Homelessness: Young Adults
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Austin of Dudley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to help young adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we inherited the worst housing crisis in generations. Levels of homelessness are nothing short of a national disgrace. Our Government recognise that homelessness can have a devastating effect on those involved, including young people. We have allocated £633 million to councils directly for homelessness and homelessness prevention, taking total funding to nearly £1 billion this year. The Deputy Prime Minister is also chairing an interministerial group to develop a long-term strategy to deliver the long-term solutions we need. We will consider youth homelessness as part of that.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. What assessment have the Government made of the YMCA’s call for the introduction of a new youth independence payment for people living independently without family support? It would mean that those under 25 who live independently would see their universal credit rise to the same rate as that of those over 25, which would help to support some of the most vulnerable young people and help tackle youth homelessness. Will the Minister meet the YMCA to discuss this?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the challenges that young people without family support face—for example, care leavers as they move out of the care system. We want to do more to ensure we facilitate a successful transition from care to adulthood, including strengthening current housing offers for all care leavers. The DWP works in close partnership with DfE to ensure that care leavers can access a range of support, in particular by simplifying interaction with the benefits system and helping them into work so that they can progress and secure employment. There is also a range of financial support, including exemption from the shared accommodation rate, discretionary housing payments and support through the household support fund. I am very interested in the proposals from the YMCA on a youth independence payment, and I look forward to discussing that with it.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, Monday this week marked three years since the repeal of the Vagrancy Act was given Royal Assent. Yet each night since then, young people forced to sleep on the streets have still faced criminalisation because each day nothing has been done to commence that repeal. That is despite the Government’s position that the Act is antiquated and not fit for purpose, and despite the additional powers the Government say they need before repeal being contained in the Crime and Policing Bill. The Bill still does not have the crucial commencement date required to repeal the Vagrancy Act. Will my noble friend liaise with her ministerial colleagues to ensure that the Government use the Crime and Policing Bill to finally commence the repeal of this pernicious and outdated law?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend knows how strongly I agree with the comments she has just made. The Government view the Vagrancy Act as antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. No one should be criminalised for simply sleeping rough on the streets. We must ensure that we avoid criminalising those who are the most vulnerable, while also ensuring that police and local authorities have the wide range of tools they need to make sure that communities feel safe. We are in the process of making sure that happens. As my noble friend will know, repeal of the Act needs to be included in forthcoming legislation. Colleagues in the Home Office are exploring options to do just that, and I want to make sure it is done as quickly as possible.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, a very high proportion of young people who become homeless were originally in care, with one survey indicating that a third of care leavers become homeless within two years. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 requires local authorities to continue to support care leavers until they are 25. Is the Minister satisfied that local authorities are doing all they can in that respect?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said in my initial Answer, we continue to strive to make sure that we offer the best support possible for care leavers. The noble Lord is right to say that they deserve to have that support right through to the age of 25. Earlier this year, we introduced a measure into the DfE’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to make sure that no care leaver in scope of corporate parenting duties can be found intentionally homeless. We also made the decision to further strengthen legislation as the Government are all too aware of the long-term impact that pre-care and post-care experiences can have on young people. It is essential, as part of local authorities’ role as corporate parents, that this vulnerability is recognised and that care leavers are provided with the care, stability and support they need to build a secure and successful future.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, providers of support and housing for this vulnerable group need two things: funding from Homes England and accreditation from Ofsted. In a recent meeting with the YMCA, for Hertfordshire this time, I was told that all its development plans were on hold because of the lack of any announcement about any new funding streams from Homes England, leaving the sector completely in limbo. Can the Minister tell us why this is? In addition, it has been waiting since October 1923 to get Ofsted accreditation for a unit for 40 such vulnerable children.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Okay—a long time. Will the Minister please agree to look into this logjam and see whether she can be Dyno-Rod?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am always happy to be Dyno-Rod, even when it goes back to 1923. I am not sure which programme the YMCA applied to, but at the Spring Statement we announced an immediate injection of £2 billion to support the delivery of the big boost in social and affordable housebuilding that is necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Austin, asked me to have a meeting with the YMCA, I think it would be very helpful to meet it and find out what it has experienced with this blockage to its funding. I hope we can do the Dyno-Rod job and get that freed up as quickly as possible.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, what the Minister has said about children leaving care is very encouraging because a large number of children in care fall off a cliff, as it were, at the age of 18. We expect the most coping skills from the children who have had the least in life, particularly as the majority of children who grow up in what we call an ordinary family do not leave their home until very much later—their middle 20s. It is not just about putting a roof over the head of a child who has been in care; very often it is about providing a support mechanism so that they are not out in the world on their own. Can the Minister make sure that we recognise the wide range of needs of children who have been in care, because they have been deprived of what we would call a normal home life?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with those comments. I remember, as a county councillor, fighting hard to get care leavers exempt from council tax, for example. We fund a number of programmes to support care leavers, including supporting young people in foster care to stay living with foster families in a family home up to the age of 21 through the Staying Put programme; increasing the number of young people leaving residential care who receive practical help with move-on accommodation, including ongoing support from a trusted key worker, through the Staying Close programme; and then providing extra support to local authorities to help those care leavers at the highest risk of rough sleeping. But there is always more we can do in this regard.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, this feels very close to home. The BBC recently reported that the number of people who spent at least one night sleeping rough in Derby in 2024 was 63% higher than in 2023. In the Government’s annual rough sleeping snapshot, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government reported that 10% of everyone sleeping rough across the UK had left institutions such as prison. I welcome the announcement that councils across England will receive £1 billion of funding to reduce and prevent homelessness. As the Bishop with particular responsibility for youth offenders, I ask the Minister how her department intends to work with councils to ensure that sufficient investment is appropriately and effectively allocated specifically to support young adults who are leaving prison.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a key point about supporting young people leaving prison. We have provided an uplift of £192.9 million to the homelessness prevention grant, which brings the total funding up to £633 million, the largest investment in that grant since it began. We are also setting out our plans in relation to all types of homelessness and housing in a housing strategy that will come forward later in the year. The ministerial working group on homelessness is paying particular attention to homelessness among young people, because we know the long-term damage it can do.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, in light of the rising rates of youth homelessness, can the Minister let me know how much of the £1 billion grant that has gone to local authorities has been specifically directed to homelessness among young people—or has none of it been directed? If not, why not?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We trust our colleagues in local government to direct money to where it is most needed. We will be looking, under the ministerial working group that is looking at homelessness, to see whether we need to take any further specific action on youth homelessness, but our colleagues in local government are very good at making sure they tackle the areas of most need in their local areas.
National Shipbuilding Strategy
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beamish
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to delivering a thriving shipbuilding sector across the UK, supporting companies and skilled jobs across the whole supply chain—from full vessel builds through to design, repair systems and integration. The Ministry of Defence and the wider Government continue to support the sector through a 30-year pipeline of shipbuilding projects, and we are closely considering shipbuilding as part of our long-term industrial strategy development.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In 2017, Sir John Parker produced the national shipbuilding strategy, which was a good vision for the future of shipbuilding in the UK. It was refreshed in 2022 by the previous Government, who, ironically, six months later awarded a contract to the Spanish state-owned shipbuilder Navantia. Today, we have tenders for ships for Trinity House and Border Force, the concern being that they will go to foreign yards. Also of concern is that the National Shipbuilding Office, in its latest bulletin, talks about UK content not UK build. Why is shipbuilding not part of the national growth strategy? Those ships should be built in the UK.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Certainly, the shipbuilding strategy is part of the industrial strategy going forward, but my noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of shipbuilding to our country and to growth. I will continue to say at this Dispatch Box that the manufacturing industry of this country needs to be rebuilt, and part of that rebuilding has to be ship- building. We look not only to the Ministry of Defence but to departments across government to do as much as they can to ensure that British ships are built in British yards. That is an important principle that they should adhere to if they possibly can.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we are awaiting the strategic defence review and, I believe, a defence industrial strategy. Will national shipbuilding be part of that and if so, when can we expect those documents and some real progress?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We will see those documents in due course. Of course shipbuilding is going to be a part of future defence growth strategies. These are really important points, and I say again—because we are going to have to reiterate this—that this Government, the next Government and the Government after that are going to have to rebuild the ability of this country to build ships in shipyards in different parts of the country. That cannot be changed overnight: those shipyards will have to be rebuilt, and the apprentices trained. That is fundamental, and fundamental too to our national security going forward is sovereign capability; that is everything.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, in pursuit of the Minister’s laudable objectives, when will our successor shipbuilding tsar be appointed and what shipbuilding orders has the National Shipbuilding Office been involved in since July last year?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The shipbuilding tsar will be appointed as soon as possible—I cannot give the noble Baroness a date. The National Shipbuilding Office has been involved in a number of projects, not least, as I mentioned yesterday, the five Type 31s being built in Rosyth and the eight Type 26s being built on the Clyde. The National Shipbuilding Office has also been ensuring that the various departments across government recognise that they also have a responsibility to ensure that the ships they want are built as far as possible in British yards.
Lord Mountevans (CB)
My Lords, I welcome much of what the Minister has said, but turning to the commercial side of shipping, the Parker report drew attention to the potential of and importance of commercial shipbuilding in growing skills and capacity throughout the land. As has been noted, very little has happened from the NSO on that. I do not blame it because I know that a great deal of effort has been made by some of the officials; indeed, there are people in the Gallery today who put tremendous effort into this. Can the Minister try to unfreeze funds for export credit guarantees for merchant ships where there is potential, we have orders and people want to build here? Also, have the Government decided where they want to locate the National Shipbuilding Office? Which ministry will it be attached to? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The National Shipbuilding Office is based in the MoD but works across government. There is a review of the export guarantee, the fundamental point of which is that, where we have exports and ships that need to be built, there is access to finance. We are not satisfied with how that is working at present, and the review is going on to see if we can do better.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, a shipbuilding strategy is meaningless unless there are not just orders for ships, but a drumbeat of orders. I spent 15 years on the Opposition Benches pointing out to the then Government that we needed to get some orders going and get them in quickly, so that there was a programme of build; otherwise the Navy would be decimated—which it has been. There is now a threat to the continuous at-sea deterrence, for the same reason. Will the Minister speak to the right honourable John Healey and the Treasury? We must have a sequence of orders, a drumbeat of orders, or we will not get the shipyards and SMEs to recruit people, invest and get apprenticeships. It will be meaningless unless we manage to do this.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government are seeking to do exactly what my noble friend points out. The important point he makes is the necessity for a drumbeat: you cannot build a ship in one place and then, three years later, go back and try to build another ship; you have to have a continuous programme. The shipbuilding pipeline that has been outlined was partly intended to address that. We are already starting to see the MoD place orders for ships. I have mentioned Rosyth and the Clyde, and other shipbuilding orders are being made at various shipyards across the country. I say to my noble friend that I will be one of those advocating to make sure that, as far as possible, orders for ships required in the UK are built at British yards. I take the point he is really making, which is about the need for more ships.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, there has been a huge growth in world cruising over recent years. Can the Minister tell us why we as a country have totally failed to participate in the construction of cruise liners?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have to say that I am not an expert on cruise liners, but the noble Lord makes a serious point: why are we not involved in cruise liners and in various other shipbuilding projects? The answer is that we have allowed ourselves, as a country with a proud manufacturing history, to see many of these industries as the industries of the past. What we have seen happening recently has been a wake-up call for our country that these are not the industries of the past. They are the industries of now, and maybe we will see cruise liners built again in this country.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord West, will the Minister come back to the House with a proportionate number for the increased scale-up of naval procurement for this country’s defence?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
If I have understood the noble Baroness’s question correctly, figures have been published on that. If we are talking about Royal Navy ships, as I have already outlined, eight Type 26s are being built —started, to be fair, under the previous Government, of which she was a supporter—by BAE on the Clyde, and five Type 31s are being built at Rosyth by Babcock. Those are the starting points of real improvement and of increases in the number of ships being built. Of course, we need to do more, and we will try to do so.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the supply chain, which can be incredibly important for companies in areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber, and crucial for growth. Too often they have complained that the process of tendering and finding out what is available has been incredibly difficult. Does the MoD have a clear strategy to address the problems previously faced by small supply chain companies, so that they can benefit from the orders that are placed?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point. Part of what I and the Government are trying to do is to ensure that the increase in defence spending is felt across the regions and nations of this country, whether it be the Yorkshire and Humber region and other regions of England, or Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But my noble friend is also right to point out that this cannot be just the huge primes; it has to be small and medium-sized industry as well. We have many such programmes and projects within the MoD that seek to ensure that smaller and medium-sized enterprises benefit. I want to know, not why we do not have another project to encourage small and medium-sized businesses, but why, over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, we have had project after project trying to generate more activity and support for such businesses. The truth is that we have not managed to achieve what we wanted. So I will go back to the MoD and say, “Why will the projects that we’re now introducing work, when they perhaps haven’t worked as well as they might have done in the past?”
LGBT Veterans: Financial Recognition Scheme
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the LGBT Veterans Financial Recognition Scheme announced on 12 December 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if I might digress slightly. There are times when we answer Questions at the Dispatch Box that are about issues of real social change that has been brought about. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, who is not in his place—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I beg his pardon. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who I know is not well. If it had not been for his report, we would not be where we are today. Sometimes, we should stop and reflect on what many people in this Chamber have achieved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Lexden, are brilliant examples of that.
The financial recognition scheme was launched on 13 December 2024 and, as of 28 April, 1,471 people had registered an interest in applying, with 990 applications submitted. I am pleased to confirm that the first dismissed or discharged payments of £50,000 each were sent on 2 April to eight applicants who are terminally ill or have health challenges. Regarding impact payments, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has been appointed as the independent panel chair, and we expect to announce the remaining members shortly.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not imperative that we never forget the many brave members of our armed services whose careers were destroyed and whose lives were broken before the year 2000, simply because they were LGBT? Is not the financial recognition scheme of the greatest importance, as a result of work begun under the last Government and completed by this one? Following the Minister’s remarks, is it not essential that payment is made as rapidly, effectively and generously as possible to LGBT veterans, since so many are now old and frail, and often in financial hardship as a result of the state’s wrongdoing years ago?
I join the Minister in paying tribute to the work from which all this derives—namely, the superb and comprehensive report two years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who, sadly, cannot be in his place among us today.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I fully support everything that the noble Lord said in a very moving way. As I said at the beginning, there are times when what we are all trying to do—in this Chamber, across this Parliament and beyond—is right a historic wrong. The noble Lord is right to point out that this was a slur on our country and a disgrace, but all we can do now is try to make sure that we put it right. He is quite right to say that, in order to do that, we need to work as quickly as possible. That is why we have started with those applicants who are unwell, and we are working through the applications as quickly as possible.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we deliver best and we do our best by working together, and this is an example. I congratulate the Government and the previous Government on adopting all the recommendations of the Etherton report. I will ask the Minister, who is my friend and a stalwart advocate and supporter, two questions. What were the technical reasons just before Easter that resulted in the promised 18-week update for applicants being delayed? This has caused serious concerns. Finally, he has probably already addressed this, but how many applications have been received and acknowledged as well as processed?
I hope the House will join me in placing on record the huge debt of gratitude that we, and so many others, owe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. We will deeply miss him and his exemplary commitment to public service, which has benefited so many.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and join him in his remarks about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Both the previous Government and this Government have tried, and are trying, to right this historical wrong as quickly as possible. I tried to give an answer to the noble Lord’s specific question in my opening remarks. As I say, as of 28 April, 1,471 people had registered an interest in applying, with 990 applications submitted.
On the point that the noble Lord makes about the 18-week update, I do not know the full details of the technological problem, but it is a technology problem that we are seeking to put right, which has meant that the point about the update appears on the website. I reassure him and those who listen to and read our deliberations that that does not mean that the process is in any way held up. It is a technological glitch that we are seeking to put right as quickly as possible, give the hurt that it causes.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lords and the noble and learned Lord for the fantastic amount of work that they have done in getting this on the agenda.
Following conversations with female veterans, I have two short questions for the Minister. For those who served before the 1960s or 1970s, there are fears that their records may have been lost or destroyed. How are they to have their claim substantiated? Are paper copies of claim forms now available for those who may not be computer literate?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will take away that question about female veterans. However, let me read out—although I do not normally do this—one important thing that may help. My briefing tells me that the financial recognition scheme is a sophisticated scheme that ensures that all eligible applicants—including, obviously, females—will receive appropriate financial recognition despite potential limitations in documentation. The scheme operates under a reverse burden-of-proof basis, meaning that, unless the MoD has any contradicting evidence, the testimony of the veteran will be accepted. I think that is a crucial point to make to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, it is a vital condition attaching to payments under this scheme that they are exempt from income tax and, for DWP purposes, are to be disregarded in the calculation of means-tested benefits. According to Fighting With Pride, some veterans who, happily, have started receiving the payments, have reported that their benefits have been stopped on receipt of the funds. Will the Minister undertake as a matter of urgency to engage with his ministerial colleagues in DWP to ensure that that improper action ceases immediately?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I certainly will take that up. As the noble Baroness has said, these payments are exempt from income tax and from benefits. I am disturbed to hear from her that that does not appear to have happened in certain cases. My officials will read this, but I shall certainly take that back to the MoD and follow it up. If I write to the noble Baroness with a reassurance about what has or has not happened and put a copy in the Library, I think that will be helpful.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his generous comments on all those concerned. In relation to the closing date for applications, which is given as December 2026, are the Government making efforts to publicise the availability of the funds and the need to make applications by December 2026? If not, could the Minister please go away and look at this and consider ways in which to ensure that all potential applicants are aware of their right to do so?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are looking at how we publicise the scheme, but of course we can always do more. Let us reflect on the noble Lord’s question and see whether there is more that can be done to publicise the scheme. I reassure people, including anybody who may be seeking to apply for this, that it is important to recognise that the application does not have to have been agreed by then. An application can be made right up to the last day, but it is important that it is made by then. I will certainly take away the point about publicity and see whether more can be done.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is not the only compensation scheme where there appears to be delays in payments. It is happening with the infected blood scheme and with the Post Office compensation. It appears that, sometimes, Ministers’ instructions are not being carried out by civil servants as quickly as they ought to be. Can the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to see whether there is something that can be done to make sure that all compensation payments are paid more quickly?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really good point, but this scheme is not a compensation scheme; it is a scheme to recognise the hurt that was caused to people in the period from 1967 to 2000. Notwithstanding that, it is an important point that needs to be made. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, we will certainly do all we can to ensure that these payments are made as quickly as possible. That is really important, and it is the least that the state can do in recognition of the horror that many people had to go through.
AI: Child Sexual Abuse Material
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Internet Watch Foundation’s Annual Data and Insights Report 2024, published on 23 April, particularly with regard to child sexual abuse material generated by artificial intelligence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lady Berger to her first Oral Question and thank her for it being on such an important issue that faces us today. The Internet Watch Foundation’s annual report highlights a harrowing increase in the amount of AI-generated child sexual abuse material online. The scale is shocking, with over 424,000 reports in 2024 suspected to contain child sex abuse imagery. The Government are deeply committed to tackling this crisis through the Online Safety Act and are specifically targeting AI CSAM threats in the Crime and Policing Bill. I pay tribute to the work of the IWF, which has been vital in helping us to identify and block such content.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. As she alluded to, the Internet Watch Foundation’s report points to hundreds of thousands of reports during the 2024 period. It is a record-breaking number of reports, which is driven partly by a number of new threats, including AI-generated child sexual abuse, sextortion and the malicious sharing of sexual imagery. The IWF says that under-18s are now facing a “crisis” of sexual exploitation and risk online. I heard what the Minister said and ask her what the Government intend to do to protect children in the UK and around the world now to ensure that, when the 2025 report comes out next year, we see a significant reduction in the number of these crimes.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government will introduce a new suite of measures to tackle the growing threat of AI. This includes criminalising AI models made or adapted to generate child sexual abuse imagery and extending the existing paedophile manuals offence to cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material. In addition, the Home Office will bolster the network of undercover online police officers to target online offenders and develop cutting-edge AI tools and other new capabilities to infiltrate live streams and chat rooms where children are groomed. The Home Office is developing options at pace on potential device operating system-level safety controls to prevent online exploitation and abuse of children. It is also vital that we tackle the widespread sharing of self-generated indecent imagery. The report shows that 91% of the images are self-generated. This is young people who are being groomed and often quite innocently sharing their material, not realising the purpose for which it will be used. This is a huge and pressing issue, and my noble friend quite rightly raises that we need to take action now to tackle this scourge.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that, with the constant evolution of technology, we risk not being able to legislate rapidly enough to keep pace. How are the Government conducting their horizon scanning to ensure that we are always one step ahead of those who seek to abuse children in this way?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness is quite right that we have to keep the technology up to date, and of course we are endeavouring to do that. I should say that UK law applies to AI-generated CSAM in the same way as to real child sexual abuse. Creating, possessing or distributing any child sex abuse images, including those generated by AI, is illegal. Generative AI child sexual abuse imagery is priority illegal content under the Online Safety Act in the same way as real content. However, she is quite right: we have to keep abreast of the technology. We are working at pace across government to make sure that we have the capacity to do that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, and the IWF have both called for a total ban on apps which allow nudification, where photos of real people are edited by AI to make them appear naked. The commissioner has been particularly critical about the fact that such apps
“go unchecked with extreme real-world consequences”.
Will the Government act and ban these AI-enabled tools outright?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are actively looking at options to address nudification tools, and we hope to provide an update shortly. It is a matter that we take seriously. If such tools are used to create child sexual abuse material, UK law is clear that creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated using nudification tools, is already illegal, regardless of whether it depicts a real child or not.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a rather high percentage of the material was generated by young people themselves, without being aware of the implications. What is she doing with the Department for Education to ensure that the risks and challenges of unsafe online behaviour are highlighted to children through schools?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a really important point about media literacy. It is again an issue that my department is taking very seriously, and it is an issue that Ofcom also has a statutory responsibility for, but she is right that schools have an essential part to play in this. The curriculum review which is currently taking place is identifying the need to give children more resilience and to give them the tools to identify what is safe and what is unsafe behaviour and to scrutinise the posts that they see in a more informed way. That work is ongoing in the curriculum review and the interim report from the Department for Education has identified that it is a priority.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the rapidly increasing number of AI-generated images in circulation that depict child sexual abuse is deeply disturbing. The creation of such imagery uses the faces or bodies of real children, and much of it falls into category A material, depicting abuse of the most extreme kind. Will the Minister explain what the Government’s plans are to crack down on those who share information specifically on how to use text-to-image-based generative AI tools, a practice which leads to the creation of this appalling material?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we are already taking steps to deal with this. We are committed to making sure that our laws tackle child sexual abuse materials and keep pace with technological developments. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have introduced an offence to criminalise AI models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material. We have introduced an offence to criminalise those who maintain or moderate websites that use such services and use shared child sexual abuse imagery—whether it is real or fake, as the noble Lord says. In the Data (Use and Access) Bill, we have updated existing law that criminalises paedophile manuals to cover artificially generated CSAM. So there are a number of steps that we are already taking within the current legislation programme to deal with these incidents.
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)
My Lords, a number of concerns have been raised about Ofcom’s recently released draft illegal content codes of practice. Can my noble friend the Minister say what plans the Government have to monitor the effectiveness of those codes of practice?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
It is important to recognise that the measures that Ofcom has set out in the illegal content codes of practice and, last week, in the child safety codes of practice are a landmark change to protect users online. They mark the first time that platforms in the UK are legally required to tackle illegal content and content that is harmful to children. Section 47 of the Online Safety Act requires Ofcom to keep these under review. Additionally, Section 178 requires the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regime two to five years after the legislation comes into force. The report on the outcome of that review must be laid before Parliament. I stress to my noble friend that the Act is not the end of the conversation; it is the foundation. We continue to look at how we can develop the legislation and how Ofcom can strengthen the codes in its own way. We are listening and debating, and we will not hesitate to take further action if it proves to be necessary.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, as the wording of my noble friend Lady Berger’s original Question and her supplementary question rightly emphasises, the report pinpoints AI-generated child sexual abuse images as a growing area of concern. Many of them were indistinguishable from real photographs, with the IWF suggesting that their growing number risks re-victimising persons who are previous victims of sexual abuse. Over 70% of AI-generated sexual abuse images are hosted on servers in Russia, Japan, the United States and the Netherlands. What is being done to solve the jurisdictional issues that allow perpetrators and disseminators of this appalling abuse to act with impunity?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend raises a really important point, but I stress that if a service, including file-sharing and storage services, poses a material risk to users in the United Kingdom, it must abide by the Online Safety Act and the illegal content duties, no matter where it is based. Ofcom has recognised the importance of tackling this issue specifically and has identified it as an early priority for enforcement, opening up a programme to assess the measures being implemented by file-sharing and file-storage services to prevent those services being used. My noble friend is right that a lot of these incidents are happening on an international basis. We are working with our colleagues internationally to make sure that we share information and determine the source of some of these materials, because sometimes we need to take action on an international basis.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Wednesday 30th April 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberPublic Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 April 2025 - (29 Apr 2025)
Child Rape Gangs
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, the child rape gang scandal has seriously shaken the trust that communities across this country have in the systems that are supposed to protect them. People deserve reassurance as well as clarification, and they need to know that the Government are taking swift and significant action to address this situation.
That being so, why will the Government not commit to holding a national statutory inquiry into this matter? Further, will the Minister take this opportunity to inform the House when the long overdue rapid audit, overseen by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will publish a final report?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I would thank the noble Lord for the question, but I am not going to. With regard to the independent inquiry, the former leader of his party, the noble Baroness, Lady May, instituted a national inquiry. Some 7,000 victims gave evidence. There were 2 million pages of evidence to be considered; it took 99 months and cost £192.6 million. That inquiry and the recommendations by Professor Jay were delivered to the previous Government in October 2022 and there was no response: not a single recommendation was followed. In fact, the FT quoted a government veteran from the last Government as saying:
“The report came out at an unfortunate time and was maybe to some extent forgotten or deprioritised”.
This Government have sought to move as quickly as possible within our first nine months. We have acted on 17 of the recommendations made in the IICSA report and we are moving forward with local inquiries. We look forward to the response to the national audit that has been undertaken by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which we will receive next month.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, the weekend’s tragic news of the death of Virginia Giuffre highlights the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. I should declare an interest, as my sister suffered serious sexual abuse as a child. Her entire life thereafter was dominated by its effect, with three serious suicide attempts by the age of 20 and mental illness for the rest of her life.
On Monday, no Government Minister mentioned the involvement of gangs of men from the Asian subcontinent, yet this is precisely what led to inaction by police and other children’s safeguarding bodies, and public perception of a cover-up of deeply misogynist and racist crimes. Will the Government admit that this very serious national problem mainly involves men from a large UK minority; otherwise, they risk the democratic danger of appearing to pander to a key section of their voter base?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am so sorry to hear of the experiences of the noble Lord’s sister. I can only send my heartfelt support for her.
The Home Office has doubled funding for supporting adult survivors, which is incredibly important when we consider the genuine scale of the issue. The British crime survey last year said that 11.5% of women had experienced child sexual abuse under the age of 16—these figures are horrendous.
With regard to the question about perpetrators of crime, in January, the Home Secretary announced the national audit by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on group-based sexual exploitation and abuse, which is in its final stages. The audit will improve national understanding of the scale, nature and profile of group-based violence, including the characteristics and ethnicity.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, on the comments that were just made, I begin by saying that as a British Muslim I was absolutely disgusted by the stories that have emerged about these grooming gangs. On behalf of my community, I would like to apologise for these sickening, despicable, wicked acts. Please believe me that many of us in the Muslim community are as absolutely appalled as the noble Lord or anyone else. This is not who we are. Many of these men, by the way, were abusing Muslim women as well as white women.
Tonight, a film called “Groomed: A National Scandal” will be broadcast on Channel 4, in which victims of these sickening crimes by Pakistani gangs will tell their stories, and I hope that we will all watch it. The filmmaker Anna Hall has covered this story for more than 20 years; she is a leading expert. She argues that local inquiries are important but that a new public inquiry is not needed now as it could cause delays and that the seven-year Alexis Jay inquiry produced a good report. When will this Government crack on and implement the Jay recommendations, in particular a national child protection agency? If the Tories care so much about this issue, why did the previous Government fail to take any action on the Jay report for more than two years?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I, for one, will definitely watch the documentary outlined by my noble friend, after this evening’s votes. On the action we will take, some of the recommendations made by Professor Jay are very complex, including the creation of a child protection agency; it requires further work and consultation with victims. This Government want to take a victim-centred approach and we are working with all key stakeholders to develop the CPA. We want to make sure that we build it incrementally, with clarity on the end state—that is the right approach and one that, I believe, Professor Jay agrees with.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I support the idea of having local inquiries, but some local authorities do not wish to have an inquiry. What will His Majesty’s Government do about that? Secondly, is the Minister convinced that these local authorities, some of which are financially challenged, have the resources to undertake this important work?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for both his question and the work he has done on this issue within the Church. We will set out the framework next month for how the local inquiries can be done and the associated funding that will be in place. We are very clear that everything must be victim-centred and that we use best practice when looking at these issues. We are working with those who delivered the best practice in Telford to make sure that, where there is community demand and, most importantly, victim-led demand, the resources and processes are in place to deliver a local inquiry.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, successive Governments have commissioned numerous inquiries into a wide range of issues, resulting in valuable reports and recommendations. Although most of the recommendations are usually accepted, there is rarely any systematic follow-up to ensure that the recommendations are implemented or to monitor their impact, resulting in important findings being ignored and a huge waste of taxpayers’ money. In light of that, can the Minister say whether the Government will consider establishing a dedicated system to ensure that all recommendations from such reports are both implemented and subject to ongoing monitoring, so that lessons are not lost and real change is delivered for victims and communities?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very interesting point, which was debated in your Lordships’ House on Friday, when I was the Minister responding. The Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, on the role of public inquiries provides a potential framework for moving forward: its report recommends having a Select Committee that operates across both Houses to monitor the implementation of public inquiries. That is incredibly important work. If the recommendations of the Lakanal House coroners’ inquest inquiry had been followed, we would never have got to Grenfell.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that everyone will be grateful to the Minister for her conciliatory points on the issue around the abusers and the disregard of them in the community—I thank her for that. I am also sure that everybody in this House also acknowledges that different Administrations have not done enough to resolve this issue.
My right honourable friend in the other place, Katie Lam MP, made a Statement a couple of weeks ago and gave the most powerful speech about the issue, and I urge all noble Lords to watch it on YouTube. It was harrowing. I will not repeat everything, but I have to tell you that at one point, a young girl had four men inside her. This is a disgraceful issue that we must all work together to deal with. Can the Minister honestly say that His Majesty’s Government can look these girls in the face and tell them that they do not deserve a national inquiry?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has put her finger on exactly what we should be discussing: the impact of everything on the victims. We are talking about young women, and young boys in some cases, who have experienced the most heartbreaking and horrendous abuse. There is a responsibility on all Members of your Lordships’ House to put everything in place to make sure that this never, ever happens again. Those are easy words for someone standing at the Dispatch Box to say: we now have to deliver.
With regard to the noble Baroness’s point about a public inquiry, we have had one and we now need to deliver on it.
Headingley Incident
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I know I am joined by the whole House when I express my deepest sympathy for the victims injured in this attack. We all hope for their full and quick recovery—indeed, in the last few hours the second victim in the attack has been discharged from hospital.
Communities in Headingley and across the country are feeling alarmed and fearful in the aftermath of this attack. Can the Minister please update the House on how the Government and other agencies are co-ordinating efforts with the police to intervene early and doing their utmost to prevent another attack of a similar nature taking place?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
I share the sentiments that the noble Lord has just expressed. I am pleased to hear that the second victim has been discharged from hospital. What I can say is in the public domain already: the police are, obviously, investigating this matter very seriously, including counterterrorism police, and there is a sustained policing effort in the area to reassure the residents that they have no particular cause for ongoing alarm, if I can phrase it like that.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who lives in Leeds—I was in Headingley on Friday evening— I add my own support and thanks to the police and emergency services for their very swift responses, commend the bravery of those members of the public who intervened and wish the two women who were harmed a very speedy recovery. I welcome the news that the second lady has now been discharged from hospital. Notwithstanding the death of the prime suspect yesterday—I understand that this is an ongoing police investigation—can the Minister confirm that the additional policing that has been announced will be in place in Headingley for as long as necessary to assure, support and protect the community in that famous and very vibrant part of my city?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I can give the assurance the noble Lord seeks. I will certainly make sure that the comments he has made are fed back through the appropriate channels. I agree with the point he is making; it is important that the local community feels reassured.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, I also send our best wishes, from these Benches, to the people who were injured. It must have been such a dreadful shock, and our hearts go out to them. I also welcome the Government’s recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill on crossbows. The Liberal Democrats have long called for these, and I hope that the upcoming consultation findings can kick-start a further conversation about the need for full licensing and a registration scheme for crossbows. Firearms in the UK require strict licensing, police checks and registrations, with severe penalties for unlicensed possession. In contrast, adults can buy and own crossbows without any license, registration or police oversight. Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need to tighten the law, particularly around high-powered crossbows with limited legitimate sporting use, which are so easy to obtain and are available online as we speak?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. I can confirm that amendments will be tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill to strengthen the verification controls. I can also confirm that we will publish the review shortly, which will look at how to address this issue. As the whole House will know, there have been a number of these attacks in recent years and, as the noble Baroness rightly says, these types of weapons are available online. We do not know how many are owned in the country; of course, they are much more powerful than they were 10 or 20 years ago. It is a problem which the Government are very aware of and we will publish some recommendations soon.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will pursue the point on policing and ask the Minister what plans the Government have to make pub crawls such as the “Otley run” recognisable events, subject to the same laws and protections as events that take place at a single venue, such as the Manchester Arena, thereby providing the means to fund the additional policing needed—not least from some businesses that are making enormous profits while communities in Headingley feel increasingly under siege.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point; it is not one that I have heard before. I understand that one of the joys, if I can put it that way, of the “Otley run” is that it is done every week, mainly by students and very often in fancy dress. I did not know that there were calls for it to be regulated in some way. I will ask about that and, if appropriate, I will write to her, because I thought it was seen as a boon and an advantage to the local community that that run goes on regularly.
Irish Republican Alleged Incitement
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, incitement to murder should never be mistaken for art. In the other place, plaques commemorate MPs who were killed while doing their democratic duty. Behind every name on those plaques are devastated families who grieve. Can the Minister explain why the Government decided not to contest the case that would have stopped Kneecap receiving grant funding? Can she update the House on the conversations the Government may have had with the Welsh Government, with whom they are now working so closely, on what steps they are taking to stop Kneecap performing at this year’s Green Man Festival in August, given the risk of further incitement that this invites?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, rightly, there is widespread condemnation of two sets of comments: one on the apparent support for Hamas; and one which appears to be incitement to violence against MPs, which can never, ever be acceptable or allowed to happen. We have seen what has happened in recent years to Members of Parliament. We have seen Jo Cox and David Amess murdered, we have seen MPs attacked and we have seen MPs threatened, with people going to prison for threatening MPs. We should not ever take lightly any language that would appear to incite violence.
On the noble Lord’s point about the funding of the organisation, he will be aware that that was the MEGS funding. He is not quite accurate in his comments. In fact, that was an application for funding made and awarded under the last Government and then withdrawn. Following it being withdrawn, the group took the Government to court. It was a very expensive court case, as noble Lords will understand, which the Government lost. I think the court said it was “unlawful and procedurally unfair”. This Government took the decision not to appeal the case because of the costs involved. However, in the light of this, we are now reviewing the operation of the fund.
I have to say that I was surprised at the amount of funding that they received in 2023 and 2024 from different sources. There is something of an irony in an Irish republican group seeking funding from the British Government. The particular stream of funding that was awarded and withdrawn by the then Government, who lost the subsequent court case, is being reviewed by this Government.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we utterly condemn these remarks. Incitement to violence against our democratically elected MPs is never acceptable. We should not underestimate the pain caused by these remarks to the families of Sir David Amess and Jo Cox, as well as to the families of Airey Neave and Ian Gow. Does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree that measures to promote social cohesion must now be a key priority? Will the Defending Democracy Taskforce take a lead on this?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
All these things must be taken into account, and looking at the way forward is crucial. The noble Baroness is a little younger than me, but she will recall that, if you came home from school and people had been name-calling, it was said that, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. That was wrong. That may be the case for the playground, but it is not the case in real life. Words really do hurt. For David Amess’s family and for Jo Cox’s family, the so-called apology is not enough. Any apology that includes in the statement that there is a “coordinated smear campaign” against those who are issuing the apology has not understood what the word “apology” really means.
It is inciting not just violence but hatred. It is inciting a mood that can lead to violence. Unless we treat each other with respect in the discourse that we have, in this place, in the other place and outside, we will see more of this. It is one thing to be provocative and to be challenging—we are not against being provocative—but the statements here go way beyond that and are totally unacceptable.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I condemn the words and the alleged actions of Kneecap. As a democratic Irish nationalist, I condemn the assault and the attacks on the people of Gaza. However, undoubtedly, there is no justification for a call to action by Kneecap in respect of the murder of MPs, particularly Conservative MPs. I put that on record as somebody from Northern Ireland. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House say what more Kneecap should do to recognise the offence that they have caused to many people, here and back in Ireland, and to appreciate the responsibility that goes with the music platform that they have?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I am sure that everyone hearing her words will recognise her sincerity in rightly condemning this. I am not sure that I am the best person to give advice to people who have caused offence. If they do not understand how damaging, offensive and wrong their words are—in the two incidents that have been complained about, and which are being investigated by the police, and in an inadequate so-called apology—then they are not in touch with what is happening in society generally. I cannot give them advice, but an apology is heartfelt and can be seen as heartfelt by those who are being offended. We have not seen that in this case.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, clearly the comments attributed to the band Kneecap go beyond anything that is remotely acceptable in a democratic society. While this is the worst example that has come to light, it is the latest in a line of incidents which, in 2022, saw them commission and unveil a mural of a petrol-bombed police Land Rover. Does the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, as a former Northern Ireland Office Minister, agree that the hatred espoused by Kneecap seeks to undermine the actions of those who strive to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and build a stronger society? Does she agree that not only concert promoters but other platform providers should now take stock and assess whether this is a band with which they want to be associated?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He and I have met people from across the community in Northern Ireland, in many different circumstances. Indeed, I was the Minister responsible for victims for about two years and I saw the effects on people who had suffered enormously throughout what is euphemistically called the Troubles.
We have all seen across the country protest groups which make their point through protest—sometimes very robustly, sometimes in ways that I do not care for—but a line has been crossed here. I struggle with that line. I was not aware of the incident in 2022, but, if that was the case, I therefore do not understand why the grant was awarded; that was a strange decision, given what the noble Lord has just said. There is a level at which we would want all groups to work together. My experience of Northern Ireland is that a number of people and community groups want all that put behind them. They do not want to hear this kind of language and this kind of incitement.
On the noble Lord’s point about promoters of events, I understand that one event has already cancelled their appearance and, in Germany I think a number of appearances have been cancelled. In any case, I am not sure that this is what people want to hear when they go to a concert. My experience of concerts is that they are happy, joyous and inclusive events. I think the promoters of other events will have heard the noble Lord’s words and those of others.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, as a former Member of the other place for 25 years, I was not only a target for IRA murder gangs but actual attempts were made on my life and those of my family. I ask the Leader of the House whether she accepts that this group, named after republican acts of terror, using the rant, “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”, openly supporting terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and propagating other anti-British bile to fill their bank accounts with hundreds of thousands of pounds, must be condemned, and not overlooked, and that the full rigours of the law must be exercised against them. Indeed, the law concerning the glorification of terrorism must be strengthened.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very powerful point. Where issues have been reported, they are of course being investigated by the police. The issues on terrorism are also being looked at. He is right to bring that to the attention of the House.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Leader able to tell the House what has to be done to actually lose government funding in this type of situation? It seems to me that Kneecap are trying to play the country, or the system, given that they put in their public statement:
“Kneecap’s message has always been—and remains—one of love, inclusion, and hope”.
This cannot be supported. I hope that the Leader will consider seriously whether this group should lose their funding and, indeed, be banned.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have already answered part of the noble Baroness’s question. On the words she quoted, saying something does not make it true. That is certainly the case here. Because of what happened when they were awarded funding before, we are reviewing the circumstances of that fund. It should never, ever be acceptable for a group such as this to be awarded funding by the Government.
Kashmir: Increasing Tension
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will want to express our deepest condolences to the families of those who were killed in last week’s terror attack near Pahalgam. It is important that we work with partners in India and Pakistan to make sure that the fallout from this atrocious attack does not lead to a violent escalation and further unnecessary suffering. Can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking, alongside relevant parties in the region, to try to reach a resolution?
I am sure the Minister is aware of the extremely concerning video that shows a Pakistani diplomat making a throat-slitting gesture towards Indian demonstrators outside the high commission in London last week. Particularly given the previous Urgent Question, this sort of threatening action is completely unacceptable on the streets of London, particularly from what appears to be an accredited diplomat. What actions are the Government going to take against this individual?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I start by sharing the noble Lord’s comments in relation to this despicable act. We express our condolences to all those affected, loved ones and the people of India. The Prime Minister certainly expressed that when he called Prime Minister Modi on 24 April.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about what steps we are taking to ensure that the heightened tensions do not lead to the risk of escalation. We encourage all to commit to effective channels of engagement to safeguard stability in the region. Alongside international partners, the United Kingdom continues to engage in dialogue in pursuit of long-term regional stability. On Sunday, the Foreign Secretary spoke to both the Indian Foreign Minister and the Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister. We encourage all parties to take a measured approach. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio of the United States and will speak to the French Foreign Minister shortly to discuss the situation. The United Kingdom, of course, supported the UN Security Council press statement at the weekend, which condemned the attack and reaffirmed that acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable.
On all actions that create or escalate the unsettling of communities in this country, we are working with all British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities to ensure that we stand with them at this difficult time on de-escalation and on building strong community cohesion. We condemn any instance of vandalism and call for any protesters to protest in a peaceful and law-abiding way. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread the message that now is a time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches associate ourselves with the words of the Minister with regards to the condolences for those who were murdered. We believe there should be no impunity for those who carried out these crimes and there should be a transparent process of investigation to ensure there is justice.
On the news this afternoon, with concerns that there could well be wider escalation, I agree with the Minister and thank the Government for what Ministers have done in seeking a return to dialogue. India, Pakistan and the UK are all Commonwealth members and we have very integrated diaspora communities. Are there elements of the Commonwealth family that can be used to allow for dialogue?
The Minister will be fully aware of concerns that the potential closure of airspace and the Indus Water Treaty coming to an end could have wider humanitarian consequences, including impacts on the UK diaspora community. What efforts are we making within the Commonwealth with specific regard to the prevention of those wider humanitarian concerns?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I will answer the last question first. We are urging all international organisations to urge de-escalation and proper engagement to de-escalate the situation. As Minister Falconer said yesterday, we take this situation incredibly seriously, which is why the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio. We are working, through the UN and all international bodies, to try to ensure that the means for dialogue are open and that we focus on de-escalation.
We are aware that India and Pakistan have said they will hold certain diplomatic treaties in abeyance. We continue to monitor the impact of that on the ground in both states. It is critical for all actors and international partners to work to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Indus river system, and we will continue to urge that.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend on our Front Benches asked about the incident with the attaché in the Pakistani high commission. I do not think I heard a response to that. It would be useful for the UK to send a very clear signal that inciting violence by gestures is not acceptable. We would like to know what the UK Government will do.
I am sure that the Minister, who I treat as a good friend, will join me in condemning absolutely the incident that took place in Kashmir. In cities such as mine, people across all communities have come together to condemn the atrocities witnessed last week.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I very much welcome the noble Baroness’s final point that it is the responsibility of all of us to try to build community cohesion and respond to these terrible events. The purpose of these actions is of course to divide communities. That is why we have to respond in a positive way.
I did answer the noble Lord’s question because I said that we condemned any instances of vandalism and called for protesters to protest in a peaceful and law-abiding way. We urge all to de-escalate the situation. We will communicate that at all levels, diplomatically and with local community leaders. I really welcome what she has said.
Lord Raval (Lab)
My Lords, no words will assuage the terrible pain of the families who have lost loved ones in this atrocity, or the feelings of a country that is united in mourning, including people across creeds. What specifically was meant when the Foreign Secretary said that Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with India? Could the Minister expand on that, please?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has made clear, as I hope I have today, that we absolutely deplore such acts of terrorism, which are designed to divide communities and cause tensions to rise not only between two Commonwealth countries but potentially within our own communities, which is why I very much welcome what noble Lords have said, in particular the noble Baroness, who has been urging greater community cohesion. That is what the Foreign Secretary is determined to do. We are going to work with all international and regional partners to ensure that we try to de-escalate and create the conditions where there can be dialogue, which is not taking place at the moment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I have had a number of distressed emails from Hindu leaders in my own diocese, and as faith leaders we are trying to see how we can respond to this incident. Will the Minister say a little more about how he expects civil society organisations and faith communities to play a part in helping to de-escalate tensions in the UK?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We know that the escalation is unsettling to communities within the United Kingdom. We value the contribution of British-Pakistani and British-Indian communities to this country, and we stand with them at this difficult time. We look to all community and faith leaders to spread a message that now is the time for coming together across religious and ethnic differences. My noble friend opposite made that very clear. Certainly, I think all leaders of all faiths can help to do this.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the statement from the Minister and the efforts made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, what is needed? We are talking about two nuclear powers that are possibly on the brink of not just escalation—let us not mince words—but a real risk of war. I speak from my insight and experience as the Minister responsible for the region for several years when I say that what is needed is direct intervention. The UK has a unique role to play. I propose that a special emissary is appointed right now to go to the region to speak to both countries on behalf of our Prime Minister to ensure not just de-escalation but that vital, discreet dialogue is sustained, maintained and strengthened between the United Kingdom and both countries to ensure that escalation does not happen. What happens in that part of the world will not stay in that part of the world.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, I respect his contribution when he was a Minister covering this geographical area. What I have tried to do in my responses today is point out how seriously we take this, which is why the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been engaged in dialogue and why we are working at the United Nations and with Secretary Rubio. The situation is incredibly dangerous, which is why it requires all allies to come together to ensure that we de-escalate and do not get to the situation that the noble Lord described.
Great British Energy Bill
Wednesday 30th April 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberGreat British Energy Act 2025 View all Great British Energy Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 88-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reason - (29 Apr 2025)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A, and do propose Amendment 2B in lieu—
“(e) measures for ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains.”
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is good to welcome the Great British Energy Bill back to your Lordships’ Chamber. I again thank all Members of this House for their continued scrutiny of this important Bill.
We are here to discuss specifically the issue of forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chain—something that I have been adamant, throughout the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, that the company will tackle. As I have stated in previous debate, we expect Great British Energy not only to abide by but to be a first-in-class example of adherence to the UK’s existing legislation and guidance. That is demonstrated by the commitments made by my colleague, the Minister for Energy, in the other place.
Great British Energy will appoint a senior individual dedicated to providing oversight to ensure ethical supply chains. I am delighted to confirm that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, one of Great British Energy’s non-executive directors, will take up that role. Her role as chair of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee positions her extraordinarily well to lead on the issue, ensuring robust practices across Great British Energy in tackling forced labour.
In addition, my officials are working to ensure that the statement of strategic priorities outlined in the Bill, which will be published within six months of Royal Assent, will include an overarching expectation that Great British Energy proactively works to deliver on these commitments.
I think the House will also be pleased to hear that the cross-departmental ministerial meeting with my department, the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will convene for the first time in May to accelerate work across government to tackle forced labour in supply chains across the whole economy. To underscore the Government’s commitment, a letter will be sent to all FTSE 100 companies following the aforementioned meeting to communicate our expectations regarding responsible business practices, including on modern slavery.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment 2B, tabled in my name, relates to Clause 3 and makes clear that addressing forced labour in Great British Energy’s supply chains is within the scope of the objects of the company. I recognise the breadth of concern across Parliament on this issue—I pay tribute in particular to the outstanding work of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this area—particularly on how Great British Energy will tackle forced labour in its own supply chains.
That is why the amendment has been tabled. It makes clear that Great British Energy is committed to adopting measures so that it can act on any evidence of forced labour in its supply chains, as we would expect of any responsible company. The amendment will strengthen our existing framework and demonstrate the commitment of both Great British Energy and the Government to maintaining supply chains that are free from forced labour.
To ensure the effectiveness of this approach, GBE will respond to and take action on any identified issues or concerns that arise relating to forced labour, including any raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment is in addition to the expectation that Great British Energy is to be a sector leader in tackling forced labour, as will be outlined in the statement of strategic priorities. These measures will ensure that Great British Energy can and will prioritise doing everything in its power to remove instances of forced labour from its supply chains.
I turn to Amendment 2C, to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will speak in a moment. I thank him for taking the time and effort to develop and table his amendment and for the continued engagement I have been able to have with him over the weeks since this Bill left your Lordships’ House. The Government wholeheartedly agree on the importance of tackling modern slavery in energy supply chains and are committed to tackling the issue.
I recognise the drafting skill of the noble Lord in bringing the original amendment, the wording of which is remarkably familiar to me. I think the amendments are very much in the same frame, but the reason we have come forward with our own wording is that officials looking at the language of his amendment have identified one or two issues. First, the language suggesting
“the eradication of goods and services”
is unsuitable as it may be interpreted as the physical destruction of goods or services. We think the focus should be on ensuring that Great British Energy takes all reasonable measures to develop energy supply chains free from forced labour.
I can assure the House that following positive discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we accept that Great British Energy’s role in tackling forced labour in its supply chains could be made explicit in the Bill’s objectives, and that is exactly why I have tabled my own amendment.
In conclusion, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part on this issue. Again, I particularly acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We have listened very carefully to what noble Lords have said. I believe the amendment I have brought accords with the principle of the debates that we have had in your Lordships’ House, and I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Leave out from “propose” to end and insert “Amendment 2C in lieu—
“(e) the eradication of goods and services tainted by modern slavery and human trafficking from its energy supply chains.””
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I express my profound gratitude to the Government—and especially to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—for acting to address concerns regarding forced labour in the renewable supply chain that were raised from all sides of your Lordships’ House during earlier stages. I have had the pleasure of working with the noble Lord on human rights issues, mainly around China, before and during his time in government, and I commend him and his Bill team on the sincere and constructive way in which they have sought to grapple with this problem. I also strongly welcome the statement he has just made in your Lordships’ House about the role that will be taken by the redoubtable noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who will be a great champion for all those who have been subjected to modern-day slavery.
The government amendment before us today stands testament to the worth of parliamentary engagement, and that is the way it should be. I thank the Government again for the progress made. I include thanks to those Members of both Houses who have been key to the amendment’s progress, especially the Front Benches of the two opposition parties. The commitment announced following our debates on the Bill represents a significant and welcome shift in ensuring that the United Kingdom’s green transition is not built on the backs of broken slaves.
When I tabled my amendment seeking to prevent goods made with forced labour entering our renewable energy supply chains, it was with a heavy heart. As many colleagues know, mounting evidence, including from Professor Laura Murphy of the Helena Kennedy Centre, as well as detailed investigations by the Guardian, the BBC and others, show that forced labour, particularly of the Uyghur Muslim people in Xinjiang but also child labour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is embedded in the production of key green technologies.
The BBC’s recent report underscores the gravity. At least 35% of the world’s solar-grade polysilicon comes from Xinjiang, a region where state-imposed labour transfer schemes and human rights violations are widespread. Sheffield Hallam University research, along with other corroborative studies, has revealed that supply chains are often deeply compromised. We cannot in good conscience drive our green transition by trampling on human rights. To do so would be to substitute a form of environmental degradation with another form of human degradation.
It is therefore a matter of great personal satisfaction and a tribute to your Lordships’ House and the other place that the Government have agreed to legislate to introduce new measures to cleanse our supply chains of modern slavery. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Luke de Pulford and IPAC’s work, together with the support of UNISON, the anti-slavery commissioner, Anti-Slavery International and Unseen.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I support the government amendment that has been negotiated and agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the step by the Government to ban solar panels linked to Chinese slave labour from Great British Energy’s supply chains. It is a decision born of pressure from members of all political parties and the sheer strength of feeling across both Houses. I am thankful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing these issues, and to the Minister and his Bill team for taking the time to meet me and others. I am thankful for their careful consideration and determination to find a way forward.
Compromise in politics is not a weakness; it is essential and a strength, and it makes for better legislation. Rightly, this amendment has been widely welcomed in the industry. On these Benches, we are clear that our net-zero ambitions cannot and must not be built on the back of slave labour. We have always argued that GB Energy needs to lead by example, as a state-supported company. Equally, we do not wish to see GB Energy operating at a disadvantage compared with other companies that are also in receipt of government funds in the form of contracts for difference.
Last week, the UK Government hosted the International Energy Agency summit on energy security, in a world that has changed literally since we last met, with tariffs, soaring electrical demand, restrictions on the trade of rare earth minerals, cyberattacks, and physical attacks on energy infrastructure. Our energy security is our national security, and our policies and understanding of what energy security means in practice have not been fully adequate. As the head of the International Energy Agency rightly said last week, green technology
“should really be produced in a socially and environmentally acceptable way”.
It should not be built on the backs of slave labour and exploitation.
For far too long, we have allowed our supply chains to be tainted by credible evidence of modern slavery. Yes, this has radically reduced the prices of solar panels, but at what human cost? This amendment, to my mind, marks a real turning point, and one of significance. It forces a difficult balance between the need to speed towards our net-zero ambitions and the ethical imperative to avoid complicity in human rights abuses. We believe that the ethical choice—the choice to stand against modern slavery—must prevail. We must engage and co-operate where we can with China but, equally, we must start from a position of strength and from clear moral grounds.
Great British Energy will now be a sector leader in developing ethical supply chains, and I welcome its recent appointments in this regard. However, we must ensure that this ban does not unfairly disadvantage GB Energy in comparison with other operators. Can the Government continue to look at this disparity? We must work to ensure this does not damage the rollout of community energy programmes. Critically, the real, long-term solution is not simply in policing imports; it is in developing our own capacity. We need a real, concerted effort to develop and grow our fledgling domestic solar panel manufacturing capacity. How can GB Energy help with that? We must also work with our European allies to build manufacturing capacity and resilient and ethical supply chains. We urge the Government to bring forward a comprehensive plan detailing how they will support domestic manufacturing and foster international collaboration to reduce our reliance on potentially tainted imports.
Could the Minister outline in more detail what the relaunched Solar Taskforce will do to identify and develop these resilient and sustainable supply chains, free from forced labour? Crucially, when can the House expect more detailed plans from the Government on how this diversification and domestic supply development will be achieved? This amendment is a vital step, but it must be the beginning and not the end of our efforts. We must ensure that our clean energy future is built on a foundation of ethical sourcing, strong domestic industry and international co-operation.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s decision to listen to the constructive challenge from this House and improve the Bill by ensuring that Great British Energy supply chains are not associated with modern slavery in China. I give my thanks and gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Without his careful consideration and persistence in raising this issue, we would not have achieved such a positive change to this legislation.
The amendment to the Bill serves as a simple yet essential safeguard. It ensures that public funds will not support companies tainted by modern slavery in their energy supply chains. The UK has stood against forced labour and exploitation for many years. If this Government are serious about their transition to clean energy, which they refer to as being just, we must ensure that Great British Energy, as a publicly backed entity, operates to the highest moral and legal standards.
There is clear precedent for this approach. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires companies to take responsibility for their supply chains. Yet we know that modern slavery remains a serious issue in the global energy sector, particularly in sourcing solar panels, batteries and raw materials such as lithium and cobalt. If there is credible evidence of modern slavery in a supply chain, public funding must not flow to that company. This is a basic ethical standard. It is also a matter of economic resilience, because reliance on unethical supply chains creates risks for businesses, investors and the public. Therefore, this amendment strengthens the integrity of our energy policy. It aligns our economic ambition with our moral obligations, and it sends a clear message that Britain’s clean energy future must be built on ethical foundations.
To conclude, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the many other noble Lords who supported him in securing this powerful victory. This positive change to the Bill serves as a testament to the integral role of this House in scrutinising and ultimately improving legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Offord, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I totally agree with the point that we have reached what I call a strong consensus around this issue. I am grateful to noble Lords for supporting the process of reaching agreement across the House and in the other place.
I will reconfirm what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said: he has met the chair of Great British Energy, Jürgen Maier, who has stated that, as a publicly owned company, it is only right that GB Energy is an exemplar of ethical and moral supply chain practices. That must be the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he pondered whether we were putting GBE at a disadvantage. I understand the point that he is making, but I prefer to see this in a positive light: that GBE will be an exemplar and, I believe, will influence the market to the good. I am therefore confident that we will not have the potential problem that he has rightly identified.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I do not need to say anything further than that I withdraw the amendment I tabled. I thank the Minister for the response that he has given to the House. I commend the Government’s amendment to the House.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 30th April 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberInstitute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 March 2025 - (31 Mar 2025)
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak briefly to the procedural Amendment 2. It is a pleasure to present the amended Bill to this House. The passage of the Bill has benefited from scrutiny from your Lordships and from the other place. I am heartened to have seen the clear commitment to addressing the challenges of our current skills system. By paving the way for Skills England and empowering it with the functions currently exercised by IfATE, the Bill will ensure that Skills England is the single authoritative voice in the skills landscape. The changes the Bill makes will enable Skills England to identify and help address the skills gaps that hamper growth and opportunity in this country.
Skills England is not just ready but raring to go. That is why the substantive change made to the Bill in the other place was to remove the amendment that would have delayed the commencement of provisions in the Bill for a year after the creation of Skills England. The Skills England leadership is in place, the work is already ongoing and staff are ready to transfer. Delay to the commencement of the provisions in the Bill would not have been needed or helpful.
In addition to the substantive amendment on commencement, a procedural amendment was made in the other place to remove the Lords privilege amendment, in line with convention. This amendment makes no substantive change to the Bill. I am grateful to noble Lords for all their energy and collaboration as this House has considered the Bill and I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have no intention of opposing the amendments sent to us by the House of Commons. I regret the removal of the sole amendment passed by this House, which would, in my view, have given more time for Skills England to get its strategic work fully up and running before taking on the functions to be transferred from IfATE. Having said that, I greatly welcome the establishment of Skills England. I am impressed by the leadership appointments that have been made, with Phil Smith as chair and Sir David Bell as vice-chair. This body has a vital role in meeting the UK’s skills needs, which are fundamental to virtually every objective we and the Government have set for ourselves, and I wish it every success.
I would like to restate my two major concerns, and I will be more than happy if they prove unfounded in the fullness of time. First, will Skills England be able to effectively co-ordinate the work of all the different bodies that need to be involved if we are to deliver a successful skills system overall? That is across government departments, across regions and nations, across industries and sectors and across education and training institutions. Skills England will have to be a pretty effective and tough body with some teeth to make sure that all those bodies fulfil their particular roles in the overall system. My second, more specific question is, how will that successful skills system be defined, measured, monitored and assessed? What will the Government come back to tell us in a few years’ time to demonstrate that it has been successful?
I welcome the Bill as an important first step towards a successful skills system, and I very much hope that the concerns I have expressed will indeed prove to have been unfounded.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it is not often that you are involved in a Bill and everyone agrees what the outcome should be and realises that the issue is more important than anything else. I commend the Government for coming into office and realising straightaway that, if we are to get economic growth, we need the skills to provide it. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was quite right to say that it is not only about having a set of skills and saying that this is what we as a nation need; we need it regionally as well. The needs of the north-east will be very different from those of, for example, the north-west or the south-east.
I hope we can now get on with the job of delivering this. I thank those with whom we have worked closely: the noble Baroness, who has jetted back from Australia, where she has picked up some ideas on skills; and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has been stalwart in bringing us together. I particularly thank the Minister for always giving of her time to listen to us—to both disagree and agree. Finally, I must not forget to thank the Bill team for their work, and Adam Bull in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have been involved in the passage of the Bill. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain concerned that the Government have removed the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Other noble Lords also expressed concerns that Skills England will be overly focused on administration, resulting in it being unable to prioritise its central strategic tasks. By allowing a year to pass between the creation of Skills England and the abolition of IfATE, we would create sufficient time for the effective transfer of functions and ensure that Skills England could take on its role successfully.
We would suggest that it is a mistake for the Government to ignore these concerns. In both your Lordships’ House and the other place, there has been cross-party support on this issue, and we cannot hide our disappointment that the Government remain unconvinced on this focal point. We on these Benches are worried that the transition period as planned will have a damaging impact on apprentices.
At the same time, we recognise that this is a manifesto commitment. We will, of course, while challenging constructively, work with His Majesty’s Government to progress their skills programme, and we do not intend to push this issue any further. We will continue to remain vigilant on the transition to Skills England and ensure that it is working for the very people it aims to help. Should our concerns increase, we will endeavour to raise them in your Lordships’ House. It is now up to the Government to ensure that Skills England is able to run effectively and does not become overwhelmed with the weight of the accreditation and assurance process.
We are indeed grateful that His Majesty’s Government have listened to some of the key points that have been raised across your Lordships’ House, and the Bill has been strengthened accordingly. A report on the exercise of functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State has now been included, which is important for accountability. The Government have listened to the concerns about the Secretary of State preparing apprenticeship plans and assessments, and will, as such, publish information about the relevant matters that have been taken into account.
We thank the Minister for her engagement throughout consideration of the Bill, and we thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions and worked constructively on its scrutiny.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords and the continued challenge of those who have made the Bill better during its passage through this House.
On whether Skills England is ready, I reassure noble Lords that it is ready to take on the functions currently exercised by IfATE, where appropriate. Detailed transition plans are in place to ensure continuity throughout the transition. There will be continuity in staff and team structures, which will ensure a smooth operational transition and maintain vital links to employers. Staff are eager to contribute their expertise and valuable insights, to feed into Skills England’s broader purpose from day one.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Moved by
That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:42 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 157 - Amendment 3 agreed.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords will be very pleased to hear that I intend neither to speak for very long nor to divide the House on my amendment. However, I will press the Government for some clarity about a group of people whose interests are extremely important: those going through the recruitment process to become members of His Majesty’s Armed Forces. The amendment therefore seeks to expand very slightly the scope of the Armed Forces commissioner to include not people who wander into an Army recruitment centre and say, “I am interested in joining”, but people who have submitted applications and might be going through the recruitment process.
My understanding, from my honourable friend in the other place, Helen Maguire, is that it is still possible that people going through the recruitment process might be required to stay overnight. In those circumstances, there may be times when people feel that they are subject to abuse, bullying or the sorts of issues that they might need to complain about. On the face of it, it would appear to be appropriate that such people would come under the purview of the Armed Forces commissioner.
If the Minister cannot accept my amendment, would he be able to explain to the House what recourse people going through the recruitment process might have? If it is not through the commissioner, are there other ways for people to raise concerns? If they can do so, is it made clear to people how they can put in complaints? A frequent concern is that individuals do not necessarily know how to make representations. That is obviously a matter for people going through the recruitment process, as well as a wider issue that members of the Armed Forces face, and we may well come back to it when we discuss other amendments. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to which Amendment 1 is linked; I will speak only extremely briefly because she has made the case very well.
I will link this amendment to my Amendment 8, which we will get to later. As the Minister well knows, it relates to my concern about 16 and 17 year-olds—or even 15 year-olds—being recruited into the Armed Forces. The noble Baroness spoke about people in residential situations, but if a 15, 16 or 17 year-old, who has decided that their whole future is in the military, finds that the assessment process operates in a way that is—we would hope that this would not happen, but we need to consider the possibility—abusive or inappropriate in some way, it is important that that person has protection.
I am particularly thinking of—although not solely—those 15, 16 or 17 year-olds who are vulnerable people, and who pin their whole future life on what happens to them in those few days or during a specific test. It is really important that they have the protection that we all want the Armed Forces commissioner to be able to provide to members of the military. I believe that these prospective members of the military should fall within—an often-used phrase—the military family.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 1 and 6. While I have enormous sympathy with their intent, when I heard the noble Baroness say that this would expand the role of the commissioner a little bit, I am afraid I thought it would do anything but. If we consider that there are some 160,000 to 170,000 members of the Armed Forces, including reserves, who would be able to have access to the commissioner because they are subject to service law, and that there are over 100,000 applications—the word used by the noble Baroness—to join the British Army alone, never mind the two other services, we would in effect be doubling the aperture for those who could potentially submit a complaint to the commissioner. The commissioner’s office is already under enormous strain. It is a tiny office because much of the service complaints system is done through the single services. The Bill already suggests that the budget for the commissioner is going to have to double. I simply do not understand how the commissioner could cope, but I am sympathetic to what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve.
Equally, Amendment 6 is slightly confused, because in Committee we established that attestation is the point at which someone joins the Armed Forces, and that is when they become subject to service law. Yet, where the noble Baroness seeks to extend it to those engaged in training as well, those people by definition have been attested and, if they are conducting military training, have already joined the military and so will be subject to service law.
While I am on my feet, I want to address a general point with the Minister in my capacity—and I declare my interest—as director of Army Reserve, on the test for whether someone is subject to service law. As a humble reservist, I am subject to service law, but only when I am claiming a reserve service day or wearing a uniform. For much of my time, like other reservists, I am not subject to service law. The problem is that, just because I and my fellow reservists are not subject to service law, that does not mean that the military is not doing things in my name which may warrant a service complaint. For example, I could be subject to a promotions board which I wish to contest; or I could be on a leave of absence, which then could be misinterpreted as a long-term absence and I could be dismissed from the Army Reserve. Indeed, I could be posted while I am on a leave of absence but not technically subject to service law at that point. If we look at this from a purely technical point of view and if we look at the Bill precisely, for all those actions happening while I am not subject to service law, I would not be able to submit a service complaint. I am not suggesting that it needs an amendment, but it would be useful if the Minister could reassure your Lordships’ House that the intent is that, when it comes to the reserves, they will be able to submit a complaint to the commissioner whether or not they are technically subject to service law at that moment.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I begin by reaffirming our support for the Bill and the creation of the Armed Forces commissioner. There are noble aims contained within its pages, and we will always welcome efforts to improve the lives of our service personnel.
When they introduced this Bill, the Government were clear that they intended the Bill to focus on serving members of the Armed Forces. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, would give access to the commissioner to a recruit from the moment they attended an assessment centre until the moment they were attested, after which they become subject to service law and will have access to the commissioner anyway.
I am highly sympathetic to the intent behind these amendments. The noble Baroness makes an excellent point: there are ongoing concerns about the recruitment process generally, and there are well-known welfare issues facing recruits. In fact, I believe that the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Tony Radakin, said on Monday that the Armed Forces are shrinking by around 300 personnel per month and that it would take up to three years to reverse that decline, especially given the Government’s proposed coalition of the willing and the recent reports that European nations would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground to protect Ukraine should that become necessary at some point. Against that backdrop, it seems right that action is taken to improve the recruitment process. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has acknowledged that this must be a priority. Given the challenges the Ministry of Defence is facing, will the Minister comment on further action that the Government are taking to drive improvements in recruitment?
Finally, I wish to make a brief point about the potential expansion of those who will have access to the commissioner. As I said, and as we said in Committee, we have sympathy with proposals to include recruits and veterans, but we also accept that the commissioner must not be overburdened by having to deal with an ever-growing number of people, which may limit the effectiveness of the commissioner—which would be regrettable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have come to the Report stage of the Bill and thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, again for the support of His Majesty’s Opposition—I know that there is general support across the House as well. Notwithstanding that, there have been some interesting and important discussions around the application and clarifications.
Let me deal first with the question from the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, in relation to the reserves. The answer is yes, they are able to submit a complaint, as long as it is related to their ongoing service. There is no time limit for that, but they cannot be veterans. I hope that helps. Obviously, there will be particular circumstances, but I think that clarifies in general terms the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, was making around reserves.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
It does, apart from the clarification of what defines a veteran, on the basis that when a regular member of the Armed Forces leaves, they still have a reserve liability. We like to call them veterans, but they become part of the regular reserve and, subsequently, the recall reserve, so these things are complicated.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
They certainly are, but I hope that there is some clarification from what I said to the noble Lord. No doubt that conversation will continue.
More generally, on the point that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, made on recruitment, the Government have been very clear about trying to improve the recruitment and retention process, and various changes have been made. We honoured all the Armed Forces pay review board recommendations. We have made some changes to childcare arrangements to try to improve those, and some of the recruitment processes have been changed—to have a new direct entry route into cyber, for example. There is the change of contract as well. We are trying to take on board some of the criticisms and challenges there have been to address the more general point about recruitment, but also retention. Let us see where the figures get to over the next period, because we all want to see recruitment into our Armed Forces—and, indeed, retention—improve.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her Amendments 1 and 6—I know that she has the support of noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for Amendment 6. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s genuine and well-founded concerns about the experience of those applying to join the military. During Committee, we discussed the importance of a recruitment process that is fit for purpose, as I outlined to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and easy to navigate—a process that will enable as many people as possible to join their preferred service in a timely fashion and provide sufficient protections for those going through it. The noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, noted the number of candidates. The figure I have is that up to 150,000 candidates are applying to join the military at any one time. Bringing them into scope would obviously vastly increase the workload of the commissioner. I note the noble Baroness’s revised amendments, which attempt to narrow the numbers by defining at what point in the process an applicant would come under the commissioner’s scope. When we discussed this, the noble Baroness made it clear, as she has in the Chamber today, that she wanted to understand how the process works and what people can do if they are unhappy with how they are treated. I shall now make some remarks that I hope address some of her concerns.
The Navy, Army and RAF have different requirements and processes for recruitment. These differ depending on whether the candidate is joining as an enlisted person or as an officer. Each service has a clear complaints process for candidates. All complaints are dealt with by a qualified officer, with any medical complaints being sent to trained medical staff. To further reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, there are protections in place to ensure the welfare of candidates completing Armed Forces selection or assessment activities on defence establishments. The Armed Forces have in place appropriate safeguarding measures which are regularly reviewed and updated as appropriate in support of these activities. These measures cover, but are not limited to, staff selection, training, background checks, candidate accommodation—a point raised by the noble Baroness and by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—and the conduct of activities.
I absolutely agree that we must look after those going through the application process. However, these processes are already in place and the commissioner would not be the right avenue to replace them. I hope that, with those remarks, the noble Baroness now has the necessary reassurance. Important as they are, I ask her not to press her amendments.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. As I said in my opening remarks, Amendment 1 was, in many ways, intended as a probing amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for pointing out the slightly sloppy redrafting of the amendment since Committee and that the last line should not have been there. I am happy at this stage to withdraw Amendment 1. Amendment 6 is consequential, so I shall not be moving it.
Lord Coaker
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 4.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 2, I will speak to government Amendments 7, 9 and 11 and to Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. They all focus on the importance of the definition of “relevant family members” in the context of the Bill. Before explaining the Government’s amendments, I will address Amendment 12 and explain why the Government have decided not to include it in the Bill but rather to create an affirmative delegated power, so that the definition may be brought forward in secondary legislation.
The definition of “family members” and their access to the commissioner has been at the forefront of the Government’s mind throughout. It has always been our intention to future-proof our inclusion of family members. Including the definition in secondary legislation allows it to be updated quickly, to account for changes in society, without needing to create new primary legislation. Our intent is to encompass all family units and not pre-judge this by having a full definition in the Bill—though I have to say that the definition that the noble Baroness seeks to put in the Bill is very good, as it is our definition. However, as I have made clear, the definition can be changed at some future point.
As noble Lords will be aware, the draft regulations covering the definition of “family members” for the purposes of this Bill have been distributed to all interested Peers for consideration. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has thoroughly scrutinised this power in its report. These government amendments fully implement the committee’s only recommendation, by changing the regulation-making power in the Bill to define relevant family members from the negative to the affirmative procedure. The proposed amendments would ensure that there is a debate on the Government’s definition of a “relevant family member” in both Houses when the secondary legislation is brought forward, which, based on the discussions so far, I am sure would be welcomed by noble Lords.
I hope that this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the importance placed on the definition of “family members” in the Bill and the opportunity that the Government are trying to give to debate this further in due course. On this basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment that seeks to place the definition in the Bill.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I firmly support the Government in these amendments. There has been a tendency in the Bill to combine in one’s mind the specific complaints that the ombudsman used to deal with and the more general approach which the Bill is encouraging the commissioner to have. I think one wants to keep those two issues clear in one’s mind.
The other point, which I made in Committee, is that the Bill will get added to the Armed Forces Act 2006. Those not familiar with the Act should know that it has close to 400 sections, 17 schedules and goodness knows how many pages—more than 500. Every page of this Bill, when it is enacted, will get added to that. It makes absolute sense that, when we are trying to identify a range of individuals who may have access to the commissioner, it should be in secondary legislation and not on the face of the Armed Forces Act.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Bill and my noble friend the Minister’s amendments. We had an interesting discussion about the phrase “relevant family members” in Committee. I declared an interest at that stage. I retain an interest, certainly until 20 September.
In view of the comment made by the Minister on the content of Amendment 12, I would like to know whether, in proposed new subsection (3)(a), the reference to
“a person whose relationship with A is akin to a relationship between spouses or civil partners”
covers someone engaged to a member of the Armed Forces, rather than a spouse or a civil partner at that time. I hope the Minister might tell me that, when it comes to the secondary legislation, that will be set out more explicitly than it is in Amendment 12.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 12 and respond to the Government’s amendments.
One of the issues that we raised in Committee was precisely the need for a definition of “family member” and, in particular, a concern that kinship care should be taken into consideration. Between Second Reading and Committee, we had a government proposal for the sort of definition of “family” that His Majesty’s Government might bring forward.
On another of my amendments in Committee, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, pointed out that the legislation was already far too voluminous and asked whether we could please rein back a bit. I am happy to be corrected about the appropriateness of having long descriptions in the Bill. I think the suggestion of moving to the affirmative procedure for the definition of “family” in secondary legislation is acceptable.
I have one question for the Minister, but it might also be a wider one for His Majesty’s Government. We have talked about the definition, and the fact that the Government put forward some proposed wording in Committee suggests that there is a need for such a definition. However, if we already have 400 pages of legislation on the Armed Forces, do we not already have some definitions of what a family is? Do we actually need to go through the Armed Forces code—not on the Floor of the House today—to make sure that everything hangs together and we have one agreed definition that we might look at when we are at the level of secondary legislation?
For the moment, I am happy to say that, at the appropriate point, I will not be testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 12.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the case for the Government’s amendments. We on these Benches are pleased that they have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that regulations to define the term “relevant family member” should be subject to the affirmative procedure.
At Second Reading, the Minister said:
“it matters that this Bill represents the first time that the families of service personnel will have a mechanism by which they can raise issues about how their life as a relative of a member of the Armed Forces impacts their welfare”.—[Official Report, 3/3/25; col. 302.]
This demonstrates that the Government clearly envisage a significant role for the family members of service personnel. It therefore always seemed slightly bizarre that not only were family members not defined in the Bill but the regulations that determined who will be included would not permit parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have now rectified that issue with these amendments and have published the draft regulations. Having looked over those, I do not have any objection to the proposed definition of “relevant family member”, and it appears to do a thorough job in capturing the complexities and, at times, vagaries of relationships in service life.
Amendment 12 from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, inserts the content of those draft regulations into the Bill itself, so that the primary legislation contains a definition of “relevant family member”. It is a good principle that, wherever possible, as much detail should lie in primary legislation rather than be left to delegated powers. Having listened to the Minister, and given the deployment of the affirmative procedure for the delegated powers, I am on this occasion satisfied with the Government’s response.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for their support. I do not want to restart the debate about defining a relevant family member, because that would be an interesting but long and complicated debate.
I start with a couple of points, hoping not to generate the debate that I just said I hope we do not have. Are engaged couples included? My noble friend Lord Stansgate declared his interest with respect to that. He asked the same question in Committee; I am glad that it is still the same question now, just a few weeks later, on Report. The answer to my noble friend is, yes, that is our intention. We look forward to debating further the other points that noble Lords have raised when we come to the secondary legislation.
I will speak in general terms on the point the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised—again, this debate will take place when the secondary legislation comes forward —concerning why we do not simply use the covenant definition. It states:
“section 343B(4) Armed Forces Act 2006 … provides … the definition of ‘relevant family member’ … for the Armed Forces Covenant. The principles under the Covenant and the remit of the Commissioner will operate in a similar policy space (the welfare/ effect of service on service persons and their families)”.
However, they are separate policy backed by different legislation for different purposes. For example, the commissioner’s scope is solely for current service personnel and their families, while the covenant’s remit, as the noble Baroness knows, will also include veterans and their families. In a sense, we are trying to ensure that the definitions we use are fit for the different policy objectives they have.
With those few remarks, I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of the amendments we have put forward and I restate the importance we placed on fulfilling the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the delegated power for the regulation be made affirmative. That is an important change we have made and offers both Houses of Parliament, including your Lordships’, an effective and important opportunity to debate the contents of the “relevant family member” definition without compromising our ability to reflect changes in society in the future. With that, I hope that noble Lords will support the Government’s amendments.
Baroness Goldie
“(aa) to investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower in relation to the welfare of persons subject to service law and relevant family members, and” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce a whistleblowing function into the functions of the Commissioner.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I will also speak to Amendment 5. Both are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Minto and are on the issue of whistleblowing. Close followers of this Bill will know that I raised this matter at Second Reading and by amendment in Committee.
Let me put a little perspective around this. This is a good Bill. The creation of such a visibly independent office as the Armed Forces commissioner is a very positive development. The powers and functions conferred by the Bill on the commissioner are extremely important. The Minister’s willingness to engage throughout the Bill’s progress has been genuine and constructive, and is much appreciated.
To keep this as brief as possible, in Committee I argued, in essence, that the commissioner should be empowered to investigate any concern raised by a whistleblower and should protect the anonymity of the whistleblower. I was grateful for the support that I received across different Benches, and there was a very useful discussion. I inferred that there was indeed a consensus around the broad thrust of what I was trying to achieve but a divergence of view on the part of the Government about how to achieve it. The Government’s response in Committee was that there was already
“a comprehensive whistleblowing system, for military and civilians alike, and it includes robust policy, procedural investigation teams and a confidential hotline, so the amendment is not required”.—[Official Report, 24/3/25; col. GC 453.]
This response refers to the improved complaints system, which I do not deny is there and operating to improved effect. The Government were also concerned about the breadth of my amendment, which they felt could reach a range of issues beyond general service welfare matters.
Dealing with the first response, I was not persuaded by the “a whistleblowing system already exists, so nothing more is required” argument. I will explain why. Notwithstanding the creation of an Armed Forces commissioner to deal with general welfare issues, many of these issues will continue to be addressed through the existing complaints system, but that is not an argument for no commissioner. As accepted by the Government, this creation is an enhanced protection for service personnel and an additional route for complainers or victims to use. As I argued in Committee, whatever support and protection we can give to our service personnel, particularly women, we should provide it.
Given the Minister’s willingness to engage further, I withdrew the amendment in Committee. Subsequently, I had a constructive meeting with him and his officials when we explored the issue further. I had sympathy with the point about the breadth of issues that could be encompassed by my amendment. I did not intend whistleblowing with respect to the commissioner’s role to extend beyond welfare and general welfare issues as defined in the Bill, so Amendments 3 and 5 have been drafted accordingly to reflect that. A whistleblower as defined in Amendment 5 is within the parameters of the Bill.
The Minister helpfully shared with me the MoD’s further thinking on the issue and the advice from his officials. Anticipating that he will wish to cover that in his wind-up speech, I will address what may arise. I hope that will assist him in his response.
The Government consider that whistleblowing is not a legally recognised term and does not have a clear, agreed meaning. I have no difficulty in understanding what whistleblowing means, and from the contributions in Committee it is clear that neither do your Lordships. Much more importantly, service personnel will have no difficulty in understanding what whistleblowing means. The simplicity of being given a simple central point of access to the Armed Forces commissioner under the widely understood umbrella of whistleblowing, regardless of what service you are in, to voice your whistleblowing concern anonymously is manifestly attractive. That a friend in the services or a relevant family member can do the same with anonymity will have a compelling appeal.
Given the reputational damage done to the MoD, with a catalogue of dreadful stories over a period of years, particularly in relation to servicewomen, why would the MoD not want to do this? Indeed, just this morning BBC Wiltshire reported horrific accounts of alleged rape and sexual assault from three women, one of whom served in the Navy and another in the RAF. The third is still serving in the Army. What a message this amendment would send to those women—women who feel they are being ignored and that their concerns are being overlooked. My amendment is specifically designed to offer such women a widely understood and simple route to seek help, regardless of what other procedures may exist.
The Government claim that whistleblowing is not a legally recognised term. However, it features in Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006—the very Act of Parliament that this Bill amends—and in the Police Reform Act 2002. Those Acts confer the power to investigate whistleblowing complaints to the Service Police Complaints Commissioner and the Independent Office for Police Conduct respectively. In fact, Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is even entitled
“Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”,
and the Police Reform Act has an entire part with that same title. It is therefore evident that there is statutory precedent for whistleblowing provisions. It appears that we are dancing on the head of a pin here.
I have dealt with, and I hope rebutted, the Government’s argument that whistleblowing is superfluous and that a specific addition is not needed to this Bill. The Government then came up with an imaginative diversion. Whereas my previous amendment was too wide, now that I have confined it to the parameters of the Bill the Government now argue that the amendment is too constraining. There is now so much dancing on the head of a pin by the Government that the pin is about to buckle.
I understand that the Government will undertake to give reassurance about anonymity and confidentiality in respect of the commissioner’s activity and any report prepared by the commissioner. That merely reaffirms what I think we all assumed was there already, regardless of any whistleblowing function. Otherwise, how could the commissioner do the job without those protections? I understand further that there will be an undertaking to engage in a comprehensive communications campaign for the benefit of Armed Forces personnel and their families about the role of the commissioner and what can be raised with the commissioner. Again, that is necessary, but it is not a substitute for what I want to achieve.
Indeed, that communications campaign might wish to begin with Ministers. The Minister recently repeated the Written Statement by his honourable friend the Minister for Veterans and People in the other place laying before Parliament the Service Complaint Ombudsman’s annual report for 2024. In that Statement, he says that the Armed Forces commissioner
“will have the power to investigate any issues raised directly by Serving personnel and their families”.
That is not what the Bill says. The Minister, whom I respect greatly, was merely the hapless intermediary. I suggest that the Government get their own house in order before they take issue with others.
I think where we have got to is that the Government are saying, with some bells and whistles, that we are doing enough. I say we are not. My amendments will deliver more. I shall listen with great interest to the debate and in particular to the Minister’s wind-up remarks. If he can give me an undertaking that he will return at Third Reading with an amendment that specifically covers whistleblowing, I will be content to withdraw this amendment so that we can explore the Government’s proposal further. However, if he is unable to do so and he cannot go further than he has already proposed, then I will be left with no choice but to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I welcome this amendment because it is trying to get to a point that I do not think any of us could disagree with, which is that we want people to be able to raise issues affecting not just them but colleagues and members of their family. What the noble Baroness said about the legal definition is right. It is in other legislation, and I think it was raised when I was on Armed Forces Act 2006, but I am not sure what it adds to the powers of the commissioner.
The commissioner has quite wide powers under the Bill as drafted, including being able to do thematic inquiries. I am sure that if he or she received complaints—the noble Baroness mentioned the appalling treatment of women in certain parts of the Armed Forces—the commissioner could, without any interference from outside, take it on himself or herself to conduct an investigation. I would support this inclusion if it added anything to what is already there, but I am struggling to understand what additional powers it would give to the commissioner. Obviously, it would be down to the tenacity of whoever is appointed as to whether they try to take up some of these individual complaints.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on her tenacious championing of the interests of Armed Forces personnel. I know that that commitment long predates my arrival in this House, so I step with some trepidation on to the noble Baroness’s territory. But, together with my noble friend Lord Beamish, I hope she can explain and help us to understand better what the proposal in the two amendments adds to the powers that the Bill already gives to the new commissioner.
I have been trying to approach this question from the point of view of the ordinary member of the Armed Forces who, as it is, is faced with different channels to take concerns through. When the Armed Forces commissioner is in place, there will be yet another channel, and it is unclear to me, if I were put in that position, when I would consider myself to be someone who was availing themselves of the existing channels and when I might consider myself to be a whistleblower, and what the difference would be.
I confess that I am not totally clear about the array of routes that someone in that situation might be able to take, and I wonder how the average member of Armed Forces personnel already navigates their way through the possible routes. As I understand it, the existing channels—forgive me if I have got this wrong—include the Ministry of Defence complaints procedure, a facility whereby people can report serious matters confidentially and, in some cases, anonymously; so that is similar to being a whistleblower. Another route appears to be the MoD’s serious concerns reporting facility: another confidential mechanism for raising serious concerns, which can be done online, on the phone or through an app. There also appear to be internal MoD policies that are already committed to protecting whistleblowers from retaliation or other detriments. The support available to people includes nominated officers outside the chain of command and a confidential hotline team.
On top of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, referred to in her introduction, there is the reformed complaints system, which will introduce a new specialist tri-service team for taking the most serious complaints—which will include bullying, discrimination and harassment —outside the single service chain of command. As I understand it, that has been welcomed by the family of Gunner Jaysley Beck, who always remains in our thoughts when we are discussing these matters. A spokesman for the family said that those running the new system need to be truly independent, properly trained and committed to real accountability and transparency. I suggest that those are all our aspirations for the new Armed Forces commissioner.
On top of the channels that I have already mentioned will be added the Armed Forces commissioner. Will the noble Baroness take the opportunity to explain to us again, so that we better understand it, what adding a whistleblowing facility to what already exists would achieve? I also invite my noble friend the Minister to give us further assurance that anyone who in future has recourse to the services of the Armed Forces commissioner will be able to do so anonymously, in the same way that anyone designated as a whistleblower under any other system would be able to do. If the Minister could give us that reassurance, that might go a long way towards meeting the concerns the noble Baroness outlined in moving the amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not taking part in the Bill earlier. As the House will know, this is not my usual territory, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham for drawing my attention to the whistleblowing issue in it. I very much support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, which would add a whistleblowing function to the Bill and to the role of the commissioner.
Amendment 3 seeks to make it clear that someone who speaks out on the issues covered in the Bill—essentially, welfare issues—can take their concerns directly to the commissioner regardless of the service they are attached to, and will have the status of a whistleblower, with the respect and protections that come with that role, as established under our current whistleblowing law, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which include confidentiality. The commissioner will then be empowered to investigate again if the issues meet the criteria set out in the Bill—and investigation, as any survey of whistleblowers will tell you, is more important to those who speak out than even protection.
There is a distinction between someone who makes a complaint and someone who chooses to blow the whistle. A complainant is looking for very specific redress and quite rightly—there is nothing wrong with that; it is entirely appropriate—but a whistleblower, as we know from whistleblowers generally, is someone who has realised, recognised or seen the potential for something going seriously wrong. They are not looking for personal redress; they are raising the issue in order to achieve investigation. The commissioner can then make that decision, but that is a very different process and a very different aspect from making a complaint about an experience that you or a family member directly had. You may end up complaining and whistleblowing, but whistleblowing has to be recognised as a tool which directs investigators.
I spent part of this morning with the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who underscored the fact to an all-party parliamentary group that when you are an investigator, knowing where to investigate requires a flow of information. He said that the biggest help Parliament could give the Serious Fraud Office would be to empower whistleblowers, because that is where he finds the information and the direction that guide the investigation he needs to do. It seems to me that that applies just as much in the armed services—even if it is under the limited welfare umbrella—as it does anywhere else.
I will concede that the current whistleblowing law which frames whistleblower protections, the Public Interest Disclosure Act, is deficient and many of us are seeking to upgrade or replace it. But it is all we have today and at the very least, its protections should extend to the armed services. The Government have responded that they can simply put the protections into their policy document. Why does anybody think a policy document is legal protection? The Government also suggested, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, mentioned, that they could introduce an anonymity clause for the reports the commissioners publish, but I cannot see that anything in this amendment rules that out.
I could suggest further changes within the scope of the Bill to enable a whistleblowing process for the Armed Forces, but I think we have something very powerful in front of us today. The Bill creates something really exceptional and valuable—a truly independent commissioner whose future career does not depend on any of the armed services or on the Civil Service. He or she in that role has the potential to be a real game-changer when it comes to speaking out.
Again, if what we had in place was perfectly adequate, would we have had that report today from BBC Wiltshire of three more members of the armed services coming forward with the most extraordinary and shocking experiences? We have to recognise that what we have in place is not achieving what we want it to. That is why this amendment and the change it proposes is so important.
As we get legislative improvements—in this area and in other areas—for whistleblowing, protections will be more effective. We will avoid not just the scandals we have seen within the services but those in other areas—for example, the Post Office. We have a real chance, then, that wrongdoing can be tackled. If we want to enhance the morale of the armed services, show people that they are genuinely valued and encourage recruitment into the services, we can make it clear that there is a simple channel to a trusted individual—someone people can go to with a whistleblowing issue, not necessarily a personal complaint. There are few things that would do more to encourage people to hold our services in the very high regard that service members deserve than to provide someone with investigatory powers who is aware of the situation and has the detail and background to allow an investigation.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I support Amendments 3 and 5 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for the way in which he has engaged with us on the Bill and, in particular listened well in the scrutiny stages.
These amendments are important because whistleblowing provides an important safety valve, especially for those who are vulnerable or whose experiences of poor behaviour from others make them vulnerable. Armed Forces chaplains regularly hear concerns in their pastoral work, but I am told that those bringing these concerns can often fear reporting them. A whistleblowing function would reduce that fear of making a complaint or fear of the impact on one’s future career, or enable a family member to have a voice they might not otherwise have.
As your Lordships have already heard, Amendment 3 keeps the function within the definition and boundaries of the Bill while not overstretching the commissioner. It should be noted that the German armed forces commissioner has a whistleblowing function within their role, and that German model has been upheld in your Lordships’ House as an example of good practice. If, as part of this Bill, we want to ensure a positive culture, positive attitudes and positive behaviours within the Armed Forces, these amendments will support that endeavour.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief, not least because the points made by my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill are ones with which agree.
When my noble friend the Minister replies to this debate—which is worth having, without a doubt, and raises serious issues—can he reassure the House, first, that the commissioner will have the powers she or he needs to investigate, whether in individual or thematic investigations? Secondly, can he confirm that the amendment we are considering, however well-intentioned, which it clearly is, does not in fact add anything to the powers the commissioner already has under the Bill? Thirdly, can he say something about the role of anonymity in relation to these matters? I think there is a common concern around the House that people should feel able to raise matters in that way.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward to this point. I will speak in support of Amendments 3 and 5. I believe that there is a distinction between a complaint that an individual wants to see resolved and the challenging of something that is wrong in the system. It is the challenging of something someone perceives to be wrong in the system that is at the heart of whistleblowing.
In order not to risk engaging your Lordships’ House any longer, I would like to say that, as a former Chief of the General Staff, I support this. I believe it would strengthen the chain of command and strengthen the role of the commissioner, and I urge support for Amendments 3 and 5.
Lord Wrottesley (Con)
My Lords, I briefly rise to support the amendments laid by my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord Minto, and congratulate them on their principled work on matters defence and, in particular, on this Bill. I wholeheartedly wish to commend all noble Lords who have engaged with this legislation and the constructive contributions from across the House. I also declare an interest as a veteran.
I add my support for Amendments 3 and 5, as at the forefront of all our minds is supporting those men and women who serve, and their families who, in turn, support them. It is an honour and often a sacrifice to wear the uniform, and it is precisely because service personnel do serve for us and our freedoms that we enjoy these deeply cherished and fought-for freedoms. The very least we can do is strengthen protections around their welfare and well-being, formally safeguarding their voices and those of their nearest and dearest under whistleblowing regulations, so that they are always heard and their welfare is never taken for granted.
The whistleblowing provisions and clarifications sought by several contributors to this debate—those provisions inherent in these amendments—are vital to providing further support and protection to our service personnel and their families. As my noble friend mentioned, this Bill is stronger because of cross-party collaboration and the shared respect that we all have for those who serve. I put on record my support for these amendments. I hope they become part of this Bill and sincerely commend the work done by all involved in bringing the Bill before Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for such an interesting and illuminating debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Kramer for answering some of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on the government Benches on what difference a whistleblowing function would have compared with other complaints that might be brought to the Armed Forces commissioner.
We have heard from across the House, including from the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Dannatt and Lord Wrottesley, on the importance of the whistleblowing function that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has proposed putting in the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his assiduous attention in talking to those of us who have been involved at various stages of this Bill and for seeking to find ways of responding to the amendments that we have been bringing forward. I look forward to hearing what he is able to say to the House today. In particular, the anonymity aspect is important. Unless the Minister is able to bring something forward that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, feels able to support, these Benches will be supporting Amendments 3 and 5.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions to this debate and for the ongoing discussions we have had in Committee, outside of it and now back here on Report.
Let us be clear about this: there is no difference in our policy objectives. Nobody wants to read about the things the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, outlined, or about the sexism and other behaviours that we see in the Armed Forces. There is no difference between any of us on that. There is nobody here who supports that. We all want that to be exposed and we all want people to feel able to come forward, through the complaints procedure or through the new body we are setting up.
People say that we still see these things happening today, and of course that is true. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that, when the First Sea Lord went to a recent Defence Select Committee, he spoke about the number of Navy personnel who had been dismissed from the service using the legislation that the previous Government brought in. They quite commendably and rightly brought that in to deal with some of the appalling and unacceptable behaviour.
Noble Lords asked whether that legislation goes far enough and whether more needs to be done. Of course more needs to be done, which is why we have an Armed Forces Commissioner Bill. We understand that the legislation is still not sufficient and that more needs to be done. Therefore, we are bringing forward this Bill.
I understand perfectly that the intention behind the amendments is for people to feel able to approach the commissioner without fear of repercussions from their identity being made public. I wholeheartedly agree with that—who is going to disagree with that? There is nobody who would disagree with that. We all want people to trust the process and the commissioner, and feel confident that their issue will be addressed and that they will not face any negative consequences from coming forward.
What is proposed in the amendments that the noble Baroness has brought forward, quite commendably, and in the arguments that have been made, is—as my noble friends Lord Beamish and Lady Carberry have said in their remarks—available to those who come forward now. As the Bill is currently drafted, the various policy intentions are being met. Let me go through some of the technical reasons again, because they are important.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the difference between an individual complaint and whistleblowing, and I accept that there is a difference. Is there anything in the Bill to stop a whistleblower going to the commissioner and the commissioner undertaking an investigation in one of their thematic reviews?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
There is not. My noble friend is quite right to point that out.
The term whistleblower is not a universally recognised term in law. That may be irrelevant to us in considering the debate, but it is of relevance to us as a legislature. There is some limited precedence for its use, there is no single meaning, and it requires additional context to explain what the term means in each case. The amendment seeks to define the term in reference to certain people and topics, but it would not create any additional protections for those people, because, as I have said, the commissioner can already investigate everything that the amendment lists—as my noble friend Lord Beamish has pointed this out—whether it involves a whistleblowing-type situation to expose a general service issue or a personal issue that somebody wants to raise individually. The commissioner can already investigate any general service welfare matters that they choose. Anyone can raise such an issue with the commissioner, including the class of person defined in the amendments.
Once established, the Armed Forces commissioner and their office will automatically be bound by data protection legislation. This means that, for all individuals who contact the commissioner, the information and details they provide will be subject to stringent protections under the existing legislation. That includes the principle of protecting the integrity and confidentiality of their personal data.
None the less, as noble Lords know, to try to address the continuing concerns, the Government considered what more they might do. In considering this amendment, noble Lords should remember that the holy grail of all this is anonymity. People will not have trust and confidence in a system if they do not believe that, if they wish it, there is anonymity; they will be frightened of the consequences, whether of whistleblowing or of raising an issue on a personal level.
We are looking at this and, in addition to the substantial protections afforded by data protection legislation, we undertake to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading that would go further in respect of reports prepared by the commissioner to preserve the anonymity of individuals who make complaints. This will prevent a complainant’s details coming into the hands of the Secretary of State or the general public without the consent of the complainant, but it will not interfere with the commissioner’s ability to use the information in connection with an investigation. In other words, the Government have conceded that anonymity is an issue and commit to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading that will put that in the Bill, to ensure that anonymity is protected in legislation.
I say again, because it is so important, that trust and confidence are everything. Who will come forward—whatever the legislation says—without trust and confidence in that system? At the heart of that is anonymity. That is the legislative proposal that we are seeking to bring forward at Third Reading, should we be in a position procedurally to do so.
There is a further issue that is not legislative— I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, raised it. The Government commit to update our current “raising a concern” policy, which includes replicating the protections available to civilians under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. This update will outline the role of the commissioner and ensure that similar protections for people under this policy are applied to disclosures made to the commissioner. This will include provisions relating to anonymity and confidentiality, ensuring that anyone who raises a genuine concern in line with the policy will be protected from unfair or negative treatment due to raising the concern.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I ask the Minister for clarification. All those things will be in a policy document, as I understand it. Can he explain to me the legal standing of a policy document? That would be so helpful.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The legal standing works with respect to the way whistleblowing policy works. If the noble Baroness would like to have a look, she will see that armed services personnel are not covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act now. The “raising a concern” policy is how the Ministry of Defence ensures that whistleblowers are protected. Unless the noble Baroness feels that there needs to be an amendment to the Public Interest Disclosure Act to include Armed Forces personnel within its remit, the Government are saying that we can quickly look at the “raising a concern” policy document, which exists with respect to the Ministry of Defence, and by doing so can ensure that whistleblowers have the confidence to come forward.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this has been a most useful debate, and I hope it has been helpful. I thank all who contributed, whatever their point of view, not least those who felt able to support my amendments. I thank the Minister for his continued engagement, and I know his sincere desire to explore the possibility of a point of mutual agreement.
It was clear that some contributors considered my amendments to have merit, and that there were questions from other contributors. I will deal with the questioners first. I express my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, for their kind remarks. I very much appreciated the vein in which they made their observations and asked their questions.
In essence, a theme ran through the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, not to mention the Minister. The theme I picked up on was: the powers are already there. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, said that this is not a game-changer. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, asked whether I could help the House to understand better what the amendments achieve on top of the existing routes. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, said that the commissioner has the powers, so nothing additional has been created by the amendments—that was very much the tone of the Minister’s response.
My response to that is twofold. It really depends on the lens through which we look at all this. We can look at it through the lens of parliamentarians and technical legal draftspersons and we can say, “No, you don’t need these amendments because everything that we need is already in there”. I would tend to advocate looking at this through the lens of service personnel—not least servicewomen—which is why I am emphatic that it is not a question of not being able to have any more routes because we already have some. It is a question of reassurance to our Armed Forces, particularly our servicewomen, that we are providing routes the best way we can, because we want to give notice that we care about them and do the best we can for them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that what really matters is that there is confidence about the investigation part—I will come to her useful distinction between a complaint and whistleblowing in a moment. But, looking at it through the lens of what service personnel may feel, I go back to the original argument I adduced in my opening speech: we have to give something simple that is easy to understand. There may be a number of routes that people can currently follow, but, if you say that one route is that the commissioner can investigate whistleblowing complaints, that certainly sends out a signal to an awful lot of people in our Armed Forces. They get that and they understand it. They want a simple point of access; they know they can do that in confidence, the process is trustworthy and the investigation will be robust.
The Minister said that more needs to be done, which is why we have the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—I entirely agree with that. My response would be: I want more to be done too. I want to improve the Bill in law—not by way of policy but in law, hence my amendments. The Minister kindly indicated that the Government will, at Third Reading, introduce their own amendment to deal with the question of anonymity. I welcome that and, depending on the text of it, I am sure that this side of the House will be able to support it. But is that a sufficient substitute for what I want to achieve? No, I regret that it is not.
I will deal with the other contributions, beginning with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She is an acknowledged expert: her reputation goes before her, and I think we all know that she is a woman you would not readily tangle with. I will not tangle with her; I will listen to her. I am grateful for her support. I noted her distinction: a complaint seeks redress, whereas whistle- blowing is not necessarily looking for personal redress but is rather looking for investigation and action—whistleblowing is an empowering function. Her contribution was powerful, particularly when she explained how she perceived these amendments as improving morale for our service personnel in a simple manner.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich made a very helpful contribution, when he referred to a safety valve. From his experiences as a chaplain, he referred to the fear that people have of reporting, which he feels is assuaged by a whistleblowing function, which is something that I have always intrinsically felt. He also pointed out that the comparable model of the German armed forces commissioner has that function.
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said very simply that there needs to be a way of challenging when something has gone wrong in the system, which is exactly what I am trying to achieve with these amendments.
My noble friend Lord Wrottesley, whose support I welcome, talked about strengthening protections, and I think that that is at the heart of all this. We have a variety of routes. I said earlier that, if we felt that there was only one way in which to do something, we would not be having an Armed Forces commissioner. We would be saying that our vastly improved service complaints system was brilliant, so let us leave it at that—we can tweak it and do bits and pieces as and when we require. I think that we all accept that that is absolutely not an argument for not having an Armed Forces commissioner. However, if you accept that, I think that you should also accept that there is more than one way in which to provide conduits and access for our service personnel.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for her contribution and the support of her Benches in associating herself with the powerful comments from her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
I have done my best to address the main points that arose in the debate. I thank the Minister for his courtesy and his personal endeavours to keep—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not want to mislead anyone. On the Third Reading point and the Government bringing an amendment back, obviously the noble Baroness is going to divide the House—and then it will have to be brought back another way. I could not bring those amendments back at Third Reading, if we were defeated. It would need to be changed elsewhere. I just wanted to make that clear so that I did not mislead anyone.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I understand the technical point that the Minister is making, and I appreciate his desire to clarify that to the House. I understand the position, but it does not detract from my desire to try to do something substantive here. I thank him for his courtesy and his personal endeavours, as he has kept me fully informed of the Government’s thinking, which I appreciate.
I am not going to prolong the discussion, as I think that we have now reached a crystallisation point, which is that the Government believe in their way and I believe in my way and, encouraged by the support that I have received, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“(5A) The Commissioner must— (a) uphold and give due regard to the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions;(b) monitor and report on compliance with the principles and commitments of the Armed Forces Covenant in all areas of its responsibility.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioner to uphold and abide by the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant when carrying out its functions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am aware that debate is taking a little longer and that we have more groups of amendments that are single amendments than many people had hoped. I therefore propose to be incredibly brief. This amendment raises the issue of the Armed Forces covenant and to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner would be subject to that covenant.
It might sound axiomatic—to use the phrase that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, used in Committee— that the Government are bound by the Armed Forces covenant but, technically, the Government are not bound by it. The covenant relates to businesses and the providers of housing and of the health service, but it does not apply to the Government per se. This amendment seeks to ask to what extent the Armed Forces commissioner will be required to look at the Armed Forces covenant. It may be that the Minister says that that is left entirely to legislation on the Armed Forces covenant, but I think it would be helpful to understand whether the commissioner would or could be bound by the legislation.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, we visited the issue of the Armed Forces covenant during our deliberations in Committee. During that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, raised the importance of the covenant and how vital it is that the commissioner be fully able to investigate covenant issues relating to the welfare of service personnel and their families. I was grateful, as I think were all noble Lords present, for the Minister’s response. It was welcome to receive clarification that the commissioner will be able to investigate such matters.
As I noted in Committee, the duty to have regard to the principles of the covenant was established in statute by the Armed Forces Act 2021. That was a significant step forward and we have seen much progress since then. I also note the Government’s intention to embed the covenant fully into law, which is indeed a welcome step. Again, I think it is already a given that the commissioner should have due regard to the covenant, and the comments from the Minister have given me the certainty that they will indeed do so.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment and the noble Earl, Lord Minto, for the comments that he has made. I also thank the noble Baroness for bringing the important topic of the Armed Forces covenant to our attention and for the valuable engagement that we have had ahead of this debate.
As we discussed in Committee, and as the noble Earl, Lord Minto, pointed out, this amendment would place a requirement on the commissioner to have due regard to the Armed Forces covenant principles as part of their general functions. It would also require them to monitor and report on compliance with the covenant in all areas of their responsibilities. I will say again for the record that this Government are fully supportive of the Armed Forces covenant. The covenant recognises the unique obligations and sacrifices made by those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether regular or reserve; those who have served in the past; and their families, including the bereaved. Our election manifesto included a commitment to place it fully into law, which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, referenced, and which we will do.
However, as noble Lords are aware, and I will stress again, the covenant applies to both serving and former members of the Armed Forces. The Government believe that there is a separate and pressing need to address the welfare matters affecting our serving community, and that is where the Armed Forces commissioner will have the powers to make a real impact. As I have stated before, it will of course be perfectly proper that the commissioner considers covenant issues where they relate to serving members of the Armed Forces and their families—I would imagine that these issues will be within the remit of the commissioner to investigate.
With that, I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness and others that, as the commissioner will be fully able to investigate covenant issues where they apply to the welfare of serving personnel and their families, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to specify this in the Bill. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am thankful to the noble Lords for responding to this small amendment. Of course, it may be possible that the whistleblower will be able to bring matters that could link to the Armed Forces covenant, if the amendment that has just been agreed is kept in the other place. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Goldie
“(7) For the purposes of this section a person (“P”) is a “whistleblower” if—(a) P is subject to service law or is a relevant family member,(b) P raises a concern that is about another person subject to service law,(c) the concern raised by P relates to general service welfare matters (as defined by section 340IA(2)), and(d) the concern raised by P does not relate to the conditions of service of persons subject to service law.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines whistleblowers for the purposes of the other amendment in Baroness Goldie’s name to Clause 1.
Lord Coaker
“(3A) “Relevant family members” means such descriptions of persons connected with a person subject to service law as may be specified.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of clause 4 provide for regulations which specify the meaning of “relevant family members” for the purposes of the Commissioner’s work to be subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure.
“(7A) The Commissioner must where relevant, with particular reference to service people and relevant family members under the age of 18, consult with the Children’s Commissioner and other relevant departments, bodies and individuals with particular responsibility for child welfare.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will be brief, as I am aware of the desire of the House to progress. The amendment goes back to what we discussed in Committee, raising the issue of under-18s in the Armed Forces, which the Minister knows is a particular concern of mine. At that point, I jumped on the back of an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. She listed a number of areas of concern and I added under-18s to that list.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I welcome the amendment, in the sense that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that those in the Armed Forces who are aged under 18 are protected, which I think we would all wish. I disagree with her about recruiting those aged under 18, because I suggest that the Army Foundation College in Harrogate does a fantastic job of helping and developing young people from some of the most disadvantaged communities in the country. Having taken a passing-out parade there as a Minister, I have to say that it is quite emotional to see the change that some of those individuals have gone through in the time they were at Harrogate.
In saying that, the noble Baroness is correct that there have been incidents at Harrogate that should not have happened, and it is important that the commissioner is able to look at them, particularly concentrating on under-18s. I understand that Ofsted already inspects Harrogate, but I accept that is only one part of what the noble Baroness is trying to get at with this amendment.
It is important to have this debate, because whoever becomes the commissioner should look at this. When they look at particular cases, or even hold a thematic inquiry into under-18s provision, then, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says in her amendment, drawing on expertise from the Children’s Commission and others will be important. As she quite rightly says, the Armed Forces commissioner, no matter how good he or she is, will not have the specialist knowledge that the Children’s Commission and others do. So I welcome the debate: if we are to attract people to our Armed Forces, it is going to be very important that the experience they have is of the utmost quality and does not lead to some of the issues that have, sadly, arisen at Harrogate.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing this amendment. As she pointed out, we had an amendment in Committee that listed a whole set of different groups to which we suggested the Armed Forces commissioner should pay particular attention. It was not intended to be something that would ever be brought to a vote. In the light of the Atherton report and the Etherton report, it is important for the commissioner to think about groups that have faced particular problems within His Majesty’s Armed Forces, so exploring who the commissioner should take into consideration and where there might be a need for particular inquiries or reports seemed to be worth discussing.
Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, that recruiting under-18s is something that we accept, it is important to bear in mind that people aged under 18 are still technically children. It is important that the commissioner, in looking at their welfare, looks to other bodies that deal with that. In this regard, mentioning family members is also important, because if we are talking about recruitment, as the noble Lord has just done, it is not simply whether a 16 or 17 year-old wants to sign up but whether their parents feel comfortable in that as well. This is an important issue for us to discuss, but obviously not to push to a vote on this occasion.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raises an important point. The welfare of service personnel who are aged under 18 is a matter that all noble Lords wish to guarantee. I personally have fond memories of training junior leaders. They were, despite their age, some of the keenest, most determined and, at times, most fearless individuals, certainly in relation to trying out new skills, that I had the honour of serving with.
I think it right, therefore, that the Government give serious consideration to the treatment of young people recruited into the Armed Forces. They are part of the future of our Armed Forces, and it is in all our interests to provide an environment that allows them both to thrive and to flourish. When we face recruitment and retention issues, as has been discussed already, we cannot have a situation in which young people are deterred from joining up or encouraged to leave prematurely. I would be grateful if the Minister would update the House on efforts His Majesty’s Government are taking to deal with the concerns of young people serving in our Armed Forces.
The amendment from the noble Baroness also mentions the children of service personnel. They are impacted in a unique way by their parents’ service, and this can easily get forgotten or overlooked. They often have to move home when the military requires their family to relocate, which can be to different and disparate parts of the country, or indeed overseas. Moving so frequently is by no means an easy thing to ask of anyone, let alone a child. Leaving friends behind, losing a sense of normality and becoming accustomed to an entirely new way of living would be challenging for even the most adventurous of us. I mentioned in Committee that 62% of those who left the Armed Forces reported family concerns as one of their core reasons for leaving. We must address this issue head-on if we are to deal with the crisis of retention.
In direct response to the amendment from the noble Baroness, which mentions the Children’s Commissioner, I say that there must be clear delineation of responsibility for the welfare of service personnel. The Armed Forces commissioner must be responsible for investigations regarding general service welfare matters from service personnel, regardless of age. The Children’s Commissioner and the Armed Forces commissioner are two very distinct roles, and for good reasons. To conflate the two could risk confusion over responsibility. If a person under 18 has an issue regarding their welfare, as part of their military service, they should go to the Armed Forces commissioner only.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for the discussion on this important matter. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her views on the Bill and I acknowledge her concerns about the protection of young soldiers, which is something we all wish to see, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out.
We anticipate that the commissioner will wish to work closely with several organisations, committees and groups. As the commissioner will be an independent body, it will ultimately be up to them to decide how they choose to exercise their powers, and it will be for both parties to decide how best to work together effectively. It is likely, however, that the commissioner will implement a series of formal and informal working arrangements with various groups, organisations and committees, including the Children’s Commissioners from each nation in the UK. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the two roles are distinct but—while respecting the difference between them—it is important that the Children’s Commissioner works, where appropriate, with the Armed Forces commissioner.
I reassure noble Lords that my officials, who are focused on the successful implementation of the commissioner, have already visited AFC Harrogate to understand the unique needs of our young soldiers, and are engaging with other interested groups who are both internal and external to the MoD. I reiterate that the Government are very supportive of the recruitment of young people under 18, while also recognising that it brings with it particular responsibilities which we wish to ensure are properly considered.
I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness and, with that, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I will make a very brief comment. We are the only army in Europe that recruits at 16, even though we do not put them in the front line; that is worth putting on the record. The noble Lord, Lord Beamish, referred to the people he has seen in passing out parades and I totally agree with him. You will meet many people who joined the Army at 16 and say it was the making of them. The people you do not meet are the ones who joined the Army at 16 and it was the breaking of them: those who did not stand up to the culture they had to get to, to be the right sort of person to be a soldier.
It is good that we have had this debate and highlighted an issue for the commissioner to think about. I am very encouraged by the Minister’s last remarks in that regard and I am glad that we are not going to vote on it. I just wanted to make those points.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for making those points. It is crucial that there is public and general understanding of the situation. I thank the Minister for his response; I heard what I wanted to hear in what he said, and that is now on the record in Hansard for future reference, which is really why I brought this amendment. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the importance of this issue from around the House, and I thank all noble Lords who contributed.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, I confess that this is my personal drafting and I do not make any great claims about my legal capacities. What I intended it to say—and I think what it does say—is that the commissioner must, where relevant, consult with the Children’s Commissioner. It remains within the hands of the Armed Forces commissioner and they will then choose to engage when they judge it relevant.
These are issues I have no doubt we will return to, but, while I still do not believe we should be recruiting 16 and 17 year-olds, it is my hope that we ensure they have the best possible experience they can. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, the young people who do not make it through the system—and about one-third of them either leave or are thrown out—immediately become NEETs, not in employment, education or training. Those figures really have to come down, for the well-being of young people. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment of clause 4, page 3, line 3.
Baroness Goldie
“(7A) Nothing in this section negates the authority of the Commanding Officer of service premises in relation to access to such service premises.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Commanding Officers of service premises retain ultimate authority relating to access to those premises.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this amendment covers an issue concerning access to service premises, about which both myself and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place, expressed concern and on which I tabled an amendment in Committee.
I thank the Minister for his positive engagement both in Committee and at a subsequent meeting with his officials. That led to a helpful letter from the Minister, dated 23 April 2025, which clarified the position in relation to access by the commissioner and the overall authority of the commanding officer or head of establishment of service premises to refuse access on grounds of national security.
I tabled this amendment to keep the issue live pending clarification by the Government of the position. I have no desire to prolong our proceedings with unnecessary debate and I shall simply use this opportunity to put on the record the relevant part of the letter to which I referred:
“The Secretary of State’s power to restrict access is available in a particular case or more generally. We therefore anticipate that in practice the Secretary of State could provide the commissioner and heads of establishment with information in advance regarding specific sites (or parts of sites), activities, or broader criteria to which they will be preventing or restricting access. In addition to the military, the Secretary of State will consult with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to ensure all matters which infringe upon national security interests are assessed.
This mechanism will be broad enough to cover instances where, for example, a specific classified event is happening at a site that did not have any restricted areas. In these instances, should the commissioner wish to visit without notice, the head of establishment will still be able to prevent the commissioner from entering either all or part of the site. Although the Bill provides that this power resides with the Secretary of State, the application of broader criteria provided by the Secretary of State in relation to these matters will also function to allow heads of establishment to assess concerns relating to national security or personal safety and restrict access on those grounds.
In practice, heads of establishment and relevant security staff will therefore have the authority to conduct their own, fact-specific due diligence in line with these concerns, including delaying access while enquiries are made. Should disagreements arise, either party would be able to escalate this to the office of the Secretary of State”.
Unless the Minister, in his wind-up speech, seeks to amend the position, I am content. I shall listen with interest to the other contributions to the debate, but anticipate that at the end I shall seek your Lordships’ leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. It was very helpful for the noble Baroness to repeat what was said by the Government on this particular issue. My concern most generally is that the chain of command is respected, and if you were to introduce arrangements which reduced the authority of the chain of command, that would be unsatisfactory.
The only other issue on this is if the inquiry that the commissioner was making involved the commanding officer himself or herself. How would that be dealt with? It needs to be quite clear that there are arrangements, and what the noble Baroness read out covers that, but I should just like to be absolutely certain that, if the commanding officer himself or herself is part of the inquiry of the commissioner, then that can be dealt with.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for reading out the letter that I sent. I have placed a copy in the Library, and I will just check that this has happened, to make sure that is available to everyone. I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, for his remarks. The letter covers the points that he has raised as well.
It would be helpful for further clarification just to read a couple of remarks into the record, which will help the deliberations of all of us on Report. I thank the noble Baroness and other noble Lords for the conversations we have had about the no-notice power of the commissioner and the authority of the commanding officer of a site. We will make sure that commanding officers and others are aware of what they are able to do under the letter and under the Bill.
As highlighted in the letter I sent on 15 April, to fulfil their investigatory function, the commissioner will have wide-ranging powers including access to certain defence sites. The commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of intent to visit those sites, unless—and for sites in the UK only—it is considered that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising the power. This matters, as it will help to ensure that malpractice cannot be covered up, for example—
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, on a purely technical matter, the Minister referred to a letter of 15 April; I think it is the letter of 23 April.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her brilliant observation. It says “15 April” on here, but I have just been reliably informed by pigeon post that it was 23 April—so thank you very much.
I cannot remember where I got to now—I will start again on that paragraph. As highlighted in the letter I sent on 23 April, to fulfil their investigatory function the commissioner will have wide-ranging powers, including access to certain defence sites. The commissioner must give the Secretary of State notice of intent to visit those sites, unless—and for sites in the UK only—it is considered that giving notice would defeat the object of exercising that power. This matters, as it will help to ensure that malpractice cannot be covered up, for example by painting over mouldy accommodation or ensuring certain personnel are off the premises.
The Secretary of State’s power to restrict access is available in a particular case or more generally. We therefore anticipate that, in practice, the Secretary of State could provide the commissioner and heads of establishment with information in advance regarding specific sites, or even parts of sites, activities or broader criteria to which they will be preventing or restricting access. In addition to the military, the Secretary of State will consult with the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary to ensure all matters which infringe upon national security interests are assessed.
This mechanism will be broad enough to cover instances where, for example, a specific classified event is happening at a site that did not have any restricted areas. In these instances, should the commissioner wish to visit without notice, the head of establishment will still be able to prevent the commissioner from entering either all or part of the site. Although the Bill provides that this power resides with the Secretary of State, the application of broader criteria provided by the Secretary of State in relation to these matters will also function to allow heads of establishment to assess concerns relating to national security or personal safety and restrict access on those grounds.
In practice, heads of establishment and relevant security staff will therefore have the authority to conduct their own due diligence in line with these concerns, including delaying access while inquiries are made. Should disagreements arise, either party would be able to escalate this to the office of the Secretary of State.
With those comments, I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and on those grounds, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister and am satisfied that there are not too many letters flying around—there is only one. I am very happy to withdraw my amendment, and I beg leave of the House to do that.
Lord Coaker
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment of clause 4, page 3, line 3.
Lord Beamish
“3A “(1) The Secretary of State must not make a recommendation to His Majesty under paragraph 3 unless the recommendation has been laid before and approved by the relevant Parliamentary Committee in both Houses.(2) References in this paragraph to the relevant Parliamentary Committees are references to—(a) both the Defence Committee in the House of Commons and the Committee charged with this responsibility in the House of Lords, or(b) the Joint Committee of both Houses which—(i) is charged with responsibility by those Houses for the purposes of this paragraph, and(ii) has notified the Secretary of State that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean the Secretary of State could not recommend a candidate to be appointed Armed Forces Commissioner to His Majesty until relevant select committees in both Houses of Parliament have approved that candidate.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
Amendment 13 is another attempt to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny over the individual who is appointed as the Armed Forces commissioner. As I raised in Committee, there has been a lot of play made by the Government that the Armed Forces commissioner is being based on the German model. However, as we debated in Committee, the parliamentary oversight in this Bill is nothing like that of the German system. In the German system, the German armed forces commissioner is appointed by and answerable to the Bundestag. In the Bill before us today, the Secretary of State for Defence is the individual who recommends the appointment to His Majesty the King.
In Committee, I moved Amendment 3, which would have given powers to both Houses to have a vote on the individual’s name before it went to His Majesty, therefore giving Parliament a direct say in, and scrutiny over, who is appointed Armed Forces commissioner. Even though in Committee I raised a number of examples of where this is already practised in appointments, the Government sought to reject my amendment. The old tradition is that God loves a trier, so here is my second attempt to try and get some parliamentary scrutiny of the process of the appointment of the Armed Forces commissioner.
Amendment 13 would not allow the Secretary of State to recommend to His Majesty the King the individual to be the Armed Forces commissioner before the individual had been before the Defence Select Committee and the relevant committee in your Lordships’ House, which I think would be the International Relations and Defence Committee. This is a watered-down version of my previous Amendment 3, but it would at least ensure that both Houses of Parliament were scrutinising the individual as a fit and proper person to be appointed as commissioner. It would also give some confidence that the two parliamentary committees which oversee defence issues had had an opportunity to look at the individual who is being put forward.
Many people would ask: why is this important and why should Parliament be involved? Over many years, we have seen scandals affecting our Armed Forces—at Second Reading, we discussed many of them—and we have all agreed, I think, that this is the third attempt to get right the oversight of complaints and other issues to do with our Armed Forces. This is an attempt, through the Bill, to ensure that Parliament has a say.
The other issue, which we should not ignore, is that the individuals affected by the complaints and scandals, as well as campaigners, have—quite rightly—very little respect for or confidence in the ability of the MoD or the chain of command. Giving parliamentary oversight of the commissioner’s appointment would help them know, at least, that it is not just the Secretary of State and the MoD putting forward the necessary person. It is important not only that Parliament should have a say in these matters, which I personally believe is right, but that campaigners, and individuals who use the service of the Armed Forces commissioner, have the confidence that it will be not just the Secretary of State making the recommendation.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. When my noble friend Lord Beamish moved his amendment in Committee, I strongly supported it—and I support it again today. I am sure that Machiavelli would be pleased to know that his name still comes up in discussions centuries after his death.
When my noble friend the Minister introduced the Bill at Second Reading, he made the very good point that its purpose was to provide statutory authority for the new Armed Forces commissioner—it is a new role that we have not had before. My noble friend’s amendment seeks to convey the same sense of authority, this time on behalf of Parliament, because she or he will have been confirmed by the relevant committee—or committees —of either House.
My second point has nothing to do with this Bill. What my noble friend is suggesting is a very good point of principle on all such appointments. In the wider context of the relations between the Executive and the legislature, an amendment such as this strongly seeks to improve the authority of Parliament—not necessarily against the Executive, but, nevertheless, it would improve the importance and role of Parliament. Otherwise, what is the point of our being here if Parliament does not play a role?
I strongly support the amendment. It will not be pressed to a vote, and I do not know what my noble friend the Minister will say in reply, but I hope that he will convey an element of agreement with my noble friend Lord Beamish’s argument.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, seek to do what amendments that I tabled in Committee also sought to do, albeit rather less elegantly. My amendment on having parliamentary scrutiny for the Armed Forces commissioner was the source of considerable concern to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who said that it was far too detailed to put in the Bill. Therefore, I am extremely glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, has decided to bring back this amendment, because it is important that we have a parliamentary role, and he has phrased that elegantly both in the formulation of his amendment and in what he has just said.
If we want to have an independent Armed Forces commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State, it would be appropriate that the way of appointing that person stands up to scrutiny—and both Houses of Parliament playing a role would be an effective way of doing that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that and what role His Majesty’s Government feel able to grant to Parliament in this regard.
On Amendment 14, the change of those minor words—from “may” to “must”—suggests something rather important. As with so much legislation, if you have not read the Bill, the change from “may” to “must” makes very little sense. But this is about adequate resourcing of the Armed Forces commissioner. It was pointed out earlier in today’s debate that we are already looking at considerably increasing the funding for the Armed Forces commissioner, compared with the current ombudsperson. If work needs to be done, it is vital that the role of the Armed Forces commissioner be adequately resourced, because if not, and the Armed Forces commissioner is unable fully to fulfil the job given to them, what message does that send to the Armed Forces and their families? If cases are brought and the Armed Forces commissioner does not have time to deal with the complaints or to undertake the reports needed, that will undermine the commissioner’s prestige and credibility.
If “may” cannot be converted to “must”, can the Minister explain to the House how funding will be provided and give us some guarantees that, in the longer term, the Armed Forces commissioner will be adequately resourced? As his noble friend Lord Beamish said, we might be happy that this Government will give adequate resources, but we are legislating not just for this Government but for future ones as well.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, for his Amendment 13, which addresses the highly significant matter of the appointment process and the independence of the commissioner.
My noble friend Lord Courtown, in winding for the Official Opposition at Second Reading, raised the differences between the proposed commissioner and the German armed forces commissioner, as we have heard today. One of the main differences is the method of appointment, as the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, rightly raised. The German commissioner is elected by the Bundestag, with nominations coming from the different party groups. That role establishes a significant role for the German Parliament in the appointment process.
The commissioner here shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and not elected by Parliament. The Government have indicated that their successful candidate will appear, I believe, before the Defence Select Committee in the other place. I have two questions. First, how will the Government ensure that the person they appoint remains entirely independent? Secondly, would the Minister be amenable to the commissioner also undergoing pre-appointment scrutiny before the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House too?
On Amendment 14, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on financing what we all agree is a most positive initiative.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate, including my noble friend Lord Stansgate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Minto. Their questions will be answered as I go through my remarks. I also thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for his views on the Bill and his engagement on the subject to date. As he knows from the discussions he has had with me and the Minister for the Armed Forces, I understand and fully appreciate his concerns and views about the scrutiny of the commissioner’s appointment and the importance of properly funding the commissioner.
We are confident there will be the right balance of independent scrutiny in place, in line with other, similar public appointments. Parliament will have a clear and important role in the process. The public appointments process and the rigorous pre-appointment scrutiny will be the mechanism to address any concerns that the House of Commons Defence Select Committee may have about a candidate. We will be able fully to take account of the Select Committee’s views before making the recommendation to His Majesty.
Furthermore, as was clarified in Committee, the House of Commons Defence Committee will be involved in the recruitment process and will consider the candidate before their appointment. The Secretary of State will then carefully consider the view of the chair of the Defence Select Committee. I can confirm that we have also discussed this issue with the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee, Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, and the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the chair of the International Relations and Defence Committee, and make it clear—in answer to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friend Lord Beamish in his amendment—that, should the IRDC wish to provide a view on the appointment to the HCDC, it would be very welcome to do so.
As with the House of Commons Defence Committee’s opinion, any views provided by the International Relations and Defence Committee will be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State. However, I hope that the confirmation that the mechanism exists to feed in views from this place, should Parliament wish to do so, will alleviate the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Beamish. His amendment has caused us to further consider how the IRDC may be involved. Because the Executive cannot dictate to Parliament, I emphasise that it is if that Select Committee wishes and chooses to do so.
On Amendment 14, I fully agree that it is crucial that the commissioner has the tools, including the financial assistance, they need. The Bill has been designed to ensure that this is the case. I again thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for taking the time to meet with me and the Minister for the Armed Forces to discuss this matter. I can reassure my noble friend Lord Beamish and others that this Government—I would like to clearly state and put this on the record—will commit to providing sufficient funding to the office of the commissioner.
Noble Lords have asked about a future Government; it is difficult to commit future Governments to particular policies, but I would assume and expect that, even if the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was the Secretary of State for Defence, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was back in office, all of us, including myself, would ensure that the commissioner’s office was properly funded. I believe that would be the case. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Beamish is particularly important because it forces us to put on record that the funding of the commissioner’s office is crucial and fundamental to the successful delivery of this important reform.
If the commissioner feels that their funding is insufficient to carry out their functions effectively, the Bill has been designed to ensure that they will have the opportunity to raise this in their annual reports. The Secretary of State in the other place and the Minister for Defence here—whoever that is—would find it more than a little uncomfortable to have to defend themselves against the charge that an Armed Forces commissioner, regarded as a crucial reform, believes that they have been insufficiently funded to undertake the requirements legally expected of them.
With that, I thank my noble friend Lord Beamish for Amendments 13 and 14. I hope that I have been able to provide him and other noble Lords with the necessary reassurance. On those grounds, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
I will take that as a win. I look forward to the International Relations and Defence Committee of this House—I have been involved in the process. As I said when moving the amendment, for the campaigners, it is not to be underestimated that the individual selected has at least had the experience and been scrutinised by somebody other than the Secretary of State before the nomination. I welcome that. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Coaker
“21A In section 340N—(a) in subsection (1)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), after “the communication” insert “(“P”)”; (ii) in each of paragraphs (a) and (b), for “his or her” substitute “P’s”;(iii) in paragraph (b), for “the person” substitute “P”;(iv) in the words after paragraph (b), for “officer” substitute “person”;(b) in subsection (2)—(i) for “officer”, in each place, substitute “person”;(ii) for “by the person” substitute “by P”;(c) in subsection (3)—(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “officer” substitute “person”;(ii) in each of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for “the person” substitute “P”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision that is consequential on clause 3.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendment 15 makes a provision that is consequential on Clause 3. As your Lordships are aware following our discussions in Committee, Clause 3 amends Section 340B of the Armed Forces Act 2006, to specify that a specified “person” may decide whether a service complaint is admissible, rather than for that function having to be carried out by a specified “officer”. An admissibility decision is an administrative decision on whether to accept or exclude a complaint from the service complaints system. The future Armed Forces commissioner will retain the power to review admissibility decisions and make a final decision about whether the complaint should be accepted into the system.
To offer some reassurance that what we are discussing is simply an administrative decision which does not require the dedicated attention of an officer, I outline the factors considered part of these decisions: whether the complaint has been made within the prescribed time limits; whether the complainant is currently serving, which includes both regular and reserve personnel; whether the complaint is a duplicate or repeat complaint; and whether the subject matter of the complaint relates to a service matter or not. There are some limited subject matter exclusions relating, for example, to matters already subject to legal proceedings or operational decisions in combat. We do not consider that this administrative decision requires military expertise—hence the inclusion of Clause 3 in the Bill, which allows a suitably qualified “person”, rather than an “officer”, to make that decision.
The Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations 2015 set out in more detail what a specified “person” would be for these purposes, as they currently do for a specified “officer”. The regulations will be brought forward in due course and will continue to preclude the specified “person” from being anyone who is the subject of, or in any way implicated in, the statement of complaints. Thus, the effect of Clause 3 is to allow certain civilians, in addition to military personnel, to make assessments of whether a complaint made by a member of the Armed Forces is admissible in the service complaints system.
However, Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act 2006 similarly provides for the current Service Complaints Ombudsman to refer certain allegations to be considered as service complaints to an appropriate “officer” in the single services. Therefore, we also need the language in Section 340N of the Armed Forces Act to be updated from “officer” to “person” so that there is not any inconsistency in the legislation. This was an oversight in our initial drafting and is what my amendment to Schedule 2 seeks to address.
This amendment would ensure that, in cases where the Armed Forces commissioner may refer complaints into the service complaints system, the references in the legislation are consistent with the fact that civilians will now be able to make admissibility decisions by virtue of Clause 3 of the Bill. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, noting that this is a consequential amendment, I simply have one question relating to what the Minister has just said. He said that there was an issue about duplicate or repeat complaints. If there were duplicate complaints—an equivalent complaint from two different people—would that not be admissible, or have I misunderstood what he said?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s consequential Amendment 15. In Committee, the Government brought forward this amendment, claiming that it was minor and technical. At the time, I argued that it was neither minor nor technical. It sought to introduce a substantive change to the service complaints process, and I asked the Minister for clarification, which he and his officials have helpfully provided.
The effect of these changes would mean that the current process—whereby the decision as to whether a service complaint is admissible is made by an officer—could now be made by a civilian, and the Armed Forces commissioner would be able to refer a complaint to a relevant person, as opposed to a relevant officer. Permitting a civilian to undertake these roles, even if an officer could undertake them as well, means that the decisions will, to some extent, now be taken out of the chain of command. The Explanatory Notes explicitly mention that these roles would be undertaken by a civilian, and the Minister confirmed such in Committee. The Government intend for these two roles in the complaints process to be undertaken by civilians as well as by officers, if that is necessary.
In Committee, I expressed concern about this approach, but, after meetings with the Minister—for which I thank him—I am now reassured that the decisions regarding admissibility of service complaints and the referral of complaints is much more of an administrative task than I had understood, as enlarged upon by the Minister earlier in his remarks. I accept that that is not necessarily an efficient use of an officer’s time. Given this clarification, my concerns have been assuaged, my opposition has dissipated and I am content with the position.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Very briefly, given the time, I thank the noble Baroness for that. I am pleased that the conversations and discussions that we have had have clarified this.
I am not sure of the answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—I am not even totally sure I fully understood what she was asking about what I had said. If she will allow me, I will write to her, and put a copy of that letter in the Library, if that is convenient and satisfactory to her. With that, I commend my amendment to the House.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 30th April 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberProperty (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 67-I Marshalled list for Report - (28 Apr 2025)
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, connected to another in the name of Lord Holmes of Richmond, seeks to provide a statutory basis for recognising digital assets as property, while removing any presumption that these assets cannot be accommodated by the existing two categories of personal property rights.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, in my name, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 3 in this group.
It is a pleasure to open Report of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register, not least as adviser to Ecospend and Members Capital Management. I take a brief moment to thank all of those who have got the Bill to this stage, including Professor Green and her team at the Law Commission, everyone who was involved with our Special Public Bill Committee—particularly the clerk, Matthew Burton, and all his staff—and all colleagues who have shown an interest in and engaged with the Bill.
There is an extraordinary opportunity when it comes to digital assets and delivering clarity, consistency and certainty around their property classification. By 2030, it is estimated that somewhere between 10% and 14% of GDP will come from digital assets. To put it another way, transactions in 2030 involving digital assets will range between £10 trillion and £24 trillion. That is a huge opportunity for the planet and for the UK, not least because of our excellence in financial services and in fintech—financial technology—but, crucially, because of the great good fortune of English common law.
What we see with the Bill is the leading-edge deployment of that great tradition in the most modern of contexts. To take just one example, if we get effective dematerialisation of the capital markets, that will save £20 billion year-on-year in reduced costs and speeded up transactions. Clarification of digital assets will not only help capital markets but will assist with financial inclusion and financial market infrastructure transformation, impacting positively on our economy and, through that, our society. We should note that the world is watching as we pass this Bill—following, as it does, a suite of Bills from the Law Commission, not least the recent Electronic Trade Documents Bill, now Act.
This is a very good Bill, which does a very simple task of enabling a third category of property: taking a “thing in possession” and a “thing in action” and enabling a potential third category to accommodate digital assets which do not neatly fit within either of those current property classes. It is a good Bill, and it has been through an excellent Committee and Special Public Bill Committee procedure, but I believe it is worthy of stress-test through these amendments this evening.
Amendments 1 and 2 go to the very heart of the Bill and propose that the presumption that digital assets cannot be fitted within the existing two categories of property be reversed. Consider something such as an NFT, a non-fungible token. To put it in simpler terms, it is largely a piece of electronic software on the hardware of a digital ledger. It has an existence beyond its legal form, but it is difficult to possess in the way you would possess, for example, a bag of gold. In that sense, the Bill is structured to enable this third category. The amendment seeks to stress-test that and reverse that presumption, as we have seen in some of the recent judgments in Australia and Singapore.
I am not suggesting that this amendment is the right amendment; it is merely put to stress-test how the Bill is set out. It seeks to stress-test the claim made by Professor Green, when she gave evidence to our Special Public Bill Committee, that this amendment would take the bite out of the Bill. If indeed it would take the bite out of the Bill, then it would not satisfy my three Cs test of what the Bill needs to achieve if we are to realise the opportunities and the economic benefits from digital assets. Those three tests are: clarity, certainty and consistency.
Amendment 3 seeks to assist with this by suggesting codes of practice that could be brought to bear to assist the courts when they come to consider issues around digital assets. With that, I beg to move Amendment 1.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and his passion for all things digital. But this is a good yet very modest Bill, and I not sure that we need stress-testing at this point in the proceedings. Through the Special Public Bill process that we have all been through over the last few months, we have kicked the tyres pretty hard already on this. We have taken evidence and had amendments in Committee, so I will be extremely brief and perhaps disappoint the noble Lord by not being in favour of any of his amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, traditionally, English common law has recognised two forms of property: tangible things in possession and intangible things in action, such as debts and shares. However, as we have heard, with the rise of digital assets such as crypto- currencies, tokens and non-fungible tokens we encounter items that do not fit neatly into either category. These assets are becoming essential in modern commerce, and it is vital that English law remain at the forefront of international trade, safeguarding London’s position as a legal and financial hub.
The Law Commission looked at this and proposed a third category of property to accommodate such digital innovations, allowing for legal evolution without imposing rigid definitions that might exclude future technologies. The commission emphasised that statutory intervention must not undermine the existing legal clarity or introduce unnecessary complications. The flexibility of English common law is a strength; it has already adapted to address key questions in the digital sphere. The current regime offers a balance of predictability and adaptability, making our jurisdiction well positioned to lead in this space.
The Bill the commission drafted, which is now before us, does just that. We have tested it thoroughly in Committee. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, and while I recognise them, the Bill has been carefully drafted and it is not necessary to amend it—save for Amendment 6, which we will come to later.
Addressing Amendments 1 and 2 in a little more detail, it will be for the courts to develop the law on the treatment of this category or to widen existing categories—whichever way one wishes to look at it. The proposed wording of Amendment 1 goes too far. The Bill’s wording is elegant and encompasses digital assets, which are not easily categorised in the conventional classifications. It also encompasses other things not yet contemplated or in our imagination but which, when they do come into existence, will be thought by the courts to deserve rights. That is what the Bill is doing; it is expressly not limited by over-definition. It achieves protection for these as yet unimagined things, while making it clear that existing digital assets will be protected.
We would be bold to depart from the views of Professor Green, chair of the Law Commission report, who is very hostile to this sort of amendment. When asked about one such suggested amendment, she said:
“That would really take away the whole bite of the Bill … the whole mischief that it addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these categories”.
Therefore, we cannot support Amendments 1 and 2.
Turning to Amendment 3, on codes of practice, we follow the reasoning which I have outlined. Any code of practice risks definitions which do not accommodate a new type of activity or entity outside its scope, but which is worthy of protection. Equally, the code might suggest that property rights be given to an activity which, after the detailed investigation that a trial can give, a court rightly decides should not be so protected. It is best left to the courts, which will receive evidence, hear arguments from competing parties and be able to resolve those matters. The six-month period is too soon. If the Law Commission had thought this a good idea, it could have said so. It is contrary to the tenor of its lengthy report. If the Act would, in five years’ time or whenever, benefit from amendment, it should be done with the benefit of hindsight and experience. Meanwhile, such amendment is premature.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for raising these issues. They get to the heart of the Bill: whether there is a need to recognise a further category in statute, and whether it is helpful to provide further guidance to the courts on the attributes to consider.
On the first of these points, the Government’s firm view is that the Bill’s current approach is the right one. Some stakeholders hold to the two-category view and say that there can be no further category beyond things in action and things in possession. This view is understandable but has its roots in history, including in an influential statement in a 19th-century case. That statement was made at a time when assets such as crypto tokens simply could not have been conceived of. The world has moved on, and the law needs to move on with it.
The Special Public Bill Committee heard from stakeholders who would prefer to see these emerging assets categorised as things in action, on the basis that their approach would give more legal certainty. However, the need for new solutions is the result of the unique features of these assets and not of their categorisation. For example, the existing rules on transfer of things in action, or on remedies for interference in things in action, are simply not adequate for assets such as crypto tokens. Either way, the law, through the courts, will have to respond to their new features.
The Bill is the result of a three-year project by the Law Commission during which all arguments, including the arguments in favour of this amendment, were considered in full. A strong majority of consultees to both consultations undertaken by the commission expressed a preference for a further category. Most respondents to the committee’s call for evidence also supported this approach. This approach came from a wide range of stakeholders—from legal professionals to industry bodies and academics.
Another advantage of the Bill’s approach is that it is technologically neutral. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, excellently put it in Committee, the Bill
“encompasses other things not yet contemplated or in our imagination”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 16.]
The Bill future-proofs our law in the way the other two categories do not. As Professor Green put it in her evidence, as quoted by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sandhurst,
“the whole mischief that it addresses is that we no longer have to be stuck with these categories”.
By removing any uncertainty around a possible further category, we will give the courts the freedom to develop our common law. This approach allows them to consider and respond to the unique features of digital assets, and other assets that we cannot yet foresee.
This flexibility is also relevant to the question raised by Amendment 3: whether the Secretary of State should publish codes of practice about the attributes of digital things that confer personal property rights. The Government’s view is that requiring the publication of codes of practice could undermine the flexibility that the current drafting affords the courts. The Law Commission considered the features of assets that have characteristics of property but do not fit into the existing categories. However, City law firms, senior barristers, financial industry groups and crypto industry groups gave clear feedback that a more detailed statutory provision incorporating these features could be counter- productive.
The Government are concerned that the same issues could stem from publishing a code of practice. It could create unhelpful boundary challenges, lead to undue complexity, and prevent the common law being able to respond flexibly and dynamically to new technologies and unforeseen challenges. This feedback was reflected in some of the written evidence submitted to the Bill Committee.
As noble Lords will remember, the Bill Committee was firmly in favour of maintaining the Bill’s current approach. My noble friend Lord Stansgate got to the heart of the matter when he said:
“The whole point of the Bill is to set out something relatively simple, to take into account new technology and to enable judges to develop common law”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 19.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so eloquently put it:
“The relative silence of the current Bill is golden”.—[Official Report, 3/2/25; col. 20.]
The Bill deliberately does not try to define the types of assets that may fall within its scope. Rather, it unblocks the common law and leaves it to the courts to develop the appropriate principles, building on centuries of world-renowned common-law development. By doing this, English and Welsh and Northern Ireland law can remain dynamic, globally competitive and a useful tool for those in the digital asset market. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this short debate. I say particularly to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones: disappointing? Never. The whole purpose of tabling these amendments has been set out eloquently through the debate and what I was seeking to achieve was to have those arguments on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. I am delighted that that is exactly what has occurred, so I am more than happy—not disappointed at all—to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Review: impact of digital assets being treated as property by virtue of this Act(1) On the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an economic impact assessment of digital assets being treated as property by virtue of this Act.(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—(a) the estimated change in demand for, and use of, digital assets and the impact of this on data centre power usage, and(b) the current level of data centre provision and its ability to meet any increase in demand for digital assets.”
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I will speak also to Amendment 5 in my name. I will be very brief with these because I accept that they go some way beyond the central thrust of the Bill.
My main reason for bringing these amendments back on Report is to make the point, and have it on the record, about the impact of data centres and the fact that they are in many ways the foundries, the furnaces, that are fuelling this fourth industrial revolution, not least when it comes to digital assets but also, of course, when it comes to AI and other new technologies. So it is imperative to think on the implications of, I hope, a massively expanding digital assets ecosystem and economy in this country, and the underlying policy implications for many other government departments.
I also brought the amendment back because, having been told that data centres were not an issue to be brought in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, I thought, well, if not the Data (Use and Access) Bill, why not the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill? They will continue to be an area of contention rather than consensus, of potential negativity rather than positivity, if all government departments relevant to the issue do not come together and decide what the UK’s data centre strategy is, not least in terms of the provision of that resource for digital assets. If the Government get that right, it should be a purely positive path, but looking at issues around PUE and the siting and fuelling of these data centres is critical.
In brief, Amendment 5 seeks to make it clear that no further regulations will be required in relation to digital assets, stablecoins and other tokenised forms as a consequence of the Bill passing. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am afraid I am also going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, because I do not think these amendments are necessary. But I agree with many of the things he said, especially about the evidence that we received. I had never been a Member of a Special Public Bill Committee before— I do not know how many of your Lordships in the Chamber tonight have been—but it is really a very interesting procedure. When I consider the length of the Bill compared with the height of the amount of evidence that we received both in writing and orally, I do not think I have ever seen such a strong proportion of that kind.
I want to say one thing about Amendment 4 and data centres. I agree that this is not really within the remit of the Bill. If it was not for the noble Lord tabling all these amendments, we would not have had a Report debate of any kind, so I thank him for that too. The House is beginning to understand, I think, that data centres use phenomenal quantities of electricity —it is staggering. I do not know how the future is going to unfold but when the noble Lord refers to them as the “foundries” of the 21st-century economy, I think he makes a very good point.
I am a member of the UK Engagement with Space Committee of your Lordships’ House and one of the many interesting things that is beginning to emerge there is that in the future data centres may be placed in space—where, incidentally, it is easier to keep them cool—and then you would send the data to and from. I agree that this goes much more widely than the debate on the Bill.
I conclude by saying that when the noble Lord says the world is watching, I agree with that too, because the Bill will allow common law to develop in the way that common law has done for decades. It will also entrench the central position of London as a jurisdiction for the arbitration of disputes and arguments about digital assets, and I think and hope that London will continue to do that. Therefore, there is that element to the Bill, which I strongly support, although I am in favour of the noble Lord withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I can be extremely brief because I agree with much of what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is nothing if not consistent. We had data centres brought up in the Data (Use and Access) Bill and in this Bill, and I am sure he will ruthlessly bring up data centres on every possible occasion. Of course, the Government need a data centre strategy but the primary purpose of this Bill is very specific: to resolve the Colonial Bank v Whinney issue that the Law Commission wished to do. That is what we should be focused on today.
The Bill does not make digital assets property. It removes a legal barrier to their recognition as such by confirming that the traditional twofold classification is not exhaustive. That is all the Bill does, so I think that requiring a comprehensive economic impact assessment does not flow directly from this very narrow but useful Bill. I feel the same way about Amendment 5, which proposes a review within six months. Again, that goes way too far. Framing the review as being triggered
“due to any such digital assets being treated as property by virtue of this Act”
suggests that the Bill creates the property status, which is misleading.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, already knows all the arguments against his amendments so I shall carry on no further.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, an impact assessment is not practicable, whether in six months’ or three months’ time, we respectfully suggest. It would be premised on too many uncertainties. What we know is that the Bill will do no harm and is likely to do good. We have, if you like, the theoretical impact assessment of the Law Commission, which looked at all the issues in great detail. So, I suggest that we do not need this amendment, and we would not support it.
As to Amendment 5, six months’ time is, again, with respect, too short. I would suggest in parentheses that a review in five years’ time to see whether it is useful, whether it needs further amendment, how it is operating and what the effect is on the London market and litigation in London, could well be of value. Whether it needs a formal assessment or not is something that can be looked at four years down the road, but this is early days. We simply do not know enough. With respect to my noble friend, a review in a few months’ time will not help us at all. We do not support the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, at the outset, I acknowledge the long-standing advocacy for technological innovation of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. I also pay tribute to his deep commitment to ensuring that our regulatory framework is fit for purpose in an increasingly digital world.
These amendments would mandate reviews of the impact of digital assets being treated as property by virtue of the Bill’s provisions. One amendment requires the Government to publish an economic impact assessment of the Bill on the day the Act is passed. As noble Lords will know, the Government published an impact assessment when introducing the Bill. I hope it will assist and reassure noble Lords if I highlight some of the most salient points.
As the impact assessment sets out, the Bill is expected to bring clarity to personal property law, reduce uncertainty for businesses and ensure England, Wales and Northern Ireland remain leading locations in which to innovate. Due to limited data, it is very hard, if not impossible, to quantify these benefits. However, we think the Bill will help ensure our laws remain competitive on an international stage.
The impact assessment considered the potential for the Bill to encourage the use of digital assets. However, this impact is highly debateable, given the Bill merely confirms the position that has been gradually emerging through case law in recent years. It is not expected or intended that the Bill will cause a significant increase in uptake of digital assets.
The same amendment calls for the impact assessment to cover the estimated change in demand for, and use of, digital assets. The assessment would also have to cover data centre power usage, the current level of data centre power provision and its ability to meet any increase in demand for digital assets. This follows on from the points the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made in Committee. He mentioned that he would like to hear that the Government are committed to data centres being fuelled through renewable energy and a discussion around where data centres would be located, given the value they can bring to the country. Although these are important points, they sit outside the remit of the Bill.
I say to my noble friend Lord Stansgate that whether a data centre is in space or not is also outside the relevant part of the Bill.
Furthermore, it would likely be impossible to accurately estimate the long-term effect of the Bill on data centres. There are many greater influences on these areas, such as cloud computing, AI and general data storage. This will make it extremely difficult to assess the impact of the Bill. Therefore, such a review could result in speculative or misleading conclusions.
The other amendment calls for reviewing the
“need for further regulation of stablecoins and tokenised deposits”
within six months of the Act passing. Here, I reiterate that the Bill does not specify how the courts will treat these particular digital assets. If they were considered personal property under the Bill, this would not affect the need—or not—for regulation. The Bill deals only with a discrete matter of private law. Therefore, the proposed review is unlikely to yield any meaningful conclusions.
Moreover, issues around regulating stablecoins and tokenised deposits are already being addressed. The Government’s forthcoming financial services regulatory regime of crypto assets will include a new regulated activity for stablecoin issuance in the UK. Overseas-issued stablecoin will be regulated in the UK in line with other crypto assets. This will ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority can properly manage stablecoin-specific risks.
In addition, the Prudential Regulation Authority has published its views on the risks associated with tokenised deposits and how it expects banks to address those risks. Where tokenisation does not change the underlying economics and fundamental nature of a depositor’s claim, the PRA’s prudential regulatory framework will treat a tokenised deposit similarly to a traditional deposit. Where banks intend to take tokenised deposits from retail customers, the PRA expects this to be done in a way that meets the PRA’s rules for eligibility for depositor protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
The Bill takes a minimalist approach to achieve the specific aim of unblocking the common law on personal property. While I am very pleased that I have had the opportunity to debate these amendments, the Government fear that they could cause unnecessary bureaucracy and regulatory duplication, which could increase uncertainty rather than alleviate it.
As set out already, we think there are significant benefits of the Bill, such as bringing clarity to English, Welsh and Northern Irish law and keeping it world leading. We will, of course, monitor those benefits closely in the future. Given that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this brief debate and say, again, “Job done: mission accomplished”, on the record, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to restate the long title more clearly, so that it is consistent with the operative Clause of the Bill.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 6, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and, indeed, the Minister, for adding their names to it. I also take the opportunity again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for the excellent job he did in chairing, steering and keeping us focused through our Special Public Bill Committee procedure.
Amendment 6 is incredibly simple and straightforward: it takes the Long Title of the Bill and makes a change so that it fits perfectly with the operative clause within the Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, the Long Title has no operative impact. So, why go to the trouble of making the change? Firstly, for issues of clarity, consistency and certainty—to tidy up the Bill at this stage. But, far more importantly than that, because, as mentioned in earlier groups, the world is watching when we pass this legislation, and the signal that the Bill sends out is critically important. That signal—the signposting—means that, if anyone, anywhere on the planet, merely reads only the Long Title, they will get from that the purpose of the Bill, what it is all about and how it is going about it. It is a simple, straightforward amendment, which I am delighted the Minister has put his name to.
Lastly, as these are almost the last words I will say on the Bill, I will say just two things. We hear very often in these parts about a black hole measured in various billions. What about the opportunities enabled through the Bill for a goldmine? A digital, virtual, intangible goldmine, yes, but a potential digital assets goldmine measured in the trillions. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is future facing, future-proofing, growth enabling ground-breaking and good for innovation, investment, citizen, consumer and the country. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and agree with his amendment. My only regret is that I did not sign it, because you can have four names on an amendment and, if I had another life, I would have immediately put my name to it. I echo his comments about the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who was a wonderful chair of this Special Public Bill Committee. I may never sit on another such committee—who knows?—but it was an enjoyable and interesting experience. To match up the Long Title with what is called the operative clause in the Bill is a good and sensible thing. Apart from anything else, the Bill replaces an obscure late-19th century judgment of which I confess I had never heard before I went into the committee, but it is a Bill for the future and, with that, I wish it well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I, too, add to our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who was a very good chair. It was a very harmonious committee, as these Law Commission Committees tend to be. I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for a change, but it is very lucky we did not pass Amendment 1, that is all I can say.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, we support this amendment, for the reasons advanced by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for all the hard work which he put in and to our excellent clerk, Matthew Burton. It is a pleasure now to see this Bill reach a happy conclusion, I hope.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to restate the Long Title of the Bill, and I have put my name to it as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said. The amendment was tabled by the noble Lord but was suggested by Adam Temple, a senior barrister who specialises in financial services, when he gave evidence. This amendment addresses a slight discrepancy between the wording in the Long Title and the Bill’s operative clause. This discrepancy in wording came about following the Law Commission consultation on the draft Bill, which led to Clause 1 being amended to address concerns that it could be read as providing that any thing was capable of being personal property. That is not the intended effect of the Bill. Therefore, the wording changed from saying that a thing may be capable of being an object of property rights to instead saying that a thing is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it does not fit into the traditional categories of things in possession or things in action.
At the time of drafting, the Law Commission did not feel it was necessary to make a corresponding change to the Long Title. However, several noble Lords raised concerns about this discrepancy during our Committee debate and asked the Government to consider it further. Having reflected carefully, we are satisfied that making this change will not have any substantive effect. We are therefore content to accept this amendment so that the Long Title is consistent with the operative clause of the Bill. I end by thanking the noble Lord for his constructive discussions on this point. As for thanking noble Lords, I will leave that to the last stage of the Bill.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - Division on Baroness Grender’s amendment - Ayes: 54 / Noes: 124 - Baroness Grender’s amendment disagreed.
22:11 - Division on Lord Roborough’s amendment. - Ayes: 28 / Noes: 123 - Lord Roborough’s amendment disagreed.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I am in receipt of delinked payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to delinked payments in England in 2025. These reductions are a vital part of the transition to more targeted public investment supporting farmers to boost nature and sustainable food production.
A fatal amendment has been tabled that, if approved, would mean the agricultural transition would effectively go into reverse, as no reductions at all would be applied. I want to be clear that voting against this SI would not keep payments at the level they were for 2024. Instead, it would mean that delinked payments would go back to the 2020 subsidy levels. The fatal amendment also calls for the reinstatement of applications to SFI, but, without the reductions set by this instrument, we cannot fund SFI. Indeed, payments under many of our farming schemes would need to stop completely.
The regret amendment that has been tabled expresses concern about the impact of the reductions on farm viability. This Government recognise that farmers run businesses that need to make a profit, and we understand the valuable role that these businesses play in the wider rural community. We want to support farm businesses to be more profitable and address the underlying problems so that they can thrive.
Delinked payments do not achieve that. Delinked payments do not offer and never have offered good value for money for farmers or the taxpayer. They are part of the move away from the basic payment scheme that saw 50% of money go to the top 10% of farms while doing little for food production or nature. We are now in the fifth year of the seven-year transition away from these subsidies. The reductions to delinked payments set out in this instrument were announced last October. These reductions accelerate the end of the era of payments to large and wealthy landowners simply for owning land.
However, the Government recognise the impact that these changes may have on some farmers, which is why we are trying to make them in the fairest way possible. We are applying the reductions in payment in bands, like income tax bands, meaning that those with the broadest shoulders will see the highest reductions.
I assure noble Lords that every penny released from delinked payments is staying within the sector. The planned reductions are necessary to help fund investment in the environmental land management schemes and our other grants for farmers. So our support for farmers remains steadfast. We have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over a two-year period, with £2.4 billion of this for 2025-26. That includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. We have allocated £1.8 billion in 2025-26 for environmental land management schemes. This will boost Britain’s food security and accelerate the transition to the more resilient and sustainable farming sector that we want to see. Importantly, we are on track to spend the farming budget in full.
There are record numbers of farmers in our environmental land management schemes; 50,000 farm businesses, and more than half of all farmed land in England—that is, over 4 million hectares—are now managed under these schemes. Figures for 1 March show that that includes around 38,000 live multiyear sustainable farming incentive agreements, and we expect to publish more information about our revamped SFI offer this summer, following the spending review.
The new Countryside Stewardship higher-tier offer will open for applications for invited farmers and land managers later this year. Applications for stand-alone capital grants will also reopen this summer after a short pause, and we are investing in around 50 landscape recovery projects that were awarded funding through rounds 1 and 2. In February, we announced increased payment rates for higher-level stewardship across a range of options from this year.
We are also extending the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme until March 2026. This extension will support farmers in protected landscapes to transition towards profitable food production, while at the same time delivering nature recovery and mitigating the impacts of climate change.
We are continuing to invest in farmers through our other grant offers, with up to £110 million available in new grant competitions that are starting this spring. This includes up to £47 million for Farming Equipment and Technology Fund grants, as well as up to £63 million available for Farming Innovation Programme grants. Those will help to improve productivity, trial new technologies and drive innovation in the sector. We are also expanding the animal health and welfare pathway, with more funded vet visits now available to farmers. Further, over 26,000 farmers have made use of free one-to-one business support through the Farming Resilience Fund to help them through the agricultural transition.
By investing in healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water, the Government are investing in the foundations that farm businesses rely on to produce high crop yields and turn over a profit. Adopting the sustainable farming practices rewarded under our schemes will also help farmers to reduce their input costs. Reducing delinked payments as planned enables us to make these investments through our other schemes, and we believe this will serve the best long-term interests of farming.
I welcome the recent appointment of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, to lead the review of farm profitability to provide short-term, medium-term and long-term recommendations to the Government. The noble Baroness’s review will also help our development of the 25-year farming road map in order to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come.
As we set out in our plan for change, we are focused on supporting our farmers by boosting rural economic growth and strengthening Britain’s food security. This SI is an essential step in building this future. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Grender
Leave out from “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations as they accelerate the reduction of delinked payments made to British farmers; regrets the failure to establish alternative funding schemes; and calls on the Government to reinstate applications to the Sustainable Farming Incentive scheme.”
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation of these regulations and I recognise her strong commitment to solving this vexed issue. Sadly, the instrument proposes deeply damaging and cruel cuts to the payments expected by our farmers. That is why, on behalf of these Benches, I am asking that this House decline the regulations. This is a fatal amendment because the proposals represent a potentially fatal blow to the livelihoods of countless family farmers and small agricultural businesses across England.
This dramatic acceleration of the reduction of delinked payments for 2025 was always intended to be phased out gradually as part of the agricultural transition period from 2021 to 2027. However, these regulations propose a staggering 76% reduction on the first £30,000 of a farmer’s payment and a total reduction on any amount above that threshold. For the vast majority of recipients—some 80% of the 82,000 farmers who receive these payments and whose entitlement is £30,000 or less—their direct payment will be slashed by 76%. If we compare this cut to 2024, when the reduction for this group was half, we find that this is a significantly steeper cut, applied in one brutal blow.
The Government claim that these accelerated reductions are necessary to fund the environmental land management schemes, which are meant to reward farmers for delivering environmental benefits. This principle of public money for public goods is one that Liberal Democrats have supported, in line with many environmental organisations, but the Government’s handling of this transition has been nothing short of a disaster, with a breathtaking overnight change ditching an original promise of six weeks’ notice.
Just last month, in that overnight change, the sustainable farming incentive, or SFI, was scrapped for new applications with just 30 minutes’ notice. The timing was particularly jarring as these regulations propose cuts based on the assumption of increased demand for ELM schemes. The NFU—I thank it for its briefing—is clear that it is unacceptable for the Government to remove both the old payments and the new schemes. It rightly asks that the SFI be reopened or, failing that, that these regulations to slash delinked payments be withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I should inform the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a thorough introduction to this SI. I have tabled a regret amendment on behalf of my Benches, but, in reality, it is on behalf of all English farmers. Regret is too gentle a word to describe the mood among the farming community.
Before I address the issues, I first draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer and landowner. I am directly impacted by this SI, with a 90% reduction in my delinked payments. I am at least sheltered by the SFIs that I have signed up to; that is not the case for the majority of farmers.
When in government, we replaced the basic payments scheme with delinked payments based on historical BPS claims. This was intended to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods. The reductions we put in place put these delinked payments on a gradual glide path to zero in 2028. This Government have dramatically accelerated that decline. This effectively ends the seven-year transition that English farmers had been led to expect three years early, upending their budgets.
The Government promised that this abrupt reduction would release more funding for sustainable farming incentives, Countryside Stewardship schemes and large-scale landscape recovery schemes—collectively known as environmental land management schemes. Despite a commitment to give up to six weeks’ notice of a planned closure of SFI applications, the Secretary of State abruptly closed applications with 30 minutes notice at 6 pm on 11 March, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has said, apparently breaking two commitments at once.
Only a minority of farmers who were previously receiving BPS had actually signed up to SFIs. Today, I am speaking particularly for two cohorts of farmers who are bearing the brunt of this SI’s excessive reduction. The delinked payments cut is particularly painful for those who were unable to apply for SFIs as they were already in environmental schemes that were less profitable but designed to work alongside this phased reduction in delinked payments. Those farmers were simply abandoned, with no compassion from anyone.
When the SFIs were closed to new applications, this affected another cohort of farmers, who were expecting to replace old environmental schemes and the delinked payments with SFIs but who had not yet completed their SFI applications. These farmers are simply in despair. There is no transparency over the timing of the payments under new SFIs, nor what their nature will be. There is certainly no confidence that they will enable these farmers to continue delivering environmental goods as they had planned, or even, potentially, to remain in business.
The Minister earlier stated that the details of revised SFIs will be released this summer. Many farm businesses are in crisis after delinked payments and the cut of SFI applications. Could the Minister please indicate how much has been identified within the existing farming support budget for these new SFIs?
Our actions in government demonstrated our commitment to paying farmers with public money for the public goods they delivered, as well as allowing them to plan ahead financially with certainty. This Government have acted in a way that allows for no financial planning by farmers and have created incentives for those farmers now so disadvantaged to compromise environmental principles and push for greater output in order to remain in business.
Farming is a competitive industry. Food production is largely commoditised, and our farmers compete not just against their neighbours but also against farmers across our country, our continent and the world. Although many of our farmers are capable of competing effectively, smaller farms, particularly in less-favoured areas, can find this competition too much. When we rightly include our high demands for animal welfare and environmental protection, this competitiveness is further undermined. Is it any great surprise that the average age of farmers is 60, and there appears to be limited interest in the next generation engaging?
Farmers in Wales, Scotland and the rest of Europe continue to enjoy much higher levels of financial support. Even the great prairie farmers of the US enjoy heavily subsidised crop insurance and the massive ethanol blending mandate supporting corn prices. Where are the hedgerows, wild birdseed belts and woodlands on these prairies, protecting and enhancing the environment? How does the Minister expect our farmers to be able to provide competitively priced food, protect and enhance the environment, and provide all the other public goods, as well as supporting their families, when the Government slash support and environmental payments at a moment’s notice?
In answer to my question on Monday in your Lordships’ House, the Minister said that diversification and improvements in the environment are two of the three central pillars of the 25-year road map that the Government are developing for farming. Cutting SFIs at a moment’s notice seems a strange way to demonstrate that commitment. My question was about how nature restoration levies in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill as drafted will go to Natural England, rather than farmers and landowners, and be used for developing its environmental development plans, potentially on land that it will compulsorily purchase. This is a prime opportunity for the Government to help farmers diversify and supplement ELMS. Why does the Minister not want this opportunity to be offered to farmers?
I am pleased to see that the party to my left have followed my regret amendment by tabling a fatal amendment. It is good to see noble Lords from many, if not all, Benches working together to support our farming community. As is the long-standing custom of this House, we on these Benches will not support the fatal amendment. In this case, this would undermine the Government’s power to control their finances and, as the Minister rightly pointed out, undo the previous transition from delinked payments to ELMS. However, I strongly urge the Minister and all members of her Government to understand the terrible position this SI is putting many farmers in, and to act quickly to help those affected. Either moderate the impact of this SI or reinstate the existing SFIs. I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter, as I have been involved in UK agriculture for my whole life. Normally, I try to be helpful and even occasionally to inject some humour into my remarks—with varying degrees of success, admittedly. But I am sorry to say that, tonight, I am cross—not with the Minister, for whom I have great respect and indeed affection. But the fatal amendment and regret amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough—which they have so devastatingly put to us tonight—highlight the frankly chaotic and opaque financial position for UK agriculture. SFI, Defra’s flagship scheme, ran out of money and slammed shut without any warning. The House of Commons Minister called this a “cause for celebration”. I wonder what would happen if DWP ran out of money and tried announcing something like that to the House.
The Minister mentioned the existing higher-level stewardship agreements, of which my family holds one. These were acknowledged by the Defra House of Commons Minister as having punitively low rates, and it was announced weeks ago that these would be updated before now, but nothing has been heard since. I am afraid that the Minister was wrong when she told us earlier that they have been increased. I have just checked the Defra website, which says that we agreement holders will be written to “by April” with increased rates. I ask noble Lords to check their diaries: today is 30 April, and nothing has been received.
The next iteration of the SFI, we are told, will be after the spending review, which probably tells us all we need to know about it. Meanwhile, the accepted tapering down to zero, over time, of payments under the BPS, as UK agriculture exited EU support, has been out of the blue cut by a totally unexpected 76% for smaller farmers—all of this while speechifying about environmental schemes, food security and a grand-sounding 25-year plan for UK agriculture, which no farmers I have spoken to have even heard of.
I am sorry to say this, but Defra’s credibility—and I have been involved in agriculture my whole life—has never been lower in the eyes of the sector it is supposed to support, and what little trust remained has now evaporated. All that said, while these Motions are both accurate and justified, I shall, given my involvement in the industry, with great sadness abstain if they are put to the vote.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, suggested that there was broad support for his Motion, and I rise to broaden that support and offer the Green Party’s support for both these Motions. I have no personal interest to declare, but the Green Party declares its great concern about food security in the UK and the state of the countryside in what is one of the most nature- depleted corners of this battered planet.
The background to this issue is the CAP scheme area payments. The Green Party has always argued against them, saying that they were deeply flawed and that those with the broadest shoulders got the biggest shovels of cash, while smaller farmers and growers got little or, in too many cases, failed to qualify at all. Our countryside was trapped in a world in which the message delivered by a series of Governments was, “Get big or get out of farming and growing”. We had the Agriculture Bill, your Lordships’ debate on which I took a substantial part in. It aimed to focus on environmental improvements and, indeed, after the intervention of your Lordships’ House, acknowledged the importance of food production. The SFI was supposed to be the scheme delivering on the environmental side of that. As we have already heard at length—I shall not track back over that ground—it was literally slammed shut. Many different metaphors could apply, but that seems a good one to me.
Many farmers are now clearly in a profoundly unsustainable position financially. They are being pounded continually by the dominance of the supermarkets and multinational food companies and are being forced to produce commodities rather than getting a fair price for their products. My particular area of concern is horticulture, vegetables and fruit, which is crucial for food security and public health.
I am not sure whether anyone has referred to the National Audit Office, which said that delay in the rollout of new schemes had made it difficult for farmers to plan their businesses and created “widespread uncertainty and risk”. That is true of many areas of our society, but particularly our farmers: if there is no possibility of planning for the future, it is essentially impossible to farm.
I have one constructive point to make, and I hope that the Minister will be able to agree with me on this, or at least accept my suggestion. She may know that there is a fast-growing campaign for a basic income for farmers as a way of supporting small farmers and growers in particular to be agricultural producers. This aims to guarantee financial security; boost mental well-being and reduce stress; promote inclusivity, innovation and ecological stewardship of the land; and strengthen local food systems and public procurement. Will the Minister agree to have a look at the basic income for farmers campaign, and perhaps arrange to meet me and the campaigners?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to make a brief intervention. I have absolutely no interests to declare and I have no criticism of my noble friend the Minister or the Minister in the other place, the Member for Cambridge. In fact, in 14 years in opposition, he was the only shadow Minister who ever contacted me to ask me to talk about my experience of Defra and MAFF during the new Labour years of government. He listened, and that was fine—it was good to do, and I have no complaints about that at all.
However, I am reminded of a time when, at that Dispatch Box in about early 2002, when I was on my third ministry and the first in this House, I said that, in my experience to that date, the Treasury had
“wrecked every good idea I have come across”—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 837.]
in government. Obviously, the Chancellor was not very happy about that. The fact is that, three ministries later, before I left government, I was thoroughly justified. We have a classic example of this tonight. I am in favour of the CAP going; I have no problem with that—I am a remainer, but that is not the issue. I am in favour of reform of the CAP but, to wreck a good idea, it takes the Treasury. I do not hold Ministers responsible for this at all.
The fact of the matter is that you go back through the memories on this issue. The Minister talked about diversification. I can remember a very senior official saying to me when I was at Defra—I left Defra in 2008, so we are going back a little bit—that they did not really pay much attention to a particular farmer in the Lake District because he was not a full-time farmer, because he diversified into writing. That was what was said to me—it was because he was not a full-time farmer. Noble Lords are obviously aware of who I am referring to.
It is only my respect for this House and our procedures that prevents me walking out, because I have not the slightest intention of voting to support these regulations. I understand the rules about fatal amendments, but the Government would have to pick it up and do it again—that is the reality. We have the power, but we do not use it; as a senior Cross-Bencher said recently, powers you do not use, you lose, so there will come a time when we do not have that. I do not intend to vote to support this, so I will do exactly what my friend from the gym, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said and I will abstain on both amendments. I will not hang around during the votes; I shall go.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I add my name to those regretting these reckless regulations. I am particularly saddened, because they are just one element of a multipronged attack on our farmers, the supply trades and the entire food chain in one of the most important industries and sectors in our economy. I declare my interest in that I am involved in farming, but more particularly in the agricultural supply trade in the fertiliser industry. I therefore know more than most the damage and the harm that the Government are doing to those people who live in the sticks.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; he said that he does not have an interest, but we all have an interest in the food industry. We have to eat every day, and food in your belly is more important than a roof over your head. The truth is that these regulations are harming a sector that needs finance in order to be sustained, to invest to grow. I do not know what rural Britain has done to deserve this metropolitan-based Government, who have turned an understandable and instinctive indifference into outright hostility. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I do not blame the Minister, because the fault lies elsewhere. She has always been most courteous and honourable and she acts with integrity in this House, which we thank her for.
The truth, however, is that this Government must be held to account because their actions are harming today’s farming profitability, which drives tomorrow’s corporation tax revenues. They are damaging the long-term capital underpinning of the industry, which harms investment, innovation and growth. This is collapsing the cash flow, that financial lifeblood that makes it all happen. I will speak to each of those three elements in turn.
On profitability, it is a shame that the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, who is meant to be leading a review for the Government, is not in her place. She would have told us, had she been here, that farmers are already under terrible, tremendous financial pressure, caught in that pincer movement between low grain prices and elevated input costs. Tighter margins are pressured by the national insurance rises, and now there are these inexplicable plans to persevere with a fertiliser tax that could add a quarter to the cost of the most expensive input, flipping even breakeven businesses over to loss.
On the balance sheet, the effect of the agricultural property relief element of the inheritance tax has been well ventilated. I will not dwell too much on that now, save to say that it is the effect on the business property relief—slightly different—that particularly harms the self-starting, innovative and entrepreneurial tenant farmers, who live by their wits because they did not have the good fortune to inherit the land, free of charge, upon which they make their living. The effect of all these in combination is to remove the long-term generational incentives to invest in the farm, develop the countryside and the landscape, protect nature and, yes, in so doing sustain wealth in our islands, particularly in the shires, where, let us not forget, 90% of businesses employ 10 people or fewer.
I have heard the argument that the IHT can take 10 years to pay, but those annual instalments over 10 years would be more than would be paid by the rent. It is just cloud-cuckoo-land.
Landed estates, for the most part, have already incorporated, in one form or another, or transferred to trusts, so once again those farmers left behind are the smaller farmers. Totally contrary to what Minister said, with these effects Labour is targeting the little guys, the sole traders, the family partnerships, particularly in the less favoured areas, while allowing those larger, more corporate farmers—the ones she says have the broadest shoulders—off the hook.
It is the summary cancellation of slurry lagoon grants that, more than anything, could help solve the problem of river pollution. It is the cancellation of those twin cabs on pickup vehicles. Let us be clear, these pickups are tools of trades. They are as good as a tractor. They are the sort of thing that a man in a factory would have as a crucial part of the plant and machinery involved in the business. It is really a spiteful misunderstanding of how investment in plant and machinery works.
All of these contribute to this £80,000 a year profit cap on aspiration, which is the number that, through EBITDA, gets you to the million quid, at which APR and BPR kick in. If we stop that aspiration, how are we going to grow an economy? This is what is happening, so, yes, I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said: this is the Treasury holding the economy down and not letting it flourish.
As for cash flow, since we have mentioned these delinked payments, I want to put a number on this; I do not know why the number is what it is, but I have it in front of me. A specimen 680 hectare farm that would have received £160,000 in 2020 will receive just £7,200 this year, over and above all those other financial headwinds that I have mentioned. A black zero is the best that many farmers can now expect. How does that help everyone? It is particularly important because, although I do not want to dwell too much and repeat the points my noble friend Lord Roborough made from the Front Bench, there was that interplay between the delinked payments and the SFI, and by taking one away the contract between the Government, Defra, farming and the food industry, as well as the supply trades, has been broken. That has a knock-on for machinery dealers, contractors, auction marts, professionals and those family businesses disproportionately affected in the countryside.
In summary, no wonder people living outside the M25 and the conurbations think they are under attack from the cumulative effects of all these proposals in a concerted war on the countryside. The effect is also, astonishingly, to undermine the Government’s environmental objectives, because the effect of all of this is that if land is put under the plough, it must be pushed as hard as possible to get a return. I suppose that leaves more land not ploughed, for other environmental schemes. In essence, it proves that Labour does not understand the countryside, but I tell you, the countryside now understands Labour. The industry that, more than any other, meets the most basic human need—food in your belly—is being made unviable, and rural communities are paying the price.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I support the fatal amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Grender. This fatal amendment rightly calls on this House to decline to approve the Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations, on the grounds that they accelerate the reduction of delinked payments without adequately establishing alternative funding schemes.
I will not repeat the arguments that have been made by my noble friend Lady Grender and others. We are all aware of the proposed dramatic acceleration in the reduction of delinked payments for 2025, and how this has come on top of the completely unexpected and sudden withdrawal of SFI payments. These two factors leave thousands of farmers who were in the process of applying—some 6,600 applications—frozen out of the payments system, and this is unacceptable.
This double blow of slashing established payments while closing the door to the replacement scheme has thrown thousands of farming businesses into disarray. It creates severe cash-flow crises for farmers across the country and has damaged the bond of trust between our farmers and this Government. It is particularly crippling for those who are yet to enter the agri-environmental schemes, and particularly impacts our upland and small-scale family-run farms, which are still largely excluded. The average English less-favoured area livestock farm could see its profits fall by almost half. The Government claim that the money saved from delinked payments will stay within the sector and I welcome the Minister’s guarantee to say that today.
I turn now to the arguments for the need for the fatal amendment before us today. Of course, these procedures should be used rarely or reserved for the issues of utmost importance. However, if the imminent collapse of so many of our family-run farms—which are the backbone of our farming businesses—due to unhelpful bureaucracy that is causing them to go bankrupt does not fit these conditions, I do not know what does.
The Conservative Benches have their own regret amendment on the Order Paper today. A regret amendment is too little and too late to offer our family farmers any hope of real, meaningful change that will save their livelihoods in time; it will not accomplish the meaningful change we require. The Conservative Benches have already made the argument that they do not support fatal amendments by convention. A simple look at history shows that this is simply not correct. The House of Lords Library briefing that I asked for shows that there have been 21 Divisions on fatal amendments since the start of the 2014-15 parliamentary Session.
Equally, the notion that the Conservatives do not call votes on their own fatal amendments is also historically incorrect. I remind the Conservative Benches that they called a vote on a fatal amendment—and won it, by the way—in response to the Blair Government’s proposals to prevent non-Labour candidates having an official election address at the first London mayoral elections. Other votes have been called: the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called a vote on the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 3) Order; Lord Dixon-Smith called a vote on the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations; Baroness Miller of Hendon called a vote on the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations; Baroness Blatch called a vote on the Education Act 2002 (Modification of Provisions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations. So I appeal directly to the individual Members of the Conservative Benches to put aside their current perceptions of parliamentary procedure and stand behind our farmers in their hour of need. Vote in favour of the fatal amendment before us. As the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, regret is too gentle a word.
The dire financial situation our farmers face undermines the very foundations of British farming. It puts Britain’s food security at further risk and impacts our ability to fight climate change. It disproportionately affects smaller farmers, hill farmers and our vulnerable tenant farmers. Concerns have also been raised about the competitive disadvantages of our farmers against their Scottish and Welsh counterparts. It is shocking that the Government proceed without a comprehensive impact assessment that looks at the collective effects of these changes, and their cumulative impact on our farming communities. Farmers are essential custodians of our land, producing our food and caring for our environment. They need certainty, stability and fair financial support for the vital public goods they provide. The Government’s current approach offers none of this. Approving these regulations would endorse a flawed and damaging transition. I urge all noble Lords to support the fatal amendment and send a clear message to the Government that this approach is unacceptable and they must urgently change course to support our farmers properly.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I preface my remarks by thanking my noble friend Lord Rooker for his comments. They resonate so much with me in terms of how this Government have approached the farming sector, which is to be regretted. I will go on to say much in support of my noble friend here on the Front Bench.
I always remember that my father—who was not a farmer, by the way—used to say that the Treasury does its best to strangle every good initiative at birth. I very much concur with his comments.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her explanation of the regulations before us today. I also thank her for her Answers to Written Questions on 3 April, where she laid out the Government’s plans for the reinterpretation of the sustainable farming incentive. I declare my interest as being in receipt of payments regarding a dairy farm.
However, after I submitted Written Questions to the Table Office, they were separated into distinct Questions. One became redrafted and reinterpreted and was thereby lost. However, in her Answers, which I am grateful for, she stated:
“Every penny of the reductions to delinked payments will stay within the sector”.
I know that was one of the concerns at the time of the SFI closure announcements, and I am glad she has reiterated it tonight. Her other replies on the Government’s intentions regarding SFI were extremely useful.
I have today resubmitted the Question and if I may will ask my noble friend tonight, so that it completes the picture regarding the intentions of the Government. This period of transition initiated on Brexit has been extremely long and arduous for farmers and growers. I was extremely critical of the previous Conservative Government cutting back on support payments under BPS over this transition period long before there was any clarity from government on environmental schemes ahead. That these have now been worked up and brought forward by this Government is to be welcomed.
The payment for environmental benefits has been made worthwhile and meaningful compared with the cost of the enterprise to undertake them. This has been reflected in the successful uptake of the sustainable farming incentive, leading to a full budget allocation, in contrast to the lack of uptake in the previous Conservative Government’s allocation.
My noble friend and her colleagues in the other place are to be congratulated. Now that there are meaningful programmes for environmental improvements, I can understand and appreciate that the Government wish to move ahead to these ELM schemes and hasten the change from the legacy systems of BPS in the transition. Now that there are these schemes, I cannot support these regret amendments.
However, the timing of the progressive withdrawal coincides with a pause in the success of the SFI scheme in bringing forward an oversupply of applications. It is imperative that this temporary pause is short-lived and that there is clarity on the way ahead, especially for the 3,000 to 6,000 applicants who were preparing to join the scheme.
So, my question which was overlooked and which I would now like to ask the Government is: is it their intention to maintain and continue with a universal scheme open to all farm types on an equal basis? We cannot and must not lose sight of the role of all farms in hitting environmental and sustainability targets. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the committee that any reinterpretation of SFI will continue to be available to all farms and continue to be worthwhile to bring the necessary changes and benefits to the UK’s agricultural land management?
The agricultural transition must continue to be inclusive. There has been a lot of complexity to navigate and the contemporary problems of overspend must not detract from fulfilling the promise of bringing forward a more sustainable agriculture, and I commend the department on how simple it is to enter the scheme.
Many of those in the process of an application may have been subject to the complex rules of the transition between an ELM or mid-tier Countryside Stewardship scheme, which were subject to five-year agreements, and the SFI incentive. Those farmers will need answers.
I realise that there are further dimensions around the policies that must be assessed with the forthcoming road map and the land use framework. However, I urge my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues in the department to bring forward a continuing and meaningful scheme as soon as possible.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the present financial crisis that farmers face was an inevitability the moment we voted for Brexit—I said so at the time. It was a question only of when it was going to happen. HM Treasury knew that there was a budget set in Brussels and that it could get its sticky mitts on to it; once they did so, the farmers were going to be in trouble —and in trouble they are.
My noble friend Lord Fuller was absolutely right to say that it is a much bigger issue than the SFI and the basic payment system; it is across the board. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said that Defra’s reputation is at its lowest in living memory—that is a sad thing to have to say in this House for all the farmers.
The SFI was a victim of its own success; it was too good to be true, and it was inevitable that it had to be ended or changed. Perhaps that could have been done much better, and there should have been advance warning, but, given the way it was structured, it was inevitable that the benefits were not distributed evenly.
The basic payment system, for all its faults—here I chide the Minister for portraying the beneficiaries of the basic payment system as, I think, large and wealthy landowners—was for every farm business. There was equality; it went right across the board. That is not the case for the SFI, which is one of its faults. If you look at the figures for the SFI, you will find that there are 7,800 agreements in the south-west and 1,000 agreements in the north-east. That is not an equal distribution across the country. On top of that, one needs to remember that over half of the land in England is tenant farmed—they are not large, wealthy landowners.
The need for equal distribution is an important feature for the Government to consider when adapting the scheme. We have a great opportunity now for the Government to come forward with a revised SFI scheme, but two important changes need to be made to the current scheme: first, it must be available to all on a fair basis, and, secondly, it must benefit nature.
One of the problems of the existing SFI is that it has not necessarily benefitted nature. It benefited some farmers who got in there early and made a lot of money, but the figures that I cited for the distribution of the SFI show that there were patches where nature was going to be improved and patches where nature was not getting any benefit at all. That is perhaps the only thing that I would add to my noble friend Lord Roborough’s regret amendment. I am sad that he did not include “and nature and biodiversity”, because that was part of the SFI. Yes, the farmers were going to benefit, but it was public money for public goods, and that includes biodiversity.
I will outline my particular fear, as I think this is bound to happen. A whole lot of farmers signed up to the middle tier of the Countryside Stewardship scheme in 2020, which was to last for five years. I believe that there are about 14,000 farmers in that category—the Minister might correct me if I am wrong, because it is important to get it right. Those people were the good farmers: they were ahead of the game, and they took the difficult decision to go into something that was a new idea—and new ideas tend not to work terribly well to begin with—in the expectation that, at the end of the five years, there would be another scheme for them to go into. However, what they will now find is that the doors have slammed shut: there is no scheme for those people to go into.
You can drive around the countryside, which is looking particularly good in the spring sunshine at the moment, and look at those areas of bird seed where the drills have gone down you have bird seed, leys and areas set aside for nature. Next year, they are not going to be there because those farmers have no option but to plough up all the good they have done in the last five years, put it down to corn and put the combine in. That would be a tragedy.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, the Minister knows how much I respect her, and I also respect Daniel Zeichner in the other place. Daniel, in particular, has spent many years in that portfolio, and I am conscious that these may not have been their decisions. That aside, that is the joy of collective responsibility.
The transition that has happened as a result of leaving the European Union was set out under then Secretary of State Michael Gove, who will shortly be coming to this place. I am not pretending otherwise: I was Secretary of State and inherited a plan that was unpopular with a lot of farmers, going from certainty of income to something a bit more uncomfortable. But it was the right thing to do to have a transition, recognising, as has been pointed out by the Minister—and here I disagree with my noble friend who just spoke—that just 10% of landowners were receiving half the funds. It was important to make these changes towards a more positive environmental aspect to our agriculture, recognising a lot of the harms that had been done—not intentionally—without that understanding of what some agricultural practices had started doing to biodiversity right across the country, including polluting rivers.
Back in 2018, when I was a Minister in Defra, I signed the farming rules for water to try to make sure that we began to turn circle, so that we started to see improvements. Indeed, we have seen improvements in pretty much every river across England in the last five years, none of which, however, are necessarily meeting the ecological or chemical standards. By the way, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland did not adopt these regulations. Nevertheless, there has been progress: the slurry grants, for example, helped by SFI payments more recently, will continue to bring rewards.
I appreciate that there are many Liberal Democrat Peers here to support their fatal amendment. I am not going to get into the constitutional rights and wrongs of that, but I gently point out to them that when the Agriculture Act was debated in this House, they put forward an amendment to reduce the transition period from seven years to five, so as to accelerate the transition, because they wanted more money to go into the environment a lot quicker. I am really pleased they have had a damascene conversion regarding the importance of how we support farmers, but I wish they had not put forward that suggestion back in 2020, during the design of the very schemes we are discussing today.
During my time in Defra, I was concerned. When I arrived, the first option involved soil, which, by the way, is critical not only to the future prosperity and productivity of farmers and the profitability of farming, but to the prosperity of the planet. It was right that the initial focus of Defra was treating soil well and making that the fundamental cornerstone of bringing about improvements in a variety of ways.
One of the things that concerned me was that, as we started to see the escalator—or perhaps the see-saw, if you like—moving from one to the other, we saw that although many farmers could participate, we needed to offer farmers a lot more as their income from BPS fell and we eventually transitioned to delink so as to get away from the EU rules. We needed to open up the number of options more quickly to allow more farmers to look at how those options could help them achieve the outcomes that we wanted to achieve through the environmental land management scheme.
I can honestly that say a lot of thought went into this. I had been in the department from 2016 to 2019 and when George Eustice was the Agriculture Minister. We started discussions early on about how this would work, and this is where we ended up with the seven-years proposal. Not only that, in the Agriculture Act we included a power to be able to extend beyond seven years. When considering some of the options when I was Secretary of State, I deliberately chose to act against the advice of officials, who wanted to set the taper all the way to the end of the seven years. I was concerned even at that point that it was not clear to the department or to Ministers, and I was afraid that the analytical capabilities of the RPA seemed not to be up to it. I was considering extending the transition period for delinked payments beyond the seven years, to make sure that we were not in a situation where the 10% of landowners and farmers who were getting the money were getting even more of the 50%. We wanted to make sure that farms were still viable. That is why we did not set at a particular time the final few years. It was to give us flexibility, so we could see what was going on and see whether farmers were taking up the options.
As the Minister has accurately reported, we now have more farmers involved in these agricultural environmental schemes than ever before. In the times when the UK moved part 2 of the BPS up to 15%—the maximum allowed—we had even more, and that was a good thing. But it was important that we had that flexibility, which is why I am concerned. Having got farmers to look into this, we put money in to allow them a payment to consult to help them think about how they were going to use their land. We knew that that could not just come from their own pocket. That is why we initially put in a £1,000 payment and then £2,000 in order to access that.
We changed the rules, so that you did not have to have received BPS before. Many farmers around this country were not getting any BPS at all; they were actually doing environmentally friendly things but were not getting substitution income. I choose as an example Suffolk, because that is where I used to represent, where many free-range farmers were not eligible for BPS. We changed the scheme for, for example, the pig industry—the entire pig industry was not eligible. We changed that rule because we recognised that, if we wanted to reach the environmental targets that both Houses had voted on, we needed to make sure that as many farmers and landowners as possible would get involved.
We cannot expect them necessarily to do that for free. There are plenty of rich landowners who, out of the goodness of their heart, might want to do it, but as my noble friend Lord Caithness pointed out, and as I have pointed out in farming debates before, there is sadness in where we are today. I have already seen it: farmers I visited when we were discussing how to make some of these things work are now busy ploughing up the cover crops that they planted which are no longer viable to keep the family business going. That is a huge sadness.
I am conscious that the Minister today will probably share in that sadness. It is a real sense of regret. The Government must take away the fact that, for all the talk of food security, and despite the fact that more food will be produced—as I am sure it will be—that will be at the harm of having a combination of what ELMS was seeking to achieve.
Candidly, there has been a lot of talk about underspends, but I have to say that it is quite pathetic. We always knew that this transition would be a bit like a see-saw—there would probably be a bit of an underspend, though not that much in terms of the percentage of the overall budget—but, as we opened up more options, we knew that more SFI money would be needed. That is why it was carefully managed. I am concerned that we are in this situation today, as has been pointed out, despite assuring farmers that they would get six weeks’ notice of when a scheme was going to close. Ideally, we would move to a rolling option so that it would not close, but I appreciate that this was not the practice of previous years. That was designed, again, to recognise the different seasons and the different demands on farmers. To suddenly shut it was really poor—really shabby. That is why I have advised members of the NFU and farmers locally that they should first complain to Defra and then go to the parliamentary ombudsman, because I have no doubt that this is maladministration.
I am also concerned that, in the Explanatory Memorandum to the SI, the Minister has stated that there was no problem in terms of the ECHR. Under A1P1, the expectation of receiving grants is an asset, and I have no doubt that, if people were to make a legal claim against that, they would certainly get compensation too.
In terms of where to head, there is a real issue for farming. It is not just about the inheritance tax but about the agricultural APR, the BPR and all the things that farmers spend, thinking of the long term; yet all of that is being taken away. I used to think that Labour cared about the countryside, but it does not feel that this is the case. It does not feel like it cares about rural communities, which I am sure will be looking at those Members of Parliament who voted for the SI at the other end of the Corridor.
There is a bit of a trend here. I was concerned to read in Hansard that, when the Commons debated this, the impact assessment statements were not updated because they were done in 2020 with the Agriculture Act. However, the plan was very clear then: it was set out in the Bill that there would be seven years of transition. That was the expectation set by the Government at the time. It is a true matter of regret that no impact assessment was updated.
Many of us will have spoken to farmers. According to the transparency, sadly, the Agriculture Minister did not meet any farmers between October and December 2024, when this change in policy would have been considered. However, as I said, I respect Daniel. He has been a considered shadow Minister and now Minister, but we should not be in a situation where farmers are hitting a wall. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will be killing off things such as the biodiversity metrics, which my noble friend referred to, and we will see intensification.
For those reasons, I support my party today in expressing regret. I am conscious that Members in the elected House have already made this determination, but they should do that knowing that they need farmers and landowners to produce food and that, without them, we will not achieve the environment and climate targets that have been set. It is for that reason that I support the regret amendment tabled by my noble friend.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made valuable contributions to the debate. As always, I have listened very carefully to noble Lords’ concerns. As I mentioned in opening, my husband and I are in receipt of delinked payments—previously BPS—just for our small farm, but it means that I am very aware of the kinds of reductions that noble Lords have been talking about in the debate. However, delinked payments do not address the long-term challenges faced by farmers. The Government are making the decisions to try to build a profitable and sustainable farming sector so that we can deliver Britain’s food security.
As I mentioned earlier, the reductions to the 2025 delinked payments are necessary so that we can fund the spend, both committed and projected, under our other farming schemes, which support sustainable food production. We have seen increased uptake of the environmental land management schemes and unprecedented demand for our capital grants offer.
Without this SI, the spend on delinked payments in 2025-26 would increase to £1.8 billion, leaving a £1.5 billion shortfall in the farming budget. This would mean we would need to stop funding farmers through many of our other schemes, which would go completely against what seem to be the objectives of the fatal amendment.
The money released by reducing delinked payments is being reinvested in full through our other schemes for farmers and land managers. Every single penny is staying within the sector. How the farming budget has been spent for the financial year 2023-24 is set out in the latest Farming and Countryside Programme Annual Report. We will publish our next annual report later this year, as required by the Agriculture Act 2020. In March, we published on our farming blog a breakdown of how we plan to spend the £5 billion farming budget, covering 2024-25 and 2025-26.
I do understand the concerns that the House has raised regarding farm viability. There are a number of actions that we can support farmers with to improve their profitability. As well as urging them to take advantage of our existing offers, including grants that will support productivity and help them reduce their input costs, we can help farmers to diversify their income so that businesses become more resilient.
At the NFU conference, the Secretary of State announced a raft of new policies, including using the Government’s own purchasing power to back British produce wherever possible, and making £110 million available for new grant competitions to support research and innovation, technology and equipment for farmers.
I will now try to cover a number of the questions that noble Lords raised in the debate. The first is about the closure of the SFI and the concern that this will leave farms in financial distress. I confirm that every penny in all the existing SFI agreements will be paid to farmers and any outstanding eligible applications that were submitted by 11 March will also be taken forward. I also confirm that applications for the SFI have closed only temporarily and we plan to reopen the scheme for applications once the reformed SFI offer is in place.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and my noble friend Lord Grantchester, asked what the reformed SFI offer might look like. We are working to align it with the work that we are carrying out on the land use framework and the 25-year farming road map in order to protect the most productive land and boost food security while also delivering for nature. The reformed SFI will also build in more sophisticated budget controls. As the scheme is designed and evolves, we want to listen to farmers to get their feedback to ensure that we learn from the past to improve the scheme for the future. It needs to be better targeted than previously.
On small farms, which the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in particular, asked about, we are developing new schemes so that they work for as many different types of farm as possible, including smaller farms. There was, for example, no minimum amount of land that could be entered into the sustainable farming incentive. We will continue to work closely to make sure that the offer is properly accessible for small farms. As someone who has a small farm, I think we can improve that area, and we are working on that.
Tenant farmers were also mentioned by a number of noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also mentioned the Rock review. We support the principles of the Rock review, and the department has already delivered on many of the review’s recommendations. The joint Defra and industry farm tenancy forum, which represents tenant farmers, landlords and advisers, will continue to play an active role in feeding back issues from the tenanted sector into Defra. The joint forum will help us continue to evolve our schemes to be accessible to tenants and to encourage collaboration between landlords and tenants in relation to environmental schemes. Working with the farm tenancy forum, we have also looked to remove penalties for tenants who may have to exit a scheme early if their tenancy ends unexpectedly. Our survey data shows that over a third of applications for SFI came from mixed-tenure and wholly tenanted farms.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of farm profitability. We publish regular statistics on farm business income in England and other data related to farm businesses. For example, in March, we published the average farm business income forecasts, and our recently updated farming evidence pack sets out an extensive range of data to provide an overview of agriculture in the UK and the contribution of farm payments to farm incomes. That includes analysis by sector, location and type of land tenure. That kind of data is really important as we look forward to redesigning the schemes. The years 2021-22 and 2022-23 saw record highs in average farm business income at all farm levels, which was largely driven by higher output prices. Clearly, although there will be differences from farm to farm, we expect that the average farm was able to build some reserves to aid the ability to absorb the subsidy reductions that came in during the transition period.
Transitioning from the legacy agreements into new agreements was also mentioned. We are currently reviewing our approach to transitioning farmers from existing agreements into the new schemes. We expect to publish more information about this following the spending review. In the meantime, we have announced that we will increase the payment rates for higher-level stewardship agreement holders. To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, if letters were supposed to have been sent out in April, it is clearly disappointing that there has been a delay. I have checked and this has been delayed. As the noble Lord has raised this here today, I will chase this and bring it up with the department.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, both talked about the impact assessment. Obviously, noble Lords are aware that one has not been produced for this instrument but, as I said, we are publishing regular statistics on farm income and other data related to farm businesses. That includes the farm business income statistics published on 14 November last year. We are looking very carefully at the income, and from that we will understand the impact on businesses as we go forward.
We are also looking to ensure fair competition across the supply chain through contractual reform. Fair competition was mentioned and it is incredibly important. All farmers should have a fair price for their products and the Government are committed to tackling unfairness in the supply chain wherever it exists. Regulations introduced last year included key reforms for contracts in the UK dairy sector. They included mandatory written contracts to require greater transparency in milk pricing. New contract rules for the UK pig sector were introduced to Parliament this month, which aim to ensure that terms are clearly set out and changes can be made only if agreed by both parties.
Similar regulations for eggs and fresh produce sectors will follow, and the Government are committed to intervene in any sectors where fairness issues exist. The regulations are enforced by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, on behalf of the Secretary of State. Additionally, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, is leading a review of farm profitability. This important work is being supported by the newly formed profitability unit in Defra.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the basic income campaign. Of course, I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness and any colleague she feels it appropriate to bring along to such a meeting.
We believe that this instrument is the essential next step of the transition period. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out the importance of the transition period. If we care about the future of farming—and clearly everybody in this Chamber very much does and feels very strongly about it, which has come across in the debate—we must not unravel the agricultural transition. This instrument will enable us to invest in that long-term future for farming while also delivering for nature.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank all noble Lords for speaking in this debate and providing their knowledge and experience on this issue. This is a crucial issue which deserves our full attention. I thank in particular the Minister for her response. I know that she, better than most, will be aware of the outcry that this sudden and unexpected cut has caused in so many in our farming communities.
It will not surprise noble Lords that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this issue. If something like an SI falls, it goes back to the department and a new way, ideally, is found. Like him, I believe all pathways lead to the Treasury when these things go wrong. I also particularly pick out the point that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, made about HLS. I, too, have been in touch today with farmers who are deeply disappointed that they have not received the letter they were expecting by today. Those letters have not been received across the farming community. I thank the Minister for taking that back, but it is very significant, in addition to this regulation.
My noble friend Lord Russell described the times that the Conservative Benches have chosen to dispense with their aversion to fatal amendments. It is clearly a pick-and-mix tradition for them. I say to them that there has never been a more important vote; a chance to end this unfair cut to farmers. It is a test of their resolve on this issue and all they have to do is walk through the same Lobby as us. We all know that a regret amendment is not a sign of the greatest strength in these moments. A fatal amendment to end this measure for our farmers is a sign that we have their backs and will go down fighting for them. To do anything else is to sell them short. I ask all Members of the House to support farmers who have been hit by these cruel cuts again and again. We urge them to stand with the Liberal Democrats and reject these regulations. Therefore, in the light of what we have heard, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roborough
At end insert “but that this House regrets that they reduce the delinked payments to farmers at a faster rate than previously expected, undermining the viability of farm businesses and harming rural communities.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. Like others, I have sympathy with the Minister as there were so few words in support of this SI. I think most of us also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that perhaps it is more to do with the Treasury; I note that her noble friend, who makes many of these decisions, is sitting in his place.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave some examples decades ago of when my Benches may have supported fatal amendments. That was decades ago. It is a long-standing custom not to support fatal amendments. This is about responsible opposition. I would also note that our regret amendment has been tabled for several weeks, in contrast to the fatal amendment which appears to have been put down relatively recently.
I have put forward constructive ideas that this Government can adopt to moderate this SI or reintroduce SFIs. I hope the Benches on my left will support our regret amendment and send a clear message to the Government to consider these. I would like to test the opinion of the House.