords in the debate. We are very much committed to the Windsor Framework, but we want to make sure that it operates as effectively as possible. I do not ignore the comments of noble Lords who are not in favour of the Windsor Framework, but there is no doubt that we need to look at the way it operates and see where there can be improvements. I hope noble Lords will not think that I am rejecting the tenor of the remarks made about seeking to improve the way we do these things. My department is committed to doing that.

The ecodesign and energy labelling laws will update the pre-existing enforcement regime in accordance with what was agreed in the Windsor Framework. If we do not update regulations with respect to Northern Ireland, market surveillance authorities would not be able to enforce the law and we would then risk breaching our obligations under the Windsor Framework. We think that consumer products, ecodesign and energy labelling go hand-in-hand with providing consumers with valuable information, enabling them to make an informed choice and eventually driving the market towards more energy-efficient products.

I have listened to the comments about consumer information and awareness. I will take that back to the department in relation to making sure that as much information as possible about the implications of these regulations is made available to members of the public in Northern Ireland. Of course I take that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised an important point on consultation. The issue here is that, under the terms of the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland remains aligned with EU single market rules for certain goods and maintains access to this market. As such, these new regulations automatically apply in Northern Ireland under Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Of course, the substantive changes being discussed were adopted by the EU in 2023 and April and July 2024.

The fact is that we are fulfilling our obligations by making sure that we can then legally enforce regulations as they apply in Northern Ireland. We are committed to the UK internal market and we wish to support Northern Ireland’s place in it. I repeat: the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which will examine how to strengthen the role of Northern Ireland in the Windsor Framework, clearly has very important work to do, and we will study its outcome very carefully. As a department and a Government, we would obviously wish to support the new committee in carrying out its functions. As I have said, the independent review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will also be of great interest.

I understand what noble Lords have said about consultation. I should say that the Government did carry out extensive assessment of these delegated EU Acts as they came forward over the past couple of years. Obviously, much of that work was done by the former Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, suggested. Notwithstanding the Windsor Framework and disagreement about it, we believe that Northern Ireland consumers are likely to benefit from the changes being introduced in terms of lower operational costs. The new smartphone regulations are an area where there is no current equivalent regulation already in place in Great Britain, but the regulation promises potential benefits for both consumers and businesses. Obviously, that is the point of us looking at the benefits of adopting similar regulations in Great Britain.

On the impact on Northern Ireland, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Bloomfield, in particular referred to, the previous Government published Explanatory Memoranda on these regulations when they were adopted by the EU between 2023 and 2024. An Explanatory Memorandum was prepared but not published due to the timing of the general election and then the dissolution of the scrutiny committees. But more detailed internal department analysis in relation to tumble dryers has indicated that consumers in Northern Ireland would benefit from lower operational costs and improved repairability. We will set out the detail of the benefits for all UK consumers in mirroring tumble dryer regulations for Great Britain. We will shortly publish an impact assessment, alongside a forthcoming consultation, to mirror tumble drying standards for Great Britain. We will commit to consulting as soon as possible on mirroring the rest of the regulations in GB. Through this, we will be in a stronger position to evaluate impacts.

On the specific detail on tumble dryers, I am not sure I can answer all the questions that the noble Baroness raised, but we are aware that the EU’s regulation is a significant change from that in Great Britain. Only tumble dryers featuring the most efficient heat pump technology, which also makes them more economical in terms of running costs, will be allowed on the EU market. The EU’s regulation estimates saving €1 billion in user expenses by 2030 and a reduction of 10 terawatts of electricity by 2030. We are looking to consult on similar savings in Great Britain.

I am assured that, if the noble Baroness is planning a shopping trip to Scotland, she would not be arrested for buying a tumble dryer in Great Britain and bringing it back to Northern Ireland. I hope that reassures her.

On whether businesses operating in Northern Ireland will have to follow EU standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked, yes, of course there is a consequence from these regulations applying in Northern Ireland. This SI is about providing the relevant market surveillance bodies with the means to do that in accordance with the Windsor Framework.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned extended ambulatory references. The current legislation already includes ambulatory references to automatically cover when EU measures are amended. The instrument extends this to cover when the EU measures referred to are replaced. That ensures that the schedules continue to reflect the most up-to-date versions of the EU ecodesign or energy labelling measures in force, whether amended or replaced, while minimising the need for further updates to enforcement regulations. We will none the less continue to publish Explanatory Memoranda on new EU measures.

To come back again to consultation, during the creation of this statutory instrument, officials consulted counterparts in the Northern Ireland Executive and the relevant market surveillance authorities. Officials in the Northern Ireland Executive were also consulted on the creation of Explanatory Memoranda commissioned under the previous Government, so we are aware of the product-specific regulation covered by this SI—I think that it was mostly done by the previous Government. Let me be clear, too, that the SI is only about updating the Northern Ireland enforcement regime to reflect the new EU measures, which will automatically apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, asked about market surveillance. It will be done by the Office for Product Safety and Standards in Northern Ireland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom. I have heard the points made about alignment, but I have to say that these matters in relation to Great Britain will be considered on a case-by-case basis, which is how the Government are approaching them.

I suspect that I have not answered all the specific questions, and I shall look through Hansard and follow this up with letters to noble Lords, but I hope that I have shown that the Government are engaging with Northern Ireland in an appropriate way and that we will reflect on these processes in the light of this debate and the report of the Select Committee. We look with great interest at the work of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and the independent review of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I hope that noble Lords will feel that we are dealing with these matters, controversy and disagreement though there may be in relation to the Windsor Framework, as sensitively as possible. These measures will bring advantages to consumers in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Did I correctly hear the Minister say that he committed to the Government making a parliamentary Statement at each point when legislation changed automatically? I am grateful to him for confirming my point on the automatic updating of UK domestic legislation without any further parliamentary procedure, but on the point of how it is notified, could he confirm that that is indeed the case?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, what I think I said was that, in line with the scrutiny committee’s recommendations, we will commit to publicising future changes through a parliamentary Statement to both Houses.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I thank everyone who has taken part in what seems to have become a fairly regular late-night discussion of a statutory instrument that goes slightly wider than the specifics. I also want to say a genuine thank you to the Minister, because he has certainly made us feel that he has been listening and that he will take back some of the points that have been made, when perhaps sometimes, in the busy schedule of all Ministers and officials, they do not get the detail of what is causing so many problems. I genuinely hope that he has learned something —I do not mean that he does not know what he is talking about, but I hope that he has learned a little more tonight about some of the very strong feelings.

My crucial point is that I never seem able to get Ministers, Opposition Front-Benchers, and certainly not the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrats, to actually say that they want to see changes to the Windsor Framework. They keep saying—the noble Lord has said it again tonight—that they are committed to the Windsor Framework. Yet, time after time in this House, we hear of all the things that are wrong with the Windsor Framework and how it is not working.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, will be a strong supporter of the Windsor Framework, as he has since the beginning—until, perhaps, there have been changes in all sorts of ways. We cannot ignore the realities of what is happening to the principle of it. As we have more such SIs and more discussion of them, I hope that we will finally get the Government and Opposition to recognise that this is not sustainable and cannot go on. In any kind of discussions with the European Union, the Government must put first and foremost the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a unifying force—as something that needs to be unified.

I will quickly remind people of all the other little things to do with the Windsor Framework that are just so annoying. There is the pets issue—the idea that you have to deal with extra bureaucracy to take your pet on holiday to Northern Ireland. We could not ban the live exports of animals for slaughter in Northern Ireland, and we cannot even get a ministerial answer to how many have gone off to other awful parts of the world to be killed in very cruel situations. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked a question, and he got the answer back that it was a devolved matter, but it was not devolved when the law was brought in.

People are still finding it very difficult to get seeds to Northern Ireland. There are many other issues, such as parcels. Very soon, someone in England wanting to send a present to their relative in Northern Ireland will have to send the parcel from a post office as if they are sending it to a foreign country. That is going to cost the Post Office more, as well, so where will the costs go? Every month, every week, every day, there is something new. Noble Lords need to realise that this issue is not going to go away, and we will continue to come back on it. But I thank everybody once again, and I would like to withdraw my regret amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Motion agreed.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons.

Great British Energy Bill

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with a reason.

Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 26th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

House adjourned at 10.47 pm.