Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps the Government Whip would like to say a word.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I just remind your Lordships that there is a hard stop at 8.15 pm because of Hansard, so that is when the Committee must end. I think everybody knows that there are going to be numerous votes this afternoon—noble Lords have just heard what the procedure will be. The advisory speaking time is 13 minutes, but we will lose some time for votes, I am sure of that—so noble Lords are not obliged to take the full 13 minutes, if I can put it like that. I add that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will be joining us online.
Northern Ireland After Brexit (Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Report)
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carlile of Berriew
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s voice in the context of the Windsor Framework (1st Report, HL Paper 182).
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has pulled out of the debate because she has a Motion in the Chamber.
It is a great privilege to chair the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, which was appointed in January 2025. In October 2025 we produced our first report—the one we are dealing with today—examining the Windsor Framework. If those two words, “Windsor” and “framework”, conjure in the minds of noble Lords castle-like, symmetrical architecture, a secure moat and fine gardens, think again. We are here under a remarkable Victorian painting of Moses bringing down the tables from the mountain. It is a piece of strong evidence that, if you produce a document that is short, it lasts rather longer than one that is much more complicated—but I do not think that was part of the thinking when the Windsor Framework was created.
In reality, the Windsor Framework is a complex amalgam of diplomacy, politics and sheer necessity, conjured from shakily designed foundations. To me, it bears all the characteristics of having occurred, rather than having been designed. However, it is what Northern Ireland has to live with; it affects everyday life at every level, from the esoterics of company and competition law to the humble task of everyday shopping for it affects consumers above all others, probably. I shall give a small example. Somebody who wishes to buy new socks or a mixing machine from a GB supplier may not be able to do so, because of the duties on the packaging in which their purchase would be brought and because of the bureaucratic complexities that make it all too much trouble for some suppliers in Great Britain to supply to Northern Ireland.
As the committee, we devoted ourselves from the very beginning to the interests of consumers, producers and everything in between, but above all to the public in Northern Ireland. We relied for our report on a large body of evidence and spent time in Northern Ireland talking to stakeholders, including businesses large and small, and, importantly, social enterprises, which are also affected.
I thank my parliamentary colleagues on the committee for their assiduous attention to the evidence, and their constructive and purposeful contribution to the discussion. I know that members of the committee will share this: I particularly thank the clerk of the committee, Liam McNulty, our expert advising counsel, Tim Mitchell, our organising genius, Breda Twomey, and all the secretariat, for their extraordinary contributions. The newly established committee functioned efficiently, was properly briefed on all relevant subjects and was able to produce a full and reasoned report. We are very fortunate in your Lordships’ House to be blessed with staff of such quality to help us in what we do.
The committee’s membership includes a wide range of views on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and on the protocol and Windsor Framework. Despite colleagues’ divergent views and strong opinions on some issues of principle, I emphasise that it is notable that the report was agreed unanimously. This imbues added force in the conclusions reached by the committee.
We are grateful too for His Majesty’s Government’s positive response to the report—mostly, at least. We recognise the care and attention that Ministers and officials have given to our deliberations in expressing some continuing concerns. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution later in the debate. As noble Lords know, the noble Baroness has a large fan club in your Lordships’ House, and I am one of its members. I ask her not to disappoint me.
We look forward to the EU-UK reset agreement. In that context, I point out a serious matter: the relevance of our report for the formation of some important reset subjects, such as the arrangements for energy supply in Northern Ireland, and the shape and detail of the proposed sanitary and phytosanitary, or SPS, agreement—a phrase I have become used to since I began to chair the committee—which I hope will simplify border and related arrangements for agri-food products between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The issues we have covered and reported on concern Northern Ireland’s voice and stakeholder engagement. I hope that the report will provide important lessons for the prospective dynamic alignment between Great Britain and the EU, which the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House is examining as part of a current inquiry. Our report endorsed proposals to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is enhanced at an early stage of every relevant part of the EU’s complex legislative process. This can be done, in particular, through greater resourcing and capability in the United Kingdom mission in Brussels, working closely with the Northern Ireland Civil Service to shape relevant European Commission proposals.
The importance of these points is that, despite the restoration of Northern Ireland’s power-sharing institutions in February 2024, witnesses to our inquiry told us that issues relating to the Windsor Framework, as currently administered, have the capacity to create instability if not handled carefully by the Government and politicians. Thus, our report seeks to improve on the current situation for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole. The emphasis of our approach is on the experiences of real people, notwithstanding the vagaries of political life and institutions.
I am delighted by the presence in this debate of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. He is an admired former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—even better, we were Welsh MPs together—whose statutory Independent Review of the Windsor Framework was presented to Parliament last September. Unsurprisingly —I know that the noble Lord was not at all surprised—our report and his very good report, which has been accepted fully by the Government, have a great deal in common.
The noble Lord focused, as did we, on the increasingly complex governance structure of the framework. A snapshot of the effect of that structure is to be found on the organogram on pages 24 and 25 of our report—I know we are not supposed to hold up illustrations in Grand Committee, but I will—which sets out in magnificent graphic confusion the numerous locations across the EU, the UK Government, the UK Parliament, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly and elsewhere where the mechanisms of the Windsor Framework can be found. It illustrates the confusion, rather than accessible solutions, and we have clearly identified the need to solve the problem of accessibility.
We followed and amplified several of the findings of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, particularly in relation to the timing and resourcing constraints under which the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the DSC, has to work. We are delighted that in one of its many positive responses to both the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and ourselves, the Government have undertaken to re-examine the timescales and required information under which the DSC has to work. It is difficult being a member of the DSC under current arrangements.
We are grateful to the Government for their full response, dated 6 February 2026. Many of our recommendations found favour with the Government, but not all. On the negative side, the Government told us that for stakeholders who have difficulties with European legal provisions and issues, the EUR-Lex website provides an accessible and acceptable digest of information on EU law. Those legal provisions are important, because they may affect everyday trade, particularly for SMEs trying to make their way in business. However, in taking evidence recently, since our report was published, it has become very clear that in reality it is accessible for exploration only by highly paid, black-letter lawyers and provides little assistance to businesses and social enterprises who do not wish to line the entreating pockets of my learned friends.
One very positive development is the Government’s acceptance of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, of a one-stop shop for Windsor Framework-connected inquiries. This was a leading recommendation of his report. The one-stop shop, especially its triage system, uses the best available practices, including the services of artificial intelligence, and should enable businesses quickly to find the answers to real, everyday questions that are asked, but we need to know more about it. Who will run it, the Government or private enterprise? When will it start? It has been suggested that it will be created during the 2026-27 tax year, so will Northern Ireland traders have to wait another 18 months or two years before it exists in any meaningful form? Is it going to be trialled and tested by real people in real industries, so that they can show whether it works?
Whether the business concerned is selling organic eggs to Great Britain or wishes to purchase raw materials in the EU for product manufacture in a bigger supply chain, the one-stop shop and increased legal clarity will, we hope, be a beneficial outcome of the reports from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and ourselves. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is a valuable member of our committee, is unable to be with us today. He has made two valuable points, which I have told him I will pass on.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I was just dealing with some points about the one-stop shop that our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, had raised. First, the one-stop shop really must emphasise its services to traders in Great Britain who wish to trade with Northern Ireland. It is important that they should know what is available to them. Secondly, if the one-stop shop happens to give a trader advice that is wrong, as long as that trader is acting in good faith on that advice, there should be a waiver of any consequent penalties—for example, tax penalties that arise from the actions of the trader in question.
I turn next to the issue widely described as the democratic deficit arising from the 2019 protocol. The history, political institutions and social and community context of Northern Ireland make the democratic deficit an extremely important issue. In our report, we make it clear that, in our view, not enough has been done to mitigate, let alone resolve, this fundamental issue, which causes profound political division in Northern Ireland. With this in mind, our report focuses positively on the ways in which Northern Ireland stakeholders can more effectively participate in the Windsor Framework structures. We believe that our proposals, if followed, will enhance Northern Ireland’s voice in the operation of the framework and promote greater transparency, and not just greater public understanding but some public understanding of the framework.
On behalf of our committee, I express the hope that there will be an easing of complexity as a result of the contributions that we and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, have made and that real-world business on the ground will find it easier to work with partners in the European Union and Great Britain. The future of the Windsor Framework’s functionality requires a new impetus, with a fresh sense of purpose wisely advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and our report. I commend the report to the Committee.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the way in which he outlined and gave the details of his report. My report and review entirely paralleled the inquiry held by the committee. Much of it is the same. I thank the members of the committee who produced that report. It was not easy. They come from different political backgrounds and have different views on the issue, but the consensus that arose from it was almost completely the same as the recommendations that I eventually made.
I thank the Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for accepting every single one of my recommendations. I will come later to the practicality of that side. I thank the 100 bodies and organisations that I talked to, both in Northern Ireland and here in Great Britain, which gave me great insight into the workings of the Windsor Framework.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, my review was triggered by the fact that there was disagreement, towards the end of 2024, on what to do about the Windsor Framework. The Assembly voted, but not on a cross-community basis. The result of that was that it automatically triggered the review that I was to undertake some months later.
That reflects, in many ways, the disastrous process that followed Brexit. I make no comment on Brexit itself. I was not in favour of it, but it is not about that; it is about the effects of Brexit on Northern Ireland, which simply were not debated enough at the time. The people who decided these things and those who debated the whole issue of Brexit underestimated the impact that it would have on Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland voted in favour of remaining a part of the European Union, but of course, that does not work, because you go in as a member state or not. My own country, Wales, voted the other way, against my recommendations. The consequence of all this is that Governments have to find a way around this unusual situation. One bit of the island of Ireland is in the European Union and the other bit is outside. Inevitably, as a consequence of what we decided 26 years ago in the Good Friday agreement and whether we should have a hard border, this caused enormous complications.
The other thing that I emphasise to your Lordships is that, in my view, if the institutions had been up and running at the time of Brexit, there would have been a much better resolution of this. I am not saying that it would have been easy, but people in Northern Ireland would have made their own decisions about their own future. One thing that I have learned over a quarter of a century of dealing with Northern Ireland business is that imposition in Northern Ireland is always disastrous and that effective solutions to problems have to come from the people in Northern Ireland through their elected representatives all the time. It did not happen. As a consequence of that, we had a protocol that, strangely and bizarrely, was denounced by the Government who created it. That was not very good. Then we had the Windsor Framework, which was undoubtedly better than that. That is what we are debating today.
One problem that I faced during my review were the very deep feelings about the constitutional impact of Brexit and the Windsor Framework. Unionists take a very different view from nationalists on the effect of the Windsor Framework on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. That was well beyond the remit of what I was allowed to report on; I am not sure that I would have wanted to report on it, but I would have had a bash, even if I would not have got very far in the end. A fundamental problem with my review was that I could not touch those views that every unionist party or representative made to me about the constitutional impact of the Windsor Framework. I very much accept that it is an issue.
It was also made clear to me that the vote in Northern Ireland to accept the framework was not done on a cross-community basis. As a consequence, it went against the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. I am not completely convinced about that, but I am convinced that it went against the spirit of parity of esteem. Whether you are a nationalist, a unionist or neither, parity of esteem means that your views are regarded to the same extent. I am not sure—in fact I am unconvinced—that the parity of esteem principle has not been overlooked in all this. At the end of my remarks, I will come to why I think that that should be looked at again.
There were two issues from looking at the report, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. One was the democratic deficit. I will not go into the detail of the recommendations that I made, to which the noble Lord has referred, but the Democratic Scrutiny Committee did not and does not operate as well as it could. It operates under great burdens: it does not have enough time, staff or expertise. There is insufficient liaison with the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. Great changes can be made to make that work better. Those points were made to me by everybody, whether nationalists or unionists. The Government have accepted the principle of those recommendations, but we need to see them working in practice.
I am not sure that the Stormont brake has got anybody anywhere. It was regarded as being hugely significant. In theory it probably is, but in reality it has not proved to be the saviour of the situation that people expected. We will wait to see what happens on the Stormont brake, but it was certainly a genuine attempt to try to overcome the difficulties. But these are complex mechanisms, which an ordinary voter in Northern Ireland would find hard to deal with.
I had the pleasure of meeting the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which wrote to me as well and indicated the difficulties that it faced. I also met the Committee for the Economy of the Northern Ireland Assembly. They were both extremely good meetings and the points made by all members from all political persuasions were very valuable.
One point that they all made was that, if you want to influence a decision on legislation, do it early; do not wait until later. It is the same here: if you want to influence legislation in this Government and Parliament, try to resolve it at an early stage. That is why it is important that the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels is properly manned by specialists who can deal with this at that early stage and catch problems before they ever get to Belfast.
The other big issue was the enormous burden on businesses that the framework has brought—not on big ones, which have lots of money and can employ people to deal with the complexities of the bureaucracy, but on small and medium-sized businesses, which cannot do that. Interestingly, I just came back yesterday from the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which was meeting in Tralee. I was talking to a nationalist MLA who was describing to me the problems that her constituents were having, including small businesses. She quoted a women’s hairdresser, who was probably going to pack up because she could not deal with the bureaucracy surrounding all this. That was interesting because the person saying this to me was from the nationalist community; I get it regularly from the unionist side of things, of course.
Probably the most significant recommendation that the committee and I have made is on the one-stop shop. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made the point that that is so important for Britain, as it is for businesses in Northern Ireland itself. Very often, a British business simply will not bother with the bureaucracy to send stuff to Northern Ireland to be sold. The organisation chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, InterTrade UK, will have a significant part to play in that, to try to explain those burdens to British business.
There is a definite case, for example, to have trusted trader status for the haulage industry in Northern Ireland—that is one of my recommendations, and I hope it is acted on soon. There is a case for the duty reimbursement scheme to be improved so that businesses do not have cash-flow problems. I made some other recommendations regarding Article 2, dealing with human rights.
The electronic travel area—ETA—regulations that operate on the island of Ireland are not part of my recommendations, but I touched on them in the report because of the importance that people felt they had. They are causing severe problems for the hospitality and tourist industry in Northern Ireland. Again, at the BIPA conference in Tralee this week, I asked the Irish Government Minister, and it was a matter of debate.
I will not go into any more of the details, suffice it to say that you could not put a cigarette paper between my report and the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. They say the same things because they are the obvious things to say. I conclude by saying just three things. First, I say to the Government that it is wonderful to have the recommendations agreed, but we now await the action on those recommendations, and the sooner the better, particularly on the one-stop shop.
Secondly, the SPS agreement is absolutely vital. The quicker that happens, the better, because my experience of these things is that Europe is not exactly quick in dealing with various negotiations, and the sooner that happens, the better.
Thirdly, all these recommendations are about making the current scheme better, making it work and helping businesses, but they do not go to the heart of the political disagreement on this. That needs to be addressed too. I am not sure how that will be done because it is not easy—but it is never easy in Northern Ireland. When we drew up the Good Friday agreement all those years ago, who would have thought we could have resolved those enormous issues? But we did eventually resolve them. So, if we can do that, perhaps we can also resolve the issues that surround the Windsor Framework because, as long as they are untouched, it will be a running sore.
In the meantime, we have to be practical and make it better for individual business, better for people and better for Northern Ireland. The sooner we have the Government’s recommendations, the better.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Carlile. I do so with some temerity; I cannot understand why I have been put so high up the list, since my expertise in these areas is probably less than almost everybody else on this Committee. But I pay tribute to the committee for producing a report that is thorough and detailed in its analysis of a labyrinthine problem. Every tree in the forest of issues has been identified and described, but the report stopped short, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned, of examining why this forest of problems exists and whether there is some way of removing them or finding a permanent route through the forest.
The basic reason for the impenetrable barriers that we have to get through and which prevents the people of Northern Ireland having a proper say, or even a veto, over the laws that govern them is that Northern Ireland is, effectively, a condominium. We should recognise that fact. It is governed jointly by the EU and the UK in many respects. It is a bit like the old condominium of Sudan and Egypt, which was an Anglo-Egyptian condominium, or, more recently, the New Hebrides, which was jointly controlled by a Franco-British condominium. It was such a nightmare that it was known as the pandemonium, not the condominium. I suspect that the consequences of trying jointly to govern Northern Ireland by EU law, 300 areas of law and UK law elsewhere, and a consultation between the UK and EU authorities are inevitably bound to create pandemonium. It is impossible, under that arrangement, to give voice to the local people any more than it was possible in Sudan or the New Hebrides.
That raises two issues. Is this situation permanent? If it is not, is there an alternative that would provide a much more satisfactory long-term arrangement that would allow democracy to return? I was struck when I bumped into some young people from Northern Ireland who said how insulted they felt that they were not allowed to vote for people who would determine the laws in large areas of life that affected them. We have to deal with that issue.
We all agree that there should not be a hard border in Northern Ireland. That is the basis of the present arrangement. The only body ever threatening to erect a hard border with physical facilities and carrying out checks at the border was, of course, the EU itself. The EU has a perfectly legitimate objective, which is to prevent goods that do not conform to its rules entering its territory. It has to maintain the integrity of the single market. To do that, it insisted and persuaded at the very opening of the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement that there should be no hard border. Effectively, that led to the continuation of EU law north of the border. The EU insisted that all goods produced in Northern Ireland must conform to EU rules and all those entering from GB must conform to EU rules if they go into the Republic. This is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I want to see whether there is a case for removing this present situation before I come to an alternative. Let us think back to the time when the withdrawal agreement was negotiated. Mrs May—now the noble Baroness, Lady May—asked to negotiate the trade arrangements that would follow on from us leaving the European Union alongside the withdrawal arrangements. She was refused by the EU, which said that it was not possible for it to do that under EU law. It could not reach a permanent agreement on trading arrangements with us until we had left, because the EU had powers to reach agreements only with independent countries—non-members. So we needed first to have left the EU before it was possible to reach any agreement with us.
The EU then went ahead and agreed the withdrawal agreement before it would start proper negotiations on the trade and co-operation agreement, but it insisted on including trading arrangements with Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. Whenever I raised this and said, “Well, hang on, I thought you couldn’t reach trading agreements”, the EU said, “Oh, we can, as long as it is temporary and designed to deal with the problems that may arise if Britain leaves without a permanent trade and co-operation agreement”, or other transitional arrangements to do with us leaving. But it is intrinsically temporary. We need to remember and remind ourselves of that.
This was all discussed in the House of Commons at the time. The then Attorney-General, Geoffrey Cox, explained to the House that
“article 50 of the Treaty on European Union does not provide a legal basis in Union law for permanent future arrangements with non-member states”.
He went on to say that, if European traders felt disadvantaged by aspects of the protocol in future, they should,
“beat a path to the door of the Commission and the Court, and there to say, ‘Didn’t you say that article 50 is not a sound legal foundation for this arrangement?’ And I tell you frankly, Mr Speaker, they are likely to win”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/18; cols. 547-55.]
So the Attorney-General, who rarely expresses opinions on the possible outcome of hypothetical legal cases, thought it was absolutely clear-cut that this is a temporary arrangement that cannot continue permanently.
The withdrawal agreement, which is based on Article 50 of the European Union treaties,
“does not aim at establishing a permanent future relationship between the EU and the UK”—
that was the wording in the original protocol. It was not in the second protocol, but that does not mean that it did not apply, because the second protocol was bounded by exactly the same aspects of the treaties of the European Union. So it is temporary and it must sooner or later be replaced. With what can it be replaced that will meet the legitimate objectives of the European Union to maintain the integrity of its single market, the people of Northern Ireland to have a say in their government and the United Kingdom as a whole to maintain the integrity of its own market?
It has been suggested by very distinguished people, such as a former director-general of the EU Commission, Sir Jonathan Faull, and distinguished professors of EU law at both Harvard and Madrid, Joseph Weiler and Daniel Sarmiento, that we should collectively agree mutual enforcement. We do not need to go even that far. We can have unilateral enforcement. Britain can pass a law that will prohibit the export of goods that do not meet EU laws, checks and standards from our territory to the EU.
In the normal way, that law would not be enforced at the border. Indeed, existing export controls to the rest of the world are rarely, if ever, enforced at the border, port or airport. Applications to export goods, or likewise to import goods under customs duties, are analysed electronically. If analysis or intelligence suggests that a company may be exporting or importing non-compliant goods without having obtained an export or import licence, enforcement action would normally be at the point of production or dispatch, not at the port or border. Likewise, should the UK suspect or be informed by the Irish Government that non-EU compliant goods were being or planned to be dispatched across the border, enforcement would take place at the trader’s premises in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, or in transit, not at the Northern Ireland border.
So there is a perfectly workable and enforceable system that we could introduce. We would like it to be reciprocated by similar arrangements for goods coming into Britain from the EU, but we do not need that. HMRC said repeatedly in all our debates and discussions that there were no circumstances in which it would need to carry out checks at the border to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market.
I congratulate the committee again on having looked at ways to try to ameliorate the problems that are inherent in the present situation, but let us not forget that the present situation is temporary. It legally must be replaced, and there are alternatives to replace it with that meet the legitimate expectations of the EU, as well as the needs of the people of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is an honour to speak in this debate and to be a member of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank our chairman for how he outlined the contents of the report today and, more broadly, for how skilfully he guides and chairs our committee. It is no mean feat to bring so many diverse views to some form of consensus, as his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Jay, did, on the letters and reports that we look at. They make a valuable contribution to the overall debate and I pay tribute to him, to his predecessor, and to our clerk and our excellent staff and secretariat, who are across all the details and make our life so much easier.
I come to the contents of this report. It is entitled Northern Ireland after Brexit: Strengthening Northern Ireland’s Voice in the Context of the Windsor Framework, so the first thing we need to do is look at the Windsor Framework itself: it is in that context that we have to look at all these ideas and proposals. So what does the Windsor Framework do? We need to remind ourselves about what it does. It means that foreign laws made by a foreign legislature—a foreign polity, which makes laws in its own interests—are imposed on a third country, part of the United Kingdom, which is the fifth-largest or sixth-largest economy in the world. No Member of Parliament, Member of the Legislative Assembly or citizen in Northern Ireland has any say in the development, amendment or formulation of those laws.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, talked about condominium status—it is a form of colonialism. For a part of the United Kingdom and its citizens to be treated in such a way in the 21st century is, quite frankly, an appalling situation, and it does not cover just trade. The 300 areas of law in Articles 2 and 5 of the protocol all deal with various aspects of trade—state aid and so on—but it goes much wider than that: our committee proposes to look at the Dillon judgment and the effects on equality, human rights law and all the rest of it. So it is much wider than just trade; it affects every aspect of society in Northern Ireland, with large swathes of our economy governed by laws not made by us and not capable of being made by us but made by the European Union.
Our committee has wrestled with this notion of the democratic deficit, which really should be described as a democratic denial. It is the denial of democracy; it is not just a deficit. The fourth paragraph of our summary on page 4 says:
“This report examines the action that has been taken to mitigate the democratic deficit, and makes clear that what has been done so far is insufficient to resolve this fundamental issue”.
So anything that we suggest in this report can be only a mitigation of a disastrous situation that all self-respecting lawmakers should be appalled at and should seek to do something about.
What have we ended up with? We have ended up with, as has been described, this labyrinthine and opaque set of arrangements. The diagram on pages 24 and 25, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to, shows this complex web of interlocking organisations and bodies, all set up with different purposes, rules, legal responsibilities and obligations.
Part of this is deliberate: every time a problem was raised, a committee was thrown at it. This was done in relation to horticultural movements, for example, which was raised with the Government during the talks leading up to Safeguarding the Union. It was pointed out that we cannot get seeds and certain plants moved to Northern Ireland. It is not just that it is complex; it is a complete bar. They said, “Well, we’ll set up a horticultural working group”. But what has that group done since? We cannot even know the names of some of the people on it. When I have asked the Government for the names—the Minister has replied to me on this—we are not even allowed, as legislators and people in Northern Ireland, to know who is on the committee, yet they are supposed to be coming up with ideas and solutions. It is totally ludicrous, but not just ludicrous: businesses are confused and angry—it is not just that people are bemused—at the unnecessary complexity and at the fact that the EU is insisting on full international customs border arrangements and complexities for internal trade between one part of the United Kingdom and the other. It is just not suitable or appropriate, and it is imposing great difficulties.
We heard evidence from the chamber of commerce in Northern Ireland over the last couple of weeks that this has been one of the most challenging years that it can remember. The FSB representative talked about the chilling effect on small companies and so on. This is happening now, even after the Windsor Framework, Safeguarding the Union and all these step changes that were supposed to make things better. Costs are increasing for consumers. Our committee heard evidence about the restrictions on choice for consumers in Northern Ireland. Many items available in the rest of the country are not available to consumers in Northern Ireland, for no good reason. I advise people to read the excellent recent report from the Federation of Small Businesses, which outlined a lot of these issues in detail.
We have called for the simplification and streamlining of these bodies. I think that it is important that that should be attempted, although I have to say that I have little faith that the EU side will look at this seriously, given the way that it refuses to contemplate any change in the current arrangements. Its attitude seems to be, “We’ve agreed this, everything’s fine, it’s up to the UK Government to deal with it, nothing to do with us”.
Turning to some of the specific recommendations, we heard evidence that the Northern Ireland Government cannot really influence EU legislation upstream early enough, before it is adopted, and that they are largely confined to reactive scrutiny after proposals are made. This is something that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, addressed in his report. It would be an improvement if there were an increase in resourcing for the UK mission in Brussels, for greater engagement between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the mission and, through that, with Brussels, but I have to caution that we have a problem, because getting a settled Northern Ireland position in the first place is often not achievable.
We had an illustration of this when our committee tried to get evidence from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, on behalf of the Executive, about what the Northern Ireland Executive Office in Brussels was doing and what the Northern Ireland Government thought of all this. One would have thought that they would have been interested, but it was vetoed because there has to be agreement between the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Deputy First Minister was quite happy to come and the First Minister vetoed it. So how are we going to get settled positions in terms of Northern Ireland’s view? That has to be factored into the equation. It is not very helpful, and it is to be regretted, that we did not hear from representatives of the Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned proposals to improve the Assembly’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee. I think that everybody agrees that that committee is not able to do its job, lacks sufficient access to information and is struggling to gather evidence within the timescales. I support the proposals that have been suggested to reform that committee. It is something that we should return to in a few months and ask whether this has made any difference, because if the Northern Ireland Assembly scrutiny committees cannot do the job properly and it is left to Westminster, either in the other place or in your Lordships’ House, then that is unsatisfactory. Elected representatives in Northern Ireland should be able to do the job properly.
We also looked at measures such as the Stormont brake and applicability Motions, which we referenced in our report. I have to say that these measures were sold very heavily in order to get Stormont back. We were told that this would give legislators in Northern Ireland the long-awaited answer to their democratic deficit complaints, but what has happened? They have almost disappeared from the political viewpoint. Nobody mentions them any more, because when they were tried the Government knocked them back, doing serious damage to political confidence. Those who warn about instability in Northern Ireland are right to do so, because if these issues are not properly addressed, there will come a reckoning at some point. As I have said before, some people say, “We didn’t see this crisis at Stormont coming”. I think that these issues are going to contribute to future instability if not properly addressed.
For instance, on the Stormont brake, at the end of the process the Government can veto it, and they did. On the applicability Motions, they can veto the process from the start. If they say that no new regulatory border will be created, this disapplies the applicability Motion from being heard in the Assembly. The Government can veto both the major safeguards—one at the start and one at the end. That has caused real concern in Northern Ireland among those who were told that this would be a major plank in getting Stormont restored. It is a disrespectful position, as far as the Assembly is concerned.
We have always been strong on the need to set up a register of applicable EU law—an office where regulatory divergence can be highlighted and exposed. That is something that both the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and our own committee have highlighted. The Government need to take that on board and set up a database and an office that can look at this. The one-stop shop has been an important addition to the ideas that have been brought forward. I thank the Government for their engagement on that matter. As the chairman mentioned—I am not going to go through all the issues that have already been highlighted—we need to see this up and running as quickly as possible. I am glad that the Government are taking it seriously.
I come back to the fundamental point, on which the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, ended as well. We can mitigate all we like; we can introduce tweaks here and changes there; and we can have a whack-a-mole approach, where one issue crops up and we knock it down and another one that we have not foreseen comes up and we try to deal with it. European law is dynamically aligning Northern Ireland all the time, sometimes to the detriment of our trade with Britain and sometimes not so much. Unforeseen things will happen and we will have to address the fundamental problem, which is that you cannot, in a modern democracy, expect people to live in a society where other people, in their interests, decide laws for them. Unless we wake up to that reality, we will have a real problem in the Assembly and the Northern Ireland political set-up. I hope that that does not happen, but it is incumbent on all of us who take an interest in these matters to make sure that it does not.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the Committee in repeating what both the chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, with which I am in complete agreement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for working with us on his report. It was wonderful to have these two reports going simultaneously. I thank the clerks of the House of Lords for working with the members of the committee, because it has been great fun and hard work, of course. I thank the organisations, both non-profit and enterprise organisations and companies, that have been in touch with the committee and me to put forward their case on what they feel is the deficit for them within Northern Ireland. I thank the businesses that we had the pleasure to visit and the other ones that invited me.
The one answer that we cannot give them, as others have said, is that we need a one-stop shop. The Government, in their reply to us, have promised this. It should be now, not in 2026-27. It is needed now and it must liaise with Brussels as well. It cannot just be about Britain and Northern Ireland; it must have Brussels’ input.
At the moment, there is a big deficit of goods going to Northern Ireland. We know that there are empty shelves, problems with getting parcels and problems with deliveries. I heard from haulage organisations and the committee heard from large supermarkets and others that they cannot get the goods, fresh goods in particular, across the border in good time to be delivered. There are problems at the ports and everywhere. This is an urgent issue. I know that the Government have heard us going on and on about it, but it is up to us, and it is destroying people’s lives every day, when they cannot get what they need. These are very basic goods: parts for cars and washing machines. There are problems with combi washing machines. These are daily lives. These are not just fancy goods.
Another issue that we need to look at is that, while this is going on, we will not be able to get people to invest in Northern Ireland from other parts of Europe and the world. We desperately need good investment to come to Northern Ireland. Under the Biden Administration, we had support from Joe Kennedy III to bring jobs and employment to Northern Ireland but, under the new regime in America, that has come to a halt. I would very much like to see the Government look at that again. Northern Ireland needs not only good employment but jobs that will bring apprenticeships, and it needs companies that have long-standing agreements that will want to do that. There is a deficit of skilled workers, as we talked about earlier and many times before.
If we do not have that for Northern Ireland’s GDP and education, its people will not have a future. I ask that we look at that as part of the one-stop shop, by having it appendaged to it in one way or another, so that we work on bringing employment and good jobs to Northern Ireland—not just back-office jobs but much more important ones. I hope that we can look at that for the future, because we need it. We also need everybody to work together and no longer in silos. We have started having engagements, but we need more engagement, clarity and transparency. We need the bodies all working around the same table. Now that we have come to this, it has to happen.
Further, as a committee, we should not be doing the scrutiny for Northern Ireland. There has to be some infrastructure in the Northern Ireland Assembly so that it can do its own scrutiny, employing people as clerks and other staff who can help it to do so. We can do the scrutiny, of course—it is a pleasure to do so, and it is interesting—but it is wrong for us to do it, and we said that in our report. I hope that, in the long term, we will be able to support the Northern Ireland Assembly in its scrutiny. We have had joint meetings with its scrutiny committee, but it is important that that comes in the future.
I do not want to delay the Committee any more. We need clarity and more engagement. The one-stop shop, with Brussels as well, must happen now, because this cannot go on. At every meeting we have had we have been told from the outside that there is no proper way of finding out what is going on—how the legislation is working. The Cabinet Office is trying, but there are not enough civil servants and there is not enough contact between Northern Ireland, Brussels and us on these clear issues that could make Northern Ireland go further.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. As a newish member of the committee, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak in this debate. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that, at this early stage, I will keep my remarks relatively brief.
I commend the committee on its report. It is a shrewd analysis of the challenges faced by people and businesses in Northern Ireland, and it provides sensible solutions to help them navigate their way through the situation they now find themselves in. As others can speak with far greater insight on the report than I can, I will focus on a couple of reflections—the things that I have been most struck by since joining the committee three months ago. They are all symptomatic of the problems identified in the report.
The overriding issue, which has been mentioned, is the way in which the Windsor Framework affects so many aspects of day-to-day living. I am slightly embarrassed to say that in the present company, but the truth is that I had vastly underestimated just how pervasive it is. I suspect the same goes for the majority of the GB population. I am not talking about the high-stakes policy areas, such as CBAM or the deforestation regulations, although they are obviously significant. What has struck me is the constant drip feed of impositions that chip away at businesses and, in turn, affect consumers in terms of price, choice and availability.
For example, even in my short experience we have seen explanatory memoranda on everything from the school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme to possible labelling changes for poultry meat, unique device identifiers for spectacle frames and handling charges on parcels. The memoranda themselves are telling because some are very thorough and pay proper attention to the possible impacts, but others are cavalier as to the potential costs and burdens. If it were not for the work of the previous committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, the scrutiny of the current committee and its dedicated chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the exceptional secretariat, which must get another mention, one cannot help but wonder how much worse things would be.
On that note, the £16.6 million commitment is welcome, and the increased support for businesses, but I am afraid that, like others, I am now going to mention the one-stop shop. Everyone agreed that it is essential that, as per its name, all the information is gathered in one place. However, it is not just about what information and the information itself, but about how people can access and interpret that information. Obviously, this is crucial for small businesses because they do not have the resources to employ specialists in the Windsor Framework.
As the Minister knows, I am a big fan of the new interactive public inquiries recommendations dashboard, and I applaud the Government for implementing it; we tried and tried and failed—so well done. I just want to ask the Minister this. We do not know who will set up the one-stop shop—whether it will be Cabinet Office in-house or whether it will be contracted out—but can the Minister ensure that that very same, very user-friendly, easy-to-access approach will be employed for the one-stop shop? It has now been proved that it can be done, so it can be done again.
I will very briefly repeat a point made by others about the fact that the onus seems very much to lie solely on Northern Ireland businesses when, in fact, it is equally incumbent on Great Britain to get to grips with the current trading landscape. Trade associations have repeatedly highlighted the major lack of understanding on the GB side. Will the Minister therefore also make sure, in rolling out the one-stop shop, that it is not just focused on Northern Ireland, and not even just that it is UK-wide, but that there is appropriate engagement early enough, and that takes place where it is most lacking, which is in Great Britain?
Talking of user-friendly approaches, I agree: EUR-Lex—no. The Government say that we do not need a new tool because EUR-Lex can be used to
“read and consider detailed legal texts”.
That is slightly disingenuous because it simply cannot be used to “read and consider”. If it is the Government’s view that such a database is not necessary then just say so, but if they believe that such a database is important then they need to provide one that is in an accessible form. As it stands, EUR-Lex is just no help at all to anybody.
Finally, I know that the Minister is a strong advocate for Northern Ireland, and the Government should be credited with trying to ease some of the frictions of the framework, which in turn tried to ease some of the frictions of the protocol, but this really comes back to the reality of life for the people of Northern Ireland. The truth is that there is no getting away from the fact that there are real and present dangers in the current trading environment, and there are consequences to that. Even just in my short time on the committee, the businesses and the people of Northern Ireland have shown great forbearance in the many frustrations that they face on a daily basis, but ultimately, they have an absolute right to be on an equal footing. This report, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, says, does not fix everything but it helps to mitigate that inequity. I therefore hope that the Government will perhaps just give further consideration to some of the very good recommendations in the report.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I agree with all that she had to say in relation to the issues in the report.
I am delighted to speak to this report as a member of the scrutiny committee. I declare my interests, in particular as chair of InterTrade UK and of Boyce Precision Engineering, and as a member of Co-operation Ireland.
I thank the chair, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the way in which he set out the detail of the report and I echo his thanks to our wonderful committee staff. I want to concentrate on the action taken to mitigate the democratic deficit for Northern Ireland and its people, given that, as we have heard, aspects of EU laws apply in Northern Ireland without the consent of parliamentarians either here or in Stormont.
It is clear from the evidence that we took in our committee and indeed from reports of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee in another place that the arrangements set up to try and mitigate the democratic deficit have, to date, been insufficient. We can never truly deal with the issues arising from the Windsor Framework or the protocol until they are replaced with much more realistic and proportionate arrangements and agreements. Until that happens, we must try to make the mitigations as effective as they can be within the constraints set by these flawed agreements.
When I was reflecting on the comments of the noble Lord the chair at the start of his speech around the Windsor Framework, it reminded me of the old joke: a tourist comes along a country road, sees a farmer hanging over a gate and asks for directions, and the farmer replies, “Well, I wouldn’t start from here”. I think that is certainly the feeling of a lot of us but we have to start from here because that is what we have at the moment.
Lord Bew (CB)
I support what the noble Baroness has been saying. There is a problem with democratic deficit but it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves that the leading thrust of the Windsor Framework is not the democratic deficit. It is about the move away from the British Government’s commitment to supporting an island economy. That is there in the 2017 May Government agreement and the 2019 agreement. It is partly concerned with the democratic deficit but it has transformed the shape of, and the debate about, the Northern Ireland economy. These problems of the democratic deficit absolutely remain, as so many speakers, including the noble Baroness, have said, but they are now in a different context. When the NIO Minister, Matthew Patrick, spoke at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, it is striking that when he talked about the relative success now of the Northern Ireland economy he was stressing areas—most obviously defence and fintechs—that are unambiguously part of the British economy.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I agree that that is an important part of the Windsor Framework but, unfortunately, the current architecture of the framework is the product of a number of political developments to try to make it more workable for businesses and consumers. When you try to retrofit solutions on to an already-flawed agreement, it often does not end well. That is, unfortunately, where we are today.
The number of bodies that have been set up have led our report to say that it is,
“a complex and opaque set of arrangements which makes it difficult for Northern Ireland stakeholders to engage effectively with key decision-makers and have their voices heard”.
We attempted to construct a diagram of all the bodies in the report, as the noble Lord the chairman has pointed out, but even that does not do the situation justice in terms of the complexity.
The first task, of course, when there are problems and barriers to trade within the UK internal market, is to have those recognised by our own Government and the European Union. But denial, I have to say, has been a huge source of frustration for businesspeople and consumers alike across the UK: “Barriers—what barriers? Costs—what costs?” That is what you are dealt. When there is an air of denial, the problem is not going to go away. Of course, the difficulties are still there. There are small businesses in particular in GB that have decided to stop supplying goods into Northern Ireland altogether. That was the evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, which carried out an effective and timely survey across the UK, which it was able to share with the committee. I think members will agree that it was very useful at that time and is surely something that should concern His Majesty’s Government.
As we have heard, some new bodies were set up under the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, which allowed the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to resume operation after a two-year hiatus. The independent monitoring panel looks at data and trade flows in the UK internal market, then provides evidence on the workability of the internal market guarantee, while the organisation I chair, InterTrade UK, provides advice to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on issues relating to the operability of the Windsor Framework, as well as looking at connectivity across the UK. InterTrade UK started life without a budget line and with the burden whereby many believed that it had the same powers and resources as InterTradeIreland—it does not. We now have a small budget, for which I am grateful, but it will not be able to match the wherewithal of InterTradeIreland, as the two bodies are totally different entities; InterTrade UK is a non-statutory body.
One of the suggestions from our evidence to the committee is that InterTrade UK should have representation from Great Britain as well as from Northern Ireland; that is the recommendation at paragraph 301—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was very strong on this issue. We have a lot of trading difficulties with small GB-based companies selling into Northern Ireland, therefore there should be GB representation on the board of InterTrade UK. As the chair of that organisation, I fully support that recommendation and hope that the Government will act on it in their response. The response said that the Government “will give further consideration” to the recommendation at paragraph 301, and I hope the Minister has an update on that.
The work that InterTrade UK has undertaken thus far has been to raise issues of concern to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on general policy. In the absence of another vehicle, we have also been raising specific issues that have come directly to our attention. The most recent letter in my name to the Secretary of State was on the availability of white goods in Northern Ireland and the price of pet prescriptions. Incidentally, they have doubled in the instance that was brought to my attention. I hope that the much-anticipated one-stop shop, which has to get going as quickly as possible, will help consumers and businesses alike when it is set up. We await a clear timeline and design—I hope as soon as possible.
One of the most impactive evidence sessions that we had as a committee is not actually in the report before us, because it came after the report was concluded. It was from the Road Haulage Association, which brought forward some very important evidence that I will briefly mention. It told us that the latest Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency trade data indicates a sustained decline in GB-NI freight volumes. The increasing administrative and regulatory burden associated with moving goods from GB to NI is acting as a deterrent to operator participation. It showed us that the number of GB-based fleets operating in Northern Ireland has declined by approximately 36%, and that GB-to-Northern Ireland journeys undertaken by GB-registered vehicles had fallen by 52% in 2024.
The Road Haulage Association brought forward a number of issues to us. First, there were issues with commodity codes, particularly for groupage movement and haulage. In this system, each pallet in the truck can belong to a different sender, as Members know, which contains many individual items. While that is efficient commercially, it creates complexity for customs because every item requires its own commodity code. That is why groupage movements face higher administrative burdens and delays, which can cause real issues for an entire truck.
The complexity of that system has been made even worse, because the UK internal market scheme allows businesses with a turnover of under £2 million to use the simpler green lane with some exemptions for certain sectors. Although that is higher than the previous £500,000 limit, it is still far below the UK’s SME classification threshold of £44 million. As a result, many small and medium-sized businesses are excluded from the UK internal market scheme. Of course, larger companies are not affected by all this, because they can manage it, but it is a real issue for the smaller companies.
The recommendations made by the RHA go some way to help mitigate the problems of the Windsor Framework. I ask the Minister, if she cannot respond today, to think about some of these issues and revert back to me. First, the RHA would like to see the introduction of a trusted haulier scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, also referred to this. It would reduce frictions for logistics and haulage businesses and allow qualifying hauliers to move goods with greater ease at a reduced cost to businesses trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Secondly, the RHA would like to see that £2 million threshold for the UKIMS removed.
Lastly, and most importantly, the RHA wants to move the determination of “at risk” from the Irish Sea border to the point of sale. Hauliers often do not have the information required to resolve problems when they are bringing goods across the Irish Sea, but determining which goods are at risk at the GB-NI border will always cause costly and disruptive delays, especially for just-in-time goods, which a lot of these are. It brings additional cost and delay in moving goods that risks unbalancing Northern Ireland’s dual market access and trade diversion.
Determining risk at the point of sale would mean that goods’ end destination would be known for sure and that customs processes could be applied only on goods that are leaving the UK and going into the single market of the European Union. Information about the buyer and seller is already required for all movements of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, so there is no lost information from allowing goods to move freely across the Irish Sea.
I have managed to speak to only some of the issues raised in what is a very comprehensive report. I am sure other colleagues will deal with the other issues contained therein. But, in concluding, I always come to these matters in a pragmatic way to try to find solutions to problems, because that is what I think politics is about: trying to find solutions. However, to attain solutions to problems, you first have to acknowledge that there is a problem. I am not sure that there is a willingness in either HMG or the EU to admit the scale and nature of the problem that currently exists. With the much-vaunted reset on its way, I hope the closed mindset on what is happening in Northern Ireland can be lifted and that a more open and balanced dialogue can begin, for the benefit of those British citizens who live in Northern Ireland and businesses right across the UK.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, as we just heard, the noble Baroness speaks with great expertise and eloquence, as she has consistently in meetings of our committee, of which she is a valuable member. It is a delight to have madam chair presiding over this meeting, and the fact that it is so well behaved must be a consequence of her skills.
I welcome and thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for chairing our committee so ably—it is a very diverse committee in all sorts of ways, as he knows better than anybody else—with the expert backing of his excellent staff, two members of which are sitting here watching. They are incredible in unpicking these detailed memoranda. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will remember from his time chairing the committee, this stuff is complicated and sometimes impenetrably boring. It may be boring, but it is still important, and they provide us with the expertise to deal with it.
I want to get one thing off my chest, and it will cause some disagreement. I believe that the enormous problems that first the protocol and then the Windsor Framework have saddled us with—Northern Ireland citizens in particular—are a direct result of the hard Brexit implemented by the Government and supported by a minority of the parties in Northern Ireland. That has left a huge set of problems for Northern Ireland by putting a border down the Irish Sea, dividing Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom and betraying, in my view, the unionist cause. That is my own view. I am not a unionist—I am not anything. I am an honest broker, as a Secretary of State. It has betrayed the unionist cause and saddled Northern Ireland with a number of problems that are almost insoluble in some respects. On that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who also makes a valuable contribution to the committee. It is the only part of the United Kingdom bound by the rules of the European single market and customs union, yet it is unable to directly influence those rules. That is the fundamental problem that our committee has sought to wrestle with. In his own excellent report, my noble friend Lord Murphy also sought to wrestle with it, and the Government have to manage it.
That set of problems needs to be remedied. The key for me, as an ardent devolutionist, is to empower the Northern Ireland legislature—the elected legislature of the citizens of Northern Ireland—so that its voice can be heard directly through consultation, as the UK’s voice was heard. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, will remember from his time in the Foreign Office that the UK had a very effective United Kingdom representation unit in Brussels, through which the UK’s voice was heard at the earliest possible stage. That was direct representation. The only option now for the Northern Ireland Assembly is to ensure that its voice is heard through consultation.
As a number of people have mentioned, and as my noble friend Lord Murphy stresses in his report, early consultation is the key. You will not be able to influence something once it is formally part of the process. But as I recall, especially having been UK Europe Minister for two years, and in other Cabinet and ministerial posts, you can influence proposals in Brussels if you get in early, and when we had UKRep we had the ability to do that. Well before things are formalised and start getting set in stone, you can influence through early consultation. That is crucial.
The UK mission in Brussels—I think the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, stressed this as well—needs to be strengthened in its Northern Ireland capabilities and capacity. It is too weak at the moment and it needs to have Northern Ireland officials moving to and fro, listening to officials in Stormont and directly inputting their views and the views of MLAs into the heart of the decision-making process. At the early consultation stage, when something is proposed by the European Commission, typically, a proposal is floated and there is considerable opportunity to influence it. Once it is formalised, that becomes much more difficult. Therefore early consultation is vital, and the UK mission, as I say, must have its Northern Ireland capability massively bolstered in order that Northern Ireland citizens, their MLAs and their officials can influence matters affecting them directly.
I would also like to see the Northern Ireland Office strengthened. To be frank, at the moment it is a shop-window office for Northern Ireland, but, welcome though that is, it is inadequate in representing and expressing all the kind of views that we have heard about so far in this debate and which are explained in a very detailed way in our report. Above all, however, the UK mission in Brussels needs to have its Northern Ireland capabilities massively upgraded.
In my view, MLAs—Members of the Legislative Assembly in Stormont—should be offered a channel of consultation with the European Parliament. They cannot have formal representation because we are not a member state of the European Union, but there are various opportunities and mechanisms through which MLAs, and perhaps their committee in other forms, could be listened to in the consultation process with the European Parliament. In addition, remember that the European Parliament has co-decision rights now; that has evolved over the last decade or so. That means that it can be influenced, and it needs to be influenced, by Northern Ireland if these myriad regulations and matters affecting Northern Ireland as a result of this Brexit process are to be influenced.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, told our committee—I do not think I am breaking any sort of rules by revealing this—that, as I think she put it, Ministers are seen but not heard properly; she was of course a very able First Minister for Northern Ireland. I think she is indicating that that is an accurate representation of what she said. That is not good enough. In my view, Northern Ireland Ministers should be directly consulted within the Joint Committee process, either by the committee itself or its detailed sub-committees—it is quite a complex animal—so that again, ministerial input can go directly into the process of formulating these rules and legislation where they affect or are intended to affect Northern Ireland.
I just conclude by saying this, which some members of the committee will disagree with: I do not think that this relationship can be fixed or that Northern Ireland’s interests can be protected on an EU-UK basis alone. I know that the Brexit deal was done by the UK Government negotiating with the European Union and the European Commission but, in my view, the elected representatives of Northern Ireland, who are directly elected through their legislature, need to have their voice heard.
I realise that this is a problem for some members of the committee, because they think that the relationship needs to be UK-EU alone. Northern Ireland citizens and their businesses—the small business sector in particular have been terribly affected by this whole set of arrangements—often do not have the capacity to deal with it. Small businesses in Great Britain simply stop trading with Northern Ireland because the complexities are so enormous. Those problems cannot be fixed by a UK Government-European Union arrangement alone; that is too high up and high-level. It can only be really fixed by Northern Ireland’s voice, and that requires its Ministers to start agreeing with each other and working hard—harder than they are at the moment—to make sure that their voices are heard. Members of the Legislative Assembly’s voices also ought to be heard. The Democratic Scrutiny Committee in Stormont ought to operate more effectively, and Northern Ireland’s officials need to bolster their own capabilities and expertise, so that they can be heard with some conviction and some respect in Brussels, in a way that is sadly not happening at the moment. If that can be tackled—and I hope that my noble friend the Minister, in her reply, will make some remarks on this—the whole problem will not be as formidable and almost impossible as it currently is to many small businesses in Northern Ireland especially, and to many consumers and others. If that is fixed, the problem could at least be remedied.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Noble Lords will understand that I do not agree with everything he says. In fact, he does not always agree with me either. I declare my interests: I am member of the Ulster Farmers Union and a farmer. One day, he questioned about me actually being a farmer. Some people at home would probably question that as well. I was not on the committee when the report was brought forward, but I enjoy being on the committee now, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The staff are excellent and make an excellent contribution to what we do.
The Northern Ireland protocol, Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union—whatever document you want to look at—promised so much for the people of Northern Ireland, but they have not delivered. That is the problem that everybody faces here. Today, we are all trying to address some of those shortfalls, particularly within the Windsor Framework. At this stage, I commend the businesses, farming community and the sectors of Northern Ireland, which have been extremely resilient in the face of adversity, in relation to trying to make their businesses and the economy work and doing it under so much stress and with many difficulties. The reality for businesses on the ground is that there is a fog of uncertainty within that process, and that is something that we need to address.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, being here and I welcomed his report, because it went into some of the detail, similar to what the scrutiny committee worked out. But the one recommendation that was mentioned here before the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, brought that out was the one-stop shop. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that we cannot wait an overly long time for that to be implemented, because businesses just cannot afford that time. If you run a business that is struggling in Northern Ireland, and you are told that you will need to wait another 18 months to two years for a one-stop shop to give you advice, that is not going to be any help to you at that stage. That is one aspect that needs more urgent attention and delivery.
Uncertainty is not a neutral condition; it corrodes investment, deters expansion and punishes smaller firms in particular. Yes, we have heard that larger firms are also impacted, but they can absorb it slightly more easily than the smaller firms, which have huge difficulty within their sector. In the Ulster Unionist Party, certainly, we have vociferous in our opposition to the border in the Irish Sea; it inhibits any trade between GB and Northern Ireland. That is, in effect, what we have. I am sure that we all know loads of people that have tried to order goods online and they cannot get them because that business in GB has stopped trading with Northern Ireland—full-stop.
I want to raise the issue of the importation of machinery from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. There has been a huge impact on that industry and economy in Northern Ireland. Lots of the machinery may be sold outside Northern Ireland, but there is no reason why the inspections could not be simplified and why they could not be done in Northern Ireland for goods that are moving on to the Republic of Ireland or other parts of the EU. It is nonsensical that the inspections have to be done in GB before the goods come to Northern Ireland. There needs to be a much better process for that.
Another issue is veterinary medicines, which has been a problem for a long time. We got the human medicines sorted out at a very early stage in the process; why could we not also sort out the veterinary medicines at a similar time?
I have heard so much talk about the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it is just not working. I accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that MLAs in the Northern Ireland Assembly need a bigger role, but we need to persuade the Government and EU that they be allowed that additional role, because at present my understanding is that they are not permitted that extra responsibility. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I feel that they should be. There is a job of work there, whether it is for the UK Government, the European Union or both together, to allow greater input from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The MLAs are the people on the ground who hear daily from businesses and, on most occasions, try to assist and help them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made the point that this process is temporary. It may be temporary, but it is here. The fact is that we have businesses trying to manage their way around it, and they are finding it so difficult without that one-stop shop. It is temporary until the reset takes place. We hear a lot about what is happening at present. One of the faults of the Windsor Framework—or of implementing it and the protocol before it—was that little or no preparation was done, and the people of Northern Ireland have been the fall people. That is why it is so important that we now start preparation for the UK-EU reset.
I am not hearing much—others may be—from the Government about what is taking place and what process is in place around that EU-UK reset. What is happening and what processes can we expect? Now is the time to get the information, evidence and foresight from those businesses that have had to comply with what we have in Northern Ireland. They should have an input into the reset, and it should be codesigned in parallel with them. Now is the time to start preparing for that, otherwise—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—unless we find a better mechanism, it will not improve things, even though this is temporary. Whatever the more final process is, we need to ensure that it is much better.
The list of barriers continues. I have mentioned agricultural machinery and veterinary medicines, but the movement of livestock—sheep and cattle—from GB to Northern Ireland is also a huge problem. That is within the United Kingdom, and it should not be an issue. In particular, people are purchasing pedigree animals on mainland GB and cannot get them imported into Northern Ireland. I know farmers who have bought extremely expensive animals that have now been sitting in what we would call storage or in farm isolation units in Scotland or England for almost 18 months. That is totally unfair to those farmers who are trying to do their best for not only the economy of Northern Ireland but the entirety of the UK.
What is most striking is that we still have not found a resolution to all this, even though we have been at it for a number of years. Most businesses have found their own resolutions in many aspects—they have just got on with business and found ways around it—but the one thing that they find extremely difficult is that they still cannot import some goods that they need from GB into Northern Ireland. They have to look for those goods from other sources, which is not always easy. That is going to be an aspect, as this year goes on, for veterinary medicines, because those arrangements already been implemented. There are quite large stocks within vets, but as those start to run down it will be much more difficult for the veterinarians first and then for the farmers to access the medicines they need. They will have to find other sources that are probably much more expensive and in different bulk sizes. They may have to buy veterinary medicine for 500 animals when they need it for only 50, because they cannot get it in that smaller size.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I intervene in this debate not as a Northern Ireland specialist or representative, which I am clearly not, but as someone who has taken a strong special interest over many years in the economy and economic growth, and in the trading patterns of our great United Kingdom. I am not surprised that much of the debate so far has been about these economic issues. We have heard eloquent testimony to the barriers and difficulties that small businesses in particular but also some big businesses are experiencing as a result of the dreadful settlement of the so-called Northern Ireland problem, embedded first in the protocol and subsequently in the Windsor Framework.
I fully support what my noble friend Lord Lilley said and will explain to the Committee that my noble friend and I, and other Conservative MPs and Peers, held regular meetings over the Brexit years to discuss how our country can get the most out of the freedoms we can enjoy and could develop now that we have left the European Union, and how the £17 billion we are now saving in annual contributions can be best spent to our wider benefit and related issues. We have often, as a result, had joint meetings or exchanges of MPs and Peers with our unionist colleagues here today.
In our meetings, we took on board that Northern Ireland had a particularly bad deal out of the form of Brexit entry that the EU cajoled or persuaded successive British Governments into accepting. There is no doubt that absorbing so much European Union law into Northern Ireland is a constraint on growth, on small businesses and on trade. I urge the Government to think carefully about this, because they wish to align the whole United Kingdom with more of these laws, charges and impositions. Yet it is the case that where it is being tried in Northern Ireland, far from being a golden scenario, as some suggested, it is clearly a negative that is causing trouble.
In a previous speech in the Chamber of the House of Lords, I set out my own research findings for the period 1952 to 2020—from 20 years before we entered the EEC, from the 20 years in the EEC customs union from 1972 to 1992, and from the 28 years in the single market from 1992. The data is overwhelmingly convincing that the closer the alignment—the more European law, costs and taxes we absorbed—the slower we grew. I fully accept that there were other factors affecting our growth rates over those long periods, but you cannot reach a conclusion from the data that there was ever a time when aligning more closely helped and gave us a boost. There was no boost when we joined the customs union. On the contrary, because a lot of our industry was not fully competitive and was being protected by tariffs, when the tariffs came off, the Labour Government, who had to face the problem, saw mass closures and destruction of large parts of our industry because Italian, German and French textile companies, steel mills, engineering works and vehicle makers were so much more efficient than our own. The shock was too much.
There was also no visible extra growth—indeed, quite a lot to the contrary—after 1992, when the EU had completed its so-called single market, which was actually a major power grab and a whole series of laws that were often negative to the conduct of business. Again, there was no sudden improvement or growth in our economy. In many ways, the problems got worse after the single market had been completed. Of course, it was completely misleading to say that the single market was completed in 1992 because, for the following 28 years of our membership, there were ever more laws, ever more rules, ever more charges and ever more taxes, which had a direct impact on British businesses and clearly did no good.
Northern Ireland is right to say that there are two problems with the settlement we have been persuaded or forced into by the European Union. There is the problem of economic growth, prosperity, and business and trade success, but there is also the fundamental democratic accountability problem, which is a direct result of the EU’s chosen solution of putting Northern Ireland under European Union rules.
The report is wonderfully written. When I first came to it, I found it quite heavy going, complicated and difficult, and I then realised that, in a way, that was a wonderful parody of the issues that the report had to deal with. The authors of the report clearly understood it perfectly well and were showing, by the way they described it, what a dreadful mess there was: just how many contradictions and complexities were built into it, all to the advantage of the EU and not to the United Kingdom or Northern Ireland. I pay great tribute to the committee and to the work done.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out the wonderful organogram, which was meant to be a simplification so that those of us who found it hard going could see a picture. It tells you all you need to know: the thing is quite unworkable, completely incomprehensible and, by any external judgment, completely mad. No sensible country would ever behave like that or have accepted it, yet this is where we have got to by having all these agents and institutions involved in negotiating.
The solution offered by my noble friend Lord Lilley, hammered out as it was with a lot of colleagues—we had the benefit of two expert lawyers in this field, who very kindly worked pro bono for us because they felt, as we did, that things needed to change in a radical direction for the benefit of Northern Ireland—would, of course, resolve the democratic accountability. If, either by agreement or unilaterally, we no longer have to impose European Union laws on Northern Ireland, then the democratic accountability problem vanishes.
However, we are rightly told in the report that an attempt to resolve the problem was the partial solution of saying that, if a law is really so bad that Northern Ireland cannot put up with it, then Northern Ireland should have the right, through the Stormont procedure, to say that it will not apply in Northern Ireland—an override. Although that does not get you around the table to influence and vote on all the other laws that you can put up with—so it is not a full answer to democratic accountability—it is a very good partial answer, because not only would you be able to strike out anything that was really bad but the fact that you had that power would start to influence European Union opinion and attitudes, so that when representations were made on other matters, the European Union would have to bear in mind that you could just decide that it was all too much.
This takes me back down memory lane, which I am normally reluctant about, but on this occasion it is relevant. I remember, as a very young man, that when the 1975 referendum occurred and the British people voted to stay in the European Economic Community, we were assured by the then Labour Government and by the Conservative and Lib Dem opposition parties that our sovereignty would not be taken away or damaged in any way. We were joining a trading arrangement; it was a free trade area, and they called it the common market—they would not even call it the EEC. I made the mistake of reading the treaties and felt that this was an unlikely explanation of what was going on.
When I found myself, some years later, as Single Market Minister, I remembered that we had been told that no sovereignty had been lost, but my job was a visible demonstration that a huge amount of sovereignty had been lost, because I had to spend all my time trying to construct alliances with member states to stop a law being imposed on our country that did not make any sense or could even be positively damaging. I remembered that, over the years, in an attempt to persuade us that we had not been cheated over sovereignty, something had been developed called an emergency brake—language rather similar to the Stormont brake.
Faced with this avalanche of draft laws that I did not want or wanted to change dramatically, and recognising how much work it was to construct an alliance of member states sufficient to dilute or delay in each case, I decided on one—I cannot remember which I chose now—and let it be known that I was going to use the emergency brake. This was just to show Brussels that this was all getting out of hand and that I was prepared to take action to stop its extreme legislative ideas. As soon as I mentioned this within the privacy of government, I could feel the quiver of fear and annoyance that this idea created. The great British governing establishment—the civil servants and quite a few of the Ministers—were so pro the EU having its way on everything that they thought a Minister going maverick, as they saw it, and trying to negotiate from a position of strength was a very bad idea. It was, of course, vetoed before anyone outside government ever knew about it. I conspired with the rest to make sure nobody knew about it, because I did not think it would reflect well on me that I had lost the argument to use the emergency brake, or reflect well on the Government, because they were clearly throwing away a very powerful negotiating tool that could have got us an answer that was a lot better.
I give this as a salutary tale. I know that Northern Ireland bravely got a bit further than I did and once suggested that it was going to use the emergency brake. Once again, the great governing establishment knew better and decided that it was not going to be allowed to. I do not think that the Stormont brake will be used. The European Union does not think it is going to be used, which does not give you any negotiating heft as it tries to put more laws upon you.
My conclusions are this. This is advice to the Government that is heartfelt and well meant, and that would actually help the Government. I fully support the Government’s aims to have a growth strategy for the whole United Kingdom that levels up those parts that need levelling up, and is driven by more trade, industrial activity and small business developments. The Government will not get that in Northern Ireland unless they address this issue. The way to address it is to take up my noble friend’s suggestion: this is a bogus problem; there does not need to be a hard border. In the past, the big trade flows have always been east-west, or GB to Northern Ireland, not north-south, or Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. The big trade flows are being damaged. This has to be lifted and we have to put it to the EU. If the EU is a friendly and sensible neighbour, it will see that it makes sense. If it is not, we should do it unilaterally.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, although I do not agree with absolutely everything that he said. It is a pleasure too to take part in today’s debate and to resume that focus on Northern Ireland that I had as chairman of the Sub-Committee of the European Affairs Committee on Northern Ireland—the predecessor of today’s committee. I learned a huge amount about Northern Ireland from the members of that committee, many of whom are present and speaking this afternoon. I was going to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that I will try not to be impenetrably boring, but, fearing that I am going to be impenetrably boring, he has left his seat. However, I very much welcome the report and its recommendations, the excellent report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the Government’s reply.
I was struck when I chaired the committee, and I am struck now, although I listened carefully to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, by the real risk of a democratic deficit in the implementation of the Windsor Framework and the need for the people of Northern Ireland and its institutions, particularly Stormont, to be properly involved in forming and making decisions under the Windsor Framework that directly affect them. The excellent report that we are discussing today makes a number of eminently sensible suggestions. If it does not happen, an already complex and contentious scene will become ever more difficult to progress satisfactorily, with potential implications for the government of Northern Ireland. For that to happen, the process of implementing the framework needs to be transparent and comprehensible.
Over my career in public service, I have worked in many different government departments and embassies. Before, of course, I joined your Lordships’ House, I was steeped in bureaucracy. I thought that I understood bureaucracy, but nothing quite prepares you for the labyrinthine charts on pages 24 and 25 of the report that we are now considering. There is a crying need for more simplicity and clarity in substance and form. It would help greatly if the Government were to maintain and publish a record of regulatory divergence in the implementation of the Windsor Framework between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the one hand and the United Kingdom and the EU on the other. This is not a new point, and it is a point on which I remember the noble Lord, Lord Empey, used to speak eloquently in the committee. I cannot see that the Government have accepted that recommendation from the committee, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify that later.
The implementation of the Windsor Framework is of course a dynamic process, as the shifting political scene in Northern Ireland and more widely shows. The establishment and the developing operation of Stormont’s Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, following the democratic consent vote in December 2024 show that. I am glad to see that the Government have accepted the recommendations in the report from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.
What is also changing are the Government’s relations with the European Union, not least given the uncertain relationship at present between the United Kingdom and the United States. I personally welcome the more constructive relationship between the UK and the EU—it is in the interests of the United Kingdom—but the evolving UK and EU relationship will have implications for Northern Ireland. I hope that we will have learned the lessons of the past and that both the UK and the EU will consider the implications for Northern Ireland of such closer relations up front, not as an afterthought.
Finally, on a wholly tangential point, there is not much good news in the world at the moment, but the elimination of the predators of puffins and other seabirds on Rathlin Island, to which I sailed in a small boat more than 50 years ago—I hope that the Minister will approve of that—is unquestionably good news. The puffins of Rathlin Island may not have read the Windsor Framework, but their future is at least assured.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I commend the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee on producing such a comprehensive and well-considered report. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for his independent review, which was carried out with the levels of diligence and common sense for which he has been renowned over many years. Given the presence of several members of the committee here tonight whose individual views I was keen to hear, I will keep my remarks relatively brief.
Despite the best efforts of the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, Northern Ireland continues to find itself in nothing short of a mess. In common with several of my unionist colleagues here today, I supported Brexit. I felt that it was right for the United Kingdom to regain responsibility for its own future and to become a rule-maker rather than a rule-taker, removing the dominant role played by Brussels. I believe that Brexit offered gilt-edged economic opportunities for Northern Ireland, with its highly educated workforce. I regarded the return of undiluted British sovereignty as a primary means to copper-fasten the Province’s cherished place in the heart of the union.
Unfortunately, in the decade since the UK voted to leave the EU, Northern Ireland’s position in our union has been diminished. The Irish Sea border, the extent of which a former Secretary of State in the previous Conservative Government famously denied, remains in place, causing untold chaos for businesses in the Province and in Great Britain. As noble Lords have noted, prices for Northern Ireland consumers have risen significantly as the range of products available to them has fallen through the floor. All the while, the EU continues to set the rules for so much of everyday life there, with its people having little or no say on new laws being thrust upon us.
The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, have done the Province a service in highlighting the areas of the Windsor Framework where improvements can be made. What we now need is clear evidence that His Majesty’s Government are sincere and serious about their commitment to implementing the many recommendations put forward. Tinkering around at the edges will not work, particularly given the prospect of more diktats from Brussels in the months and years ahead. There is an urgent requirement for Ministers to prove to Northern Ireland businesses and consumers that they understand the problems that the framework has caused for them, to demonstrate that change is on the way and to provide some degree of certainty on precisely when the most damaging aspects will be dealt with.
As we are all too aware, the Windsor Framework is remarkably complex, as we have seen this evening. However, one aspect of its operation that was trumpeted by the Government at that time was the so-called Stormont brake. In its report, the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee correctly highlights that some witnesses had questioned the Stormont brake’s effectiveness and suggested that it had been oversold. When the mechanism was triggered by unionist parties in the Assembly in December 2024, the Northern Ireland Secretary said that the conditions for using it had not been met, raising further scepticism about its very existence.
Out of respect for the work put in by the committee and the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, I am trying very hard to be positive. I therefore welcome, as many of the former speakers have done, the Government’s agreement to establish a one-stop shop facility for the Windsor Framework guidance and support. I agree that this has the potential to deliver benefits for businesses in Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland, with an emphasis on the Province’s dual market access.
The one-stop shop is due to be backed by more than £16 million in public spending, announced by the Chancellor in her November Budget. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide some clarity on precisely when she expects this to come into operation. The Government have previously indicated that it will be within the next financial year. Noble Lords will obviously be well aware that we are only a matter of days away from the new financial year, which potentially gives Ministers a 12-month window to introduce the one-stop shop. Needless to say, I trust it will be sooner.
When the Prime Minister visited Belfast last week, the Ulster Unionist Party asked him to consider pausing any further introduction of Windsor Framework legislation until the conclusion of the ongoing negotiations between the UK and EU. The reason for doing this was reports that Government Ministers had recently advised farming leaders in Great Britain to prepare for an SPS agreement in 2027. Then, delivering her Mais lecture last week, the Chancellor announced that UK divergence from EU regulations would be
“the exception, not the norm”.
Rather than forcing Northern Ireland into yet further costly and unnecessary divergence from the market in Great Britain, might it not be prudent for the implication of the new EU regulations in Northern Ireland to be halted until the direction of travel of the negotiations with Brussels is known? I would welcome a response from the Minister.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, although I cannot say that I agree with what he says. I declare my interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. I thank our chairperson, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and our staff for their direction and guidance in preparation, arranging witnesses and arranging inquiry sessions over that seven-month to eight-month period. It was a very interesting process. I come to this as somebody who supports the Windsor Framework, but I freely acknowledge and recognise that many businesses in Northern Ireland and Britain are encountering difficulties that need to be resolved.
I thank my noble friend Lord Murphy for his detailed report. He was circumscribed by certain conditions set down by the Government, on the basis that he had to find points of agreement within his report. The good thing was that what he brought forward was implemented by the Government, but now we want to see it happen and not just be words on paper. We want to see action and help for businesses.
I come to all this as somebody who supports the Windsor Framework. I want to see businesses being able to avail themselves of the dual market access, which means the Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the EU utilising and promoting the benefits of dual market access. There is a role there for the community and businesses in doing that.
I believe that there is an opportunity to leverage market opportunities by promoting the unique benefits of dual market access to attract foreign direct investment. There are significant economic benefits to be realised in raising awareness among businesses in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Britain of the competitive advantages offered by the access that they can have to both the UK internal market and EU single market. I do not regard this in any sense from a negative point of view; I think businesses want to get on with the job that they are involved in—business—and do not want to get involved in the politics. We have to be mindful of that. It is important that we, through our political machinations, do not undermine or deny their business opportunities.
Only last week, I was at the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly in Brussels, where there was a reaffirmation of the commitments to the full implementation of the withdrawal agreement, including the Windsor Framework and the TCA, because they believe that they remain the foundation for the continued strengthening of relations between the UK and the EU. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Hain said, all this is a result of Brexit. Those who argued for Brexit must remember that this is what we have ended up with. If we had not had Brexit, we definitely would not be having today’s debate.
We must not forget that businesses urgently want a resolution to those bureaucratic challenges and trade frictions between Britain and Northern Ireland, including those taxation matters—some things are very complex—and they do not want to get involved in that political point scoring. With the support of government, they just want to grow the economy through building and expanding their enterprises, recruiting more people and helping the employment situation.
Notwithstanding this, the US tariff situation and the wars in Ukraine and Iran impact all this in terms of the difficulties that our agri-food industry will meet, because the vast majority of fertilisers that are used in the farming industry in Northern Ireland come through the Strait of Hormuz.
As identified through our subsequent evidence sessions after our report was published—we took evidence in the last few weeks—progress has been made through the £16.6 million allocation in the Autumn Budget for the implementation of many of the recommendations in our report and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, improvements to the Trader Support Service and the establishment of the Northern Ireland business support group, which should include membership for InterTradeIreland. It should be involved, as it has people with certain levels of expertise and already has a hub and one-stop shop, so things could be co-designed there. If it could be availed of in these early stages, that would be of benefit.
On the democratic deficit, I agree with my noble friend Lord Hain that Assembly Members and Northern Ireland Ministers need to be directly involved, because they are at the coalface and they know exactly what those issues are and what the best forms of solution are. So far, they have not been. They need to be seen, heard and part of the decision-making process.
We need a database or register of ongoing EU legislation established in the Cabinet Office to assist businesses and others. I ask my noble friend the Minister when this will happen and what work has been done to assess the impact of regulatory divergence. This issue was raised in our committee and in our previous committee. I am very pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who chaired that committee, is present. We put that point, and we need to see this, because I believe in dynamic alignment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, already referred to, the Road Haulage Association, which gave evidence to us, has three particular issues that need resolution: the complexity concerning community code classification; the £2 million turnover threshold for the UK internal market scheme, which restricts access to the green lane and introduces delays for many operators; and the implementation of Import Control System 2, which will add further administrative requirements. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister what further useful work the Government will undertake to resolve these issues. What further discussions will take place with the RHA to resolve or mitigate the impact of those trade frictions?
As already referred to, InterTradeIreland’s specialist knowledge of Northern Ireland and the Ireland economies is fully recognised. It was born out of the Good Friday agreement, of which my noble friend Lord Murphy was one of the principal architects, and it deals with north-south trade. There needs to be movement between north-south and east-west, and all that knowledge needs to be garnered and utilised so that things can be resolved. It deals with customs issues, including commodity codes, customs duty waivers and the correct use of UKIMS declarations, including the “at risk” distinction.
I also urge that the one-stop shop is implemented with clear timelines as quickly as possible. I know that the start of the next financial year is just over a week away, but we need to see it implemented. On staff, is the work going to be contracted out or will Cabinet Office staff do it?
The other issue is the UK-EU reset. We need to see the successful conclusion of these negotiations, with full sight of the implementation of the legislation in the new parliamentary Session.
I should like to see a route back to full membership of the EU. I realise and acknowledge that others have a different viewpoint, but I want to see the implementation of the SPS agreement and that is what our Ulster Farmers’ Union wants as well. There are other issues, such as the legislation that needs to be implemented that will mandate that vehicles placed on the market in Britain must hold GB and EU type approvals and markings to enable their sale in both Britain and Northern Ireland. I was a victim of that in the last few years, and we received evidence on it whenever we visited Newry. When will that legislation be published? Will it be in the King’s Speech or will it be through secondary legislation? What is the expected date of implementation?
With veterinary medicines, much progress has been made but we need to look around the issue of optimal medicines and the costs thereof, and to ensure that there are no impacts on our agri-food industry. So I ask my noble friend the Minister to talk to her colleagues in Defra and DAERA to ensure that any paperwork issues are resolved as quickly as possible, and that farmers and veterinarians can use the correct veterinary medicines that bring benefit to the animals, the agri-food industry and food security. Of equal importance is a need for the authorities with responsibility for the EU deforestation regulations and CBAM to be identified and affirmed. Again, I ask the Minister to identify those authorities.
Finally, all of us want to copper-fasten and underpin the Northern Ireland economy. We want promotion of our assets and selling points. We want food security, less trade friction and less regulatory divergence. We want that centre of our regulatory divergence and to see that EU register updated, so that we know what we are talking about. For my part, I prefer dynamic alignment, which I hope would be achieved through the UK-EU reset. In the meantime, we want to promote Northern Ireland and its business, and do so in a positive and effective manner for the benefit of all the community, for job creation and to further solidify our local economic base.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I speak in the gap. I was a member of the committee when this report was written. I wanted to be here to support it and suggest that it should be read, particularly by those who perhaps have only a peripheral knowledge of Northern Ireland. We were greatly assisted by our staff. I had the pleasure of being on the previous committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay. With him and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we have been well served by two excellent chairs and a great team to back it up.
My first point is to suggest that the committee’s remit is temporary; it is only two years since it was set up. I cannot see circumstances in the immediate future when there will not be a necessity for this committee to carry out scrutiny of Northern Ireland issues. While I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility but a matter for the House, I want to put it on record that this committee should continue. It is inconceivable that such significant matters, affecting not only constitutional but economic areas, should not be looked at somewhere in Parliament. I commend that to the parties in the House.
The issue that is now called the one-stop shop, from the sub-committee that was formed in 2021, has been a consistent theme. How is it that we cannot record each divergence as we go along? Now we will have to go back five years, but it should have been obvious to anybody at the beginning that there should be somewhere that a business or a member of the public can go to see what the divergence is. Or, if you are going to a potential inward investor, you should have somewhere to show them that this is how we do it here and how we do it there. It is not rocket science and I hope that we can resolve it, because it has been a unified theme throughout this debate.
I have to say that the Minister has just been accorded a well-deserved promotion to the Cabinet Office. She is roaring with power; now is the chance to strike and get a commitment that this will be dealt with and that she will deliver the response.
I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, of the phrase—attributed, I think, to Dr Johnson—that there is nothing as permanent as the temporary. I fear that this problem will be around for some time. He is right to say that the European Union is entitled to protect its market, but I have to say that we have gone OTT. There is the potential for somebody to bring goods into Northern Ireland that are inappropriately manufactured and inconsistent with European regulations, they could theoretically get across the border, but to do that the person would have to go through two or three different sea journeys at enormous expense. I think there is an alternative way. The noble Lord mentioned one, but there are others that could involve the Northern Ireland Assembly and perhaps other institutions that have been set up in recent years. There is no reason why we should have to punish our local businesses and consumers. I am quite sure that, with the right attitude in the negotiations, that can be achieved.
I have asked several Parliamentary Questions about this. Under the trade and co-operation agreement, 2026 is a year of review. I would like to believe that the Government have a clear strategy for this review and that these issues will be in it—not simply in the reset but in the review that is under the terms of the treaty.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to take part in this debate, although I was not a member of the committee until January, so did not have the advantage of taking part in the drawing up of this report, which, as our chairman noted, was agreed unanimously. I share in the tributes to our staff, our chair and the other members. As not only a new girl on the committee but one who does not come from Northern Ireland, I am confining myself, certainly in my early days, to comments that are mainly, I hope, relatively non-controversial and constructive.
Of course, as committee members, our views on Brexit and its aftermath differ. Mine have been expressed vocally over the past decade, but I will not be tempted to repeat them here, despite the naughty example of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, let alone the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Lilley. I will focus on how I can contribute to understanding and trying to resolve the practical challenges and difficulties for businesses, other organisations and consumers in Northern Ireland. The noble Baronesses, Lady Foster, Lady Goudie and Lady Ritchie, described those practical problems so well, as did the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, who highlighted farmers in particular.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, had a point when she said that she thought there is a culture of denial about the existence and extent of some of these problems. I was struck by a comment, reflected in the report, from Ian Jeffers, CEO of the charity Co-operation Ireland—of which the noble Baroness is, I understand, a board member. He said that the Windsor Framework
“is to some extent opening up old wounds, or reminding us of some of the things from the past … We are in some ways isolating, as a result of the framework and Brexit, the largely Protestant, unionist, loyalist community. The feedback that I am getting from community groups that we work with in the PUL … community is a feeling of loss”.
That is something I note for my own awareness and understanding, not to either endorse or contest it or, of course, to exclude other views.
I admit that some things have surprised me, not least how long it seems to be taking to set up promised structures since the TCA and the Northern Ireland protocol six years ago, and the Windsor Framework three years ago, though I acknowledge that, for part of that time, there was no Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive. I was also surprised to learn that the First Minister declined to engage with our committee and, since she does so decline, that also bars the Deputy First Minister from engaging with us. I will no doubt be reproached for being either ignorant or naive—I am probably both—but, since there was a Sinn Féin member on the delegation from the Irish Parliament that recently visited and met our committee, I would have hoped for more flexibility in attitudes.
On the information and support services for businesses, there is frustration about delay. We learn from the Government’s response that the promised and much-needed one-stop shop requested by the excellent review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which is designed to answer queries and assist businesses, gets its £16 million funding only in the next financial year, 2026-27. It will presumably be at least 2027-28 before that is up and running. Others, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady Foster, have talked about the one-stop shop, so all I add is that our witnesses stressed, for both the trader support service and the one-stop shop, the need to avoid total reliance on AI and chatbots and to provide what is becoming a vital but vanishing resource in customer service, which is human beings to talk to with specific queries.
I turn to divergence between UK and EU law, and hence between applicable laws in GB and NI. The committee stressed the need for legal clarity on regulatory divergence for Northern Ireland businesses and those in GB. It pointed out:
“The former Windsor Framework Sub-Committee”,
whose chair the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, helpfully contributed to this debate,
“repeatedly argued (and recommended) that the Government should take responsibility for monitoring regulatory divergence both within the UK (GB/NI) and between the UK and the EU, and place that information in the public domain”.
The report we are debating insisted:
“This should take the form of a database of EU law which applies in Northern Ireland … This is vital if the public and businesses are to understand the regulatory landscape and the laws which apply to them in Northern Ireland. We recommend that this work be the responsibility of a new unit”,
or office, which might sensibly be located
“in the Cabinet Office responsible for regulatory divergence”.
Such a call predates the UK-EU reset, but surely acquires even more urgency and scope with it.
Dr Lisa Claire Whitten, research fellow at Queen’s University Belfast School of Law, told the committee that for
“policy-makers and stakeholders seeking to understand which laws currently apply to Northern Ireland under the Windsor Framework there is no authoritative, agreed and updated source available”.
That is a pretty shocking state of affairs. Unfortunately, the Government’s response to the report says
“we would not be pursuing a specific UK-developed database of EU rules as we do not believe this would deliver the same value that a significantly enhanced support offer for SMEs could from the funding available”.
I contend that this is to misunderstand; it is comparing apples and pears. Traders need both a database of laws and a centre staffed by people who can answer specific queries. They are not alternatives to be set against one another.
The reset that the Government are pursuing in the relations of the whole of the UK with the EU, which I thoroughly welcome, could help reduce divergence between GB and Northern Ireland, as has been said by others, particularly with an SPS agreement. Perhaps it could even remove the infamous “not for EU” labelling. Crucially, however, it will not cover the customs obligations which weigh so heavily on GB-Northern Ireland trade.
It will be interesting to see whether the reset influences the Government’s thinking and action on engagement and consultation, on how to make information on applicable legislation transparently available and on capacity for monitoring and scrutiny, not least in this Parliament. At present, only our Northern Ireland Committee does this monitoring job in Westminster, so will the Government encourage the reincarnation of a European affairs or scrutiny committee in the other place?
The committee rightly wondered
“whether the commitments made at the UK-EU summit regarding ‘decision-shaping’ deliver opportunities for the UK to engage effectively at the pre-legislative stage”.
Whatever one’s scepticism about “decision-shaping”, of course any opportunities that might arise can be exploited only if businesses and others actually know what is coming up so they can engage with the Government and the European Commission. Awareness needs to be followed by transparency of work and ease of access. SDLP MLA Matthew O’Toole remarked that some of the UK-EU structures, such as the Joint Committee, Specialised Committee and Joint Consultative Working Group—I have already mentioned three committees—
“are a little opaque and convoluted”.
DUP MP Gavin Robinson noted of bodies such as the Joint Committee and the JCWG—I am sorry, I have lapsed into acronyms—
“you will not find an address, contact point, published minutes or an agenda for those. In the specialist groups, you might find a published minute, and it will be so high level and repetitive it is thoroughly useless”.
Oh dear, that is a harsh judgment—but probably true. It is obviously not good enough and hardly helps reconcile people to the structures and processes of the Windsor Framework.
The committee explains that it sees its task as
“not to argue for or against the Windsor Framework itself, but rather to scrutinise its operation in an objective and evidence-based manner”.
I will try to take my inspiration from that. However, I can say, not least as I did not take part in drawing up this report, that I believe it has done a very valuable job, including in highlighting how the aspirations of transparency, participation, engagement and dialogue are being met only patchily in the operation of the framework, and that improving that record is essential for business, the whole community and the economy in Northern Ireland, as well as GB as a whole.
The experience of Northern Ireland will be either a beacon or a lesson for the whole UK as the reset proceeds, so a lot depends on getting things right in the operation of the Windsor Framework. Unfortunately, we will all then be in the fax democracy, not just Northern Ireland, and we must at least be informed in a transparent manner. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, commented in his review that the Government should not only be transparent about the functioning of the Stormont brake and applicability Motion, but
“should also go further to acknowledge the impact EU legislation is having on Northern Ireland, and where it has acted to address those concerns”.
This seems to me not only to be very wide advice but to have wider relevance to the process of reset. Otherwise, we are going to lose the support of people. The fact that the Windsor Framework arrangements can be described to the committee as being of “labyrinthine complexity” and “extraordinary complexity” is not only a poor service to the people of Northern Ireland, to put it mildly, but a poor omen for reception of the output from the reset.
I conclude by saying that the Government therefore need not only to try to implement a Rolls-Royce information system for Northern Ireland but to be ready for the demands of dynamic alignment with EU law for the whole UK. We might not get a say or a voice, which of course would be my solution, but we need at least to know what it is all about.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to congratulate the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on producing such a comprehensive and stimulating report. In addition, I put on record our thanks to the distinguished former Secretary of State the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for conducting his independent review of the Windsor Framework, commissioned following the democratic consent vote in the Assembly in December 2024. Both the committee’s report and the noble Lord’s review contain a number of important recommendations that complement each other and which should be read side by side.
It was a privilege to be a Northern Ireland Office Minister when both the Windsor Framework and the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper were negotiated and published. As such, I was responsible for—some might say guilty of—taking a number of the measures contained in both documents through your Lordships’ House, including the Stormont brake, to which reference has been made today and which I genuinely hope that I did not try to oversell.
Like my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee, I, too, would not start from here. However, the origins of the Windsor Framework were of course in the desire of the previous Government to deal with the consequences of the flawed and highly defective protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland that had been negotiated in October 2019—although I am of course fully aware of the context in which that negotiation took place. Within a short space of time from the coming into force of the protocol in January 2021, those consequences had become all too apparent. As I put it in a debate in Grand Committee on 13 September 2021, while a member of the former sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme:
“It has disrupted trade, damaged businesses, hit consumers and contributed to growing political instability … we now risk rushing headlong into a full-blown political crisis from which the institutions established under the 1998 agreement could take years to recover”.—[Official Report, 13/9/21; col. GC 253.]
That crisis manifested itself only a few short months later, in February 2022, when the DUP First Minister resigned, triggering the collapse of the institutions—I should add, just weeks after I had taken through legislation as a Minister, part of which was designed to make it more difficult for that to happen. Instead, and as a result of the DUP’s decision, devolved government ceased to function for another two years.
The Windsor Framework was, therefore, an attempt—a valiant one, in my view—by the Sunak Government to address these issues, motivated, as I can assure noble Lords, by a desire significantly to reduce checks on goods that the protocol had introduced, protect Northern Ireland’s position within the UK internal market, and of course copper-fasten Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of our United Kingdom. Taken with the subsequent Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, in January 2024, it ameliorated some of the worst impacts of the protocol. It has led to the freer flow of goods coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa, while at the same time ensuring that Northern Ireland has unfettered access to the EU single market—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick—so vital for industries such as the agri-food sector. In addition, both the framework and Safeguarding the Union in particular facilitated the restoration of devolved government at Stormont in February 2024—and we should not lose sight of the importance of that.
However, that is only one side of the story. When I took the Stormont brake regulations through your Lordships’ House, I said, rather too candidly for the Cabinet Office officials, who sought to censor my speech, that
“the Windsor Framework is not a perfect document”,
but that it
“represents very significant improvements on the old protocol negotiated in 2019”.—[Official Report, 29/3/23; col. 318.]
Taken alongside Safeguarding the Union, I still hold to that view. However, I fully accept that we clearly did not get everything right or solve every problem—although, given the unfortunate history of the protocol and the joint report of December 2017, it might be argued that it was the best we could have achieved in the circumstances. Anyone with experience of dealing with the EU, of which there are a number in the Committee today, will testify as to just how difficult it can be to persuade the Commission even to consider reopening agreements, especially ones that have only recently been reached.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, despite our best endeavours as a Government, significant problems remain. There is clear evidence of trade diversion, and my noble friend Lady Foster of Aghadrumsee highlighted figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency just this month that I was going to cite in full to support this. What consideration are the Government giving to the sensible proposals put forward by the Road Haulage Association that could reduce the burdens deterring operators from moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland? I agree that a trusted haulier scheme, also endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, lifting the existing £2 million turnover threshold for the inclusion of SMEs into the UK internal market scheme—and, crucially, moving the determination of at-risk goods from the point of entry into Northern Ireland to the point of sale—would be important and welcome measures. My noble friend Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard also raised significant problems around the movement of agricultural machinery and ongoing problems over veterinary medicines.
On democratic scrutiny, whatever the measures to improve this in the Windsor Framework and Safeguarding the Union, such as the Stormont brake and the applicability Motion, it is at least arguable—I put it mildly—that these have not necessarily worked as effectively or strongly as we might have hoped at the time. As a result, as many noble Lords pointed out, Northern Ireland, uniquely in the United Kingdom, has to accept and implement laws put forward by a supranational body of which we are not a member and over the shaping of which it still has little or no influence. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, put that point powerfully in his contribution, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
We have never taken the view that the Windsor Framework was the final word or beyond improvement in what is an evolving or, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, put it, dynamic situation. We will always look at constructive proposals for change and reform. It is in that spirit that the Opposition approach both the committee’s report and the independent review. I will confine my comments to a few of the recommendations.
I fully accept what the report describes as the “labyrinthine complexity” of the arrangements under the framework, highlighted graphically by the impenetrable charts on pages 24 and 25, to which the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Jay, drew attention. Like my noble friend Lady Sanderson of Welton, I sometimes wonder how a party whose instinct is, or at least always should be, to make life for business and consumers easier could have settled for such a mind-boggling set of arrangements.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Empey, who said that we had gone completely OTT on this, and with my noble friend Lord Lilley, who described the current arrangements as a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”—a phrase I used in the debate to which I referred earlier, in 2021. There must surely, therefore, be scope to streamline and reduce the number of bodies involved in the implementation of the framework, and anything that simplifies matters for business, particularly for SMEs—which are the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland—has to be welcomed.
Like everyone else who spoke, we particularly support, therefore, the establishment of the one-stop shop, also recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, as a place where business can seek advice and support to assist with problems that arise during the course of its trade and transactions. I strongly agree with the points transmitted to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in this respect. Like others, I invite the Minister to give an update on progress towards establishing that one-stop shop when she winds.
The Government have accepted that the Democratic Scrutiny Committee should have more time to decide whether to launch an inquiry into replacement EU legislation, and will legislate when parliamentary time allows. Can the noble Baroness give us an assurance that this will take place in the next Session, which we anticipate beginning in May?
On commitments in Safeguarding the Union, which is covered by the committee’s report, will the Minister commit both to the long-term funding and longevity of the principal bodies established under the Command Paper: the independent monitoring panel, InterTrade UK and the east-west council? Can she also tell the Committee what is the status of the pledge in Annex B of Safeguarding the Union to publish a series of papers by sector that highlight the benefits of Northern Ireland’s place within the union? This is something that I have pursued through Written Questions but, sadly, the replies have been hardly enlightening.
Time prevents me from commenting on the so-called reset and proposed future dynamic alignment, although these will obviously have significant implications.
In conclusion, the recommendations in both the committee’s report and the review from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, are to be welcomed. They are overwhelmingly positive and should, if taken forward, make a number of improvements to the operation of the framework, including maximising Northern Ireland’s influence in Brussels and ending a number of the complexities regarding the current arrangements. But looking ahead, it is clear that at some point more fundamental changes are going to be needed to deal with the outstanding problems, and a number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lord Lilley, put forward suggestions in that respect. As a constructive Opposition, we are open to ideas and meaningful dialogue with all interested parties and organisations as to how this might be done, consistent always with the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom, which we hold so dear.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, there are many parts of the Windsor Framework, and every time I have a conversation or a briefing about it, there is always something new, and a new part of that world. However, puffins was not where I believed today’s debate was going to go. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Empey, but I have been in post for three weeks and the power part may still yet be lacking—but I will see what I can do for him, because I would never seek to disappoint.
We have had a truly substantive and insightful debate this afternoon. I begin by thanking my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing this debate and for his stewardship of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. I also take this opportunity to wish my noble friend Lady Ritchie a very happy birthday.
The report we are considering today is very important, not just because of the detailed work clearly undertaken but because the engagement of businesses and civic society with Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements is important at both a constitutional and economic level. Similar themes were also developed by the very thoughtful review of the Windsor Framework conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, and I am grateful to hear his further reflections today. There is something so special and addictive about Northern Ireland that means that those of us exposed to it become completely addicted and can never walk away from it. I think that is reflected by the fact that we have two former Secretaries of State participating today.
I have listened with great care to the contributions made from all sides of the House and I want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Caine, for reminding us of the stakes at play in Northern Ireland, both economic and cultural. Although noble Lords have different views across the diverse range of issues discussed today, a common thread has been our collective pledge to Northern Ireland’s prosperity, security and economic success, and a shared agreement that businesses, civic society, organisations and public authorities alike should have their voice heard in the very trading arrangements that necessarily underpin that success. Many specific points were raised today, and I will reflect on Hansard to see if I have missed any, but I shall endeavour to answer all the points raised.
I think it will be helpful if we place today’s discussion in context. I should first like to set out the Government’s ongoing commitment to the Windsor Framework and protecting the UK internal market—I assure the noble Lord, Lord Caine, that my speech has not been doctored—while appreciating that there can always be room for improvement. As we have heard today, not least from the noble Lord, those commitments were set out in our manifesto, and we consider them vitally important. They guide our reset with the EU, and they are our guiding approach to securing a vital new agreement with the EU that will smooth trade flows of agri-food goods. Those twin commitments are also important as they reflect the importance of trading arrangements that respect Northern Ireland’s place in the union, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland, and which work on an agreed basis with the EU.
It is only through this approach that we can give certainty to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland on the rules that apply, as they trade uniquely across two markets. That is why it contains important mechanisms to enable participation and facilitate that voice; the ability of the Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise EU rules; structures for businesses and civic society to engage with the UK and EU on the framework’s implementation; arrangements for the Government and Northern Ireland Executive to work together and ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard; and a periodic vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly on continuing these arrangements. The first such vote, as we heard, triggered a review of the framework that was carefully and thoughtfully conducted by my noble friend Lord Murphy with a wide range of stakeholders. The Government are now taking action on all the recommendations set out in that review.
That brings me to the real topic of today’s debate: the one-stop shop. Noble Lords are very aware, it seems, of the announced £16.6 million for an enhanced one-stop shop regulatory support service, designed to navigate the knowledge gap facing small and medium-sized enterprises. This will be operational in the next financial year, which I gently remind noble Lords begins next week. We are working to make sure that this can work. I assure your Lordships’ Committee that the one-stop shop will support GB businesses as much as it will support businesses operating in Northern Ireland. I will come on to some of the other points that were raised in relation to that shortly.
Progress has also been made on veterinary medicine—something I will again touch on, in terms of the detail raised today. The UK Government worked extensively with industry in the run-up to the end of the grace period. I am pleased to say that the transition has been without significant disruption—I am not saying there has not been any—and there have been no significant supply issues or other impacts, although we continue to monitor this closely.
It would be remiss of me not to mention that the Government have also allocated £2.25 million in funding to InterTrade UK over the next three years, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster—funding that will allow it to continue its vital work in advising on and promoting trade within the UK. I am sure that the work of InterTrade will assist in continuing to boost the economy of Northern Ireland, as outlined by my noble friend Lady Goudie. I remind noble Lords that Northern Ireland is the fastest-growing part of the United Kingdom. I place on record my personal thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her work at InterTrade UK.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised an important point about the role of InterTrade UK and the one-stop shop. I hope and would expect that the one-stop shop will work with InterTrade UK and other stakeholders to support trade and that this will be something that works together.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for addressing that issue, but what about InterTradeIreland, which already has a hub and could provide some beneficial information?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Given the nature of InterTradeIreland, that is a matter for InterTradeIreland and is not something I can comment on from the Dispatch Box.
With regard to the specifics of the report, in short, a lot has been done, but there remains more to do, as this report by the committee highlights. Indeed, the Government’s response to the committee’s report following the independent review shows as much. This leads me to our next steps. We are ensuring that the stakeholder engagement landscape captures a broad spectrum of businesses in a new Northern Ireland business stakeholder group—just to add to the wonderful flowchart that we saw earlier today. We are also looking at how the Government and devolved departments can conduct engagement and capture the views of industry, so that this is joined-up and gets the right outcomes earlier on.
The Northern Ireland Executive participate in all structures under the Windsor Framework, yet we acknowledge that there is more to be done between the Government and the Executive to ensure that public authorities link up and address issues with changes to regulatory proposals earlier in the process. We are therefore implementing new processes to address that and facilitate better engagement at all levels, beyond the Cabinet Office executive office working group.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Can the Minister say whether the United Kingdom will be tabling proposed improvements to the Windsor Framework as part of the reset negotiations?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord, who has been a Member of the other place and only recently of your Lordships’ House, will be aware better than me that I am not in a position to give any detail of ongoing negotiations while they are currently ongoing. The noble Lord will be aware that the impact on Northern Ireland is key to some of the negotiations, which is why we are focusing so much effort on the SPS deal.
We will continue to welcome contributions from the Executive, including at the Joint Committee—the governing body for the Windsor Framework and the withdrawal agreement as a whole. More broadly, looking at the committee’s report, we are taking forward a new phase of the Trader Support Service, which provides vital support to businesses with goods movements. Those issues were covered in the committee’s report and, in December 2025, we set out more information on the consortium to deliver it. We are working to give greater discretion to the Democratic Scrutiny Committee; it will be allowed greater discretion over how it conducts its scrutiny and the timelines for it. We are backing this up in Brussels, increasing resourcing, as requested by the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels, so that it can provide vital perspective to the institutions there as proposals are developed and considered.
I move on to transparency and awareness. Our approach seeks to ensure that the broadest range of voices from across Northern Ireland is heard, including from business and civic society. It also ensures that there is the right space for technical engagement between government departments and their counterparts in Northern Ireland and the EU institutions. It seeks to ensure that devolved departments are equipped with the right information about regulatory proposals to consider their impacts and advise the Assembly further on Northern Ireland’s interests.
Where issues are identified, we have already shown our capacity to take action, whether domestically, where we have announced consultation activity on toy safety and chemicals labelling and ensured that the UK internal market is protected in response to concerns from industry; or bilaterally, such as on dental amalgam or the arrangements to protect the supply of pharmaceuticals. On all these issues, we have listened to stakeholders, whether they are business organisations, civic organisations or the vital work of the Democratic Scrutiny Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Just as we will continue to support the scrutiny of the Windsor Framework arrangements and the rules that apply in the Assembly, and by the Independent Monitoring Panel, so too will we support the work of InterTrade UK on promoting the economic bonds and strengths of all parts of the UK, and the east-west council in developing the ties across it.
I move on to some of the specific questions in the order that they were asked and not necessarily grouped by issue. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, touched on EUR-Lex. Although the EU’s EUR-Lex tool can be used to read and consider detailed legal terms, we recognise the need for businesses to have clear and accessible guidance. The enhanced one-stop shop we are delivering will do that, providing businesses with tailored advice to navigate those issues. We believe that this is the best way that we can support businesses with explaining the rules that apply.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Is she saying that something better than EUR-Lex will be part of the one-stop shop, and that legal problems will therefore be solvable through that structure?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am. Noble Lords heard it here first. Perhaps I do have a little power, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said—or rather, the people behind me do.
My noble friend Lord Murphy touched on the SPS agreement and how important it is. We are currently negotiating with the EU on an SPS agreement to make agri-food trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier, cutting costs and removing barriers to trade for producers and retailers across the whole of the UK. The agreement will benefit Northern Ireland through the interplay with the Windsor Framework, by making a more consistent approach to agri-food and plants. We will smooth the flows of trade still further. On 9 March, the Government provided an update on the changes this would entail for businesses. This includes a call for information from businesses so that the Government can understand exactly what they need.
My noble friends Lord Murphy and Lord Hain asked about the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels and the investment provided. The Government have agreed to provide funding to this office to cover up to three additional posts to ensure that Northern Ireland’s interests are accounted for in Brussels and that EU policy-making is accounted for in Belfast.
Parity of esteem was raised by my noble friend Lord Murphy. This seems particularly apt given how close we are to the anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. We are committed to the agreement in all respects, which of course includes parity of esteem for the identities and aspirations of both communities. The application of the Windsor Framework does not shake that commitment.
Gently, I want to touch on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. He raised many issues related to how we got to this point and the question of what is temporary. I was given a slight history lesson earlier today about how many pieces of legislation have the word “temporary” in them, and that has not exactly been an unusual part of our legislative framework historically. I gently suggest that the agreements we have been discussing today were signed by his party when in government, and my party is trying to make the Windsor Framework work for the people of Northern Ireland, which is why we are also currently in the process of resetting the relationship.
Lord Lilley (Con)
They were, of course, signed by the past Government, but they were described by the EU as temporary. That was the sole justification the EU gave for including trade with Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement. She cannot make a party-political point about it. She is either going to ignore the EU or believe it.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I believe my party is quite clear on our position on the EU, not least because I believe in international law and complying with our agreements.
One of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, was on veterinary medicines and the prices going up. She raised a specific case. I should very much like to hear the detail of it because to date, we do not have any evidence of prices going up.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I have written to the Secretary of State about the issue.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I have not had sight of that question and, apparently, neither has the person who gave me the answer. But online retailers continue to operate in Northern Ireland. As in the rest of the UK, prices between online retailers may vary. We recommend pet owners and others do their research to see which retailer best meets their supply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, rightly raised the issue of haulage, logistics and the trusted haulier scheme. We have accepted the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Murphy, in this area and are looking at all possibilities to reduce frictions for logistics and haulage businesses on an ongoing basis. In parallel, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the available facilitations. The Government have also established a new Northern Ireland business stakeholders’ group as a formal means of engagement between the Government and Northern Ireland business organisations. This group includes representations from key sectors, including the Road Haulage Association, and provides a direct channel for input into technical UK-EU fora.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, raised the issue of animal and livestock movement. He will also be aware that I have met the Ulster Farmers’ Union and some young farmers, and this issue has been raised. The noble Lord will be aware that the best way in which to manage this will be through an SPS agreement and that is why we are seeking to move quickly to deliver on this issue, but I have heard both him and the representations made by others.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, who previously chaired the committee, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and noble Lord, Lord Rogan, touched, as did other Lords, on the record of regulatory divergence. The Government’s priority is to deliver the enhanced regulatory one-stop shop to advise and support businesses in trading across the whole UK market. We believe that this one-stop shop is far better placed to support small businesses that face challenges. We will seek for this one-stop shop to provide regulatory alerts to businesses on changes to the rules, which we would expect to be accessible to them. The Windsor Framework and a set of online tools provided by the EU can already be used to find regulations of relevance to Northern Ireland. It is for these reasons that our response to the independent review of the Windsor Framework set out that a one-stop shop would be our focus going forward.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister again. I am a bit like a dog with a bone on this question of a database, because I am still not entirely clear that a one-stop shop answering specific queries is the same thing as a comprehensive database of all applicable laws being kept up to date, which is not static but dynamic. They are two different things, and I am not reassured by the Minister. I am sure that she responds in good faith, but I tried to suggest in my remarks that the two were conflated. I am not sure that her earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, fully removes my doubts on the subject.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The Government have made a decision that we will focus on helping people work with it, rather than keeping a list, so that we can make sure that people have the support they need as they try to navigate the impact on their businesses and on their trade.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I apologise for intervening again, but will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss a way in which EUR-Lex change can be incorporated in the one-stop shop, possibly including some very simple ways of using existing techniques to simplify complex legal issues?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
How could I ever turn down an invitation from the noble Lord? Of course, I am more than happy to meet him to go over the debate. More importantly, officials can be there to make sure that what he wants is reflected so that we can actually make this work. We are taking a pragmatic approach to try to make this work and make it as easy as possible, while at the same time hoping to negotiate an SPS deal that takes away a great many of the issues we are talking about.
No one could doubt for a second the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to the people of Northern Ireland and to trying to make these issues work. He touched on the issues of Safeguarding the Union and his PQs—obviously, I sign off every one. I realise that I am now over time, but I am more than happy to have a meeting with the noble Lord to discuss Safeguarding the Union, if that is acceptable to him.
I want to reassure noble Lords on some points, starting with noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, whom I assure that the interface will be user-friendly—or else—and will be focused UK-wide. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about hauliers, and I hope I have responded to her in full. If I have not, I will look at what she said and come back to her.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about parliamentary committees in the other place. She will be aware that how it chooses to engage is a matter for the other place, and for Parliament as a whole, but I am delighted that noble Lords had the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee doing this very important work. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness that we have accepted all the noble Lord’s recommendations and are seeking to implement them—one of the questions touched on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked me about future legislation. I reassure him that we will talk about this—I would suggest in this Room, but possibly on the Floor of the House—in the next Session, subject to me now getting told off by the Chief Whip.
In conclusion, the message from this debate is clear: we must continue to listen to and act on the voices of businesses and civic society in delivering Northern Ireland’s trading arrangements. I give the Committee the continued commitment of the Government today that we will always take practical actions on concerns to protect the UK internal market and flow of goods, be that east-west or north-south. As we do so, our focus will remain on the prize of delivering real prosperity, where Northern Ireland remains one of the fastest-growing economies of the UK, in part thanks to its unique trading position and businesses having certainty about the facilitations available to move their goods under the Windsor Framework.
However, I am aware of the ongoing complexities of how this is operating on the ground and, on that basis, I will visit Northern Ireland very soon. Noble Lords, especially those in Northern Ireland, will be aware that I am not allowed to say exactly when, but I will be in Northern Ireland imminently to see how the Windsor Framework is operating on the ground. I will meet key stakeholders who are delivering this, as well as businesses, to see what next steps the Government should consider.
The Government will support only those trading arrangements for Northern Ireland that protect its place in the UK and its internal market, avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and can be agreed. While there is more to be done to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard in London, Belfast and Brussels, the Windsor Framework really does provide the best basis for that, and we are committed to working alongside our partners in the Northern Ireland Executive and the EU institutions as we take it forward, alongside new agreements with the EU, so that we may build an even brighter and more prosperous future for people in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom.
I again thank the committee for its report and I look forward to continuing to work with it in the coming months—I really hope that I did not disappoint my noble friend Lord Carlile. On that final note, I wish all members of the committee a happy Easter and chag Pesach sameach.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I ask for clarification on one point, and if she does not have it right now, perhaps she could write and put it in the Library. There are two parallel processes here. There is the EU reset and there are the specific conditions in the trade and co-operation agreement, where it is specified that there will be a review in 2026. I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and others a number of times whether the Government were preparing for those. We have two separate processes, one a treaty obligation and one a set of political negotiations. We need to know what we are doing, otherwise we are going to get confused. If the noble Baroness does not have the minutiae of it at hand, I would be more than happy if she would write to me.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will give a short wind up, because we have had a very full debate and I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I start, however, by correcting an earlier omission. I failed to thank my noble friend Lord Jay for the work that the previous sub-committee did, which helped to set us up, and indeed for what members do not know, which was his kindness to me when I was appointed chair of this committee. He gave me what was a very well-concealed short tutorial, which was of enormous value to me, so I thank him very much. I am very grateful particularly to the Minister, of course, who has not disappointed me at all, and to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who showed his objective commitment to these issues.
The Division Bell is ringing, so I shall curtail my wind up into a couple of sentences and then we can go and vote. I thank everyone for the part they played in this debate, and in all the issues we have considered. I do not believe that we are looking at pandemonium, a word coined by Milton to describe living hell. I think Northern Ireland is a very good place these days. I have known Northern Ireland through the time I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; it was not always the great place it is now, and we are simply trying to make things better by asking the Government to take the steps that are necessary, and which they appear to accept, to make Northern Ireland that much better a place.
House of Lords
Small Boat Deaths: Cranston Inquiry Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, this was a sobering report setting out the circumstances that led to the tragic loss of over 30 lives. Our sympathies remain with all those affected. Significant improvements have been made since 2021, including more people and assets, new technologies and strengthened departmental oversight. However, we must learn from the inquiry and do everything we can to prevent anything like it happening again. We are carefully considering the report and plan an interim response by the end of May.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend—he has answered half my question already. The report has highlighted that there are very serious deficiencies in our ability to rescue people at sea and that we compare unfavourably with Italy and Greece, which have more and better-equipped boats. The RNLI and Border Force do a wonderful job in trying to save lives, but they are not well equipped with their boats to do so. I hope the Minister will do all he can to implement as much of the Cranston report as possible as quickly as possible before the summer comes along and more people are liable to drown in the channel.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing to say is that crossings of the English Channel in these circumstances are extraordinarily dangerous. Notwithstanding that, more than 152,000 people have been successfully rescued since November 2021. There are now five dedicated Border Security Command vessels in the channel available for search and rescue tasking; these successfully conduct approximately 93% of the rescues in the channel and are supported by RNLI vessels when required. I pay tribute, as I am sure the House also does, to the RNLI volunteers and indeed all those who contribute to life-saving in the English Channel and elsewhere. The Government recognise the gravity of the matters Sir Ross Cranston has reported on and are determined to take all actions necessary following his report.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this report follows on from a statement made by the UK Government on 4 February at the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. On safety at sea, it says that
“it is essential to promote a common, coherent and effective implementation of the legal framework for search and rescue policies in Europe and to help member States to strengthen their solidarity”.
In respect of England and France, can the Minister tell us how that statement will be put into effect?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that collaborative action with our neighbours is key to making the sea safer in these circumstances. It is clear to me from the actions taken before the report was published and from what has been going on since that relationships with the French in particular, and the Belgians, are being pursued very seriously with a view to making sure that if there are any gaps, they are closed as much as possible.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I was pleased to have commissioned Sir Ross to conduct this inquiry and I place on record my thanks to him for his excellent report, which highlights the danger of channel crossings, the appalling organised crime groups that exploit vulnerable people and the difficulty for any Government in balancing border security and protecting life at sea. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that the Government are going to come forward in May with an interim report. I urge him to look at the fantastic work His Majesty’s Coastguard does with its partners in the RNLI, and at strengthening its resources to make sure that we can protect life at sea while also ensuring that we have secure borders.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I compliment the noble Lord on instituting the report when he was Secretary of State, because losing more than 30 lives at sea is clearly a very serious matter. I have already said that there are now many more resources for Border Force, the coastguard and, when necessary, the RNLI, with a view to making sure that such a thing is never repeated.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, the Cranston report runs to over 400 pages. What is the most important lesson to be learnt from it?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I spent most of last weekend reading the report—I do not claim to have read every word—but parts of it are extraordinarily harrowing because they comprise evidence from two survivors. It is clear that, as a consequence, a large number of actions are needed. Fundamentally, there were insufficient resources, and insufficient process was followed in the right way, which contributed to this tragedy.
On the other hand, on the night when this occurred, there was also a large number of rescues, and we should at least be proud that many people contributed to rescuing numbers well into three figures, so not all is wrong. As always, the trick with these things is to be positive about the changes that need to be made and recognise the heroism and bravery of those who go out to sea at night in very difficult conditions, but also to make sure that the backing and numbers are there for them to operate safely and do their jobs properly.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think we would all agree that the best way to reduce the number of people dying in the English Channel is to reduce the number of unsuitable boats crossing the English Channel. The Government were elected on a pledge to smash the gangs. How is that going, and is the effort going to be helped or hindered by the sudden resignation after only 18 months of the head of UK Border Security Command?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are taking strong, decisive action to do something about this issue. In particular, we are removing around 60,000 people who had no right to remain, and the historic deal with the French, which means that those who arrive are now being detained and sent back, is considerable evidence that the Government are not slacking on this matter.
We should pay tribute to Martin Hewitt, who established Border Security Command. In his time as commander, he has helped to deliver landmark legislation and put in place leadership and governance. We will make an announcement on his successor in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Four years ago, the Government chose not to act on Alexander Downer’s recommendation to then Home Secretary Patel that responsibility for search and rescue in the channel pass from Border Force and the Home Office to the coastguard and the Department for Transport. The Cranston report now recommends that that recommendation from Downer be acted on. Will the Government act on it? If not, why not?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Cranston report makes a number of recommendations. The actions to be taken my department in order to get the best possible outcome must consider all the recommendations together, so I am not going to mention any one particular action at this moment in time. However, the department is committed to taking serious note of everything Sir Ross said and to answering all the points made by him, both in the interim report and thereafter.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, since 2024, the Government have given the French gendarmerie £500 million plus. Does the Minister feel that the French have done enough to make good use of that money?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not going to comment on the actions of our near neighbour. There is more collaboration now than there was. The number of boats that arrived last year, in 2025, was half that in 2022. We need to get on with them sufficiently for both sides to deal with this problem together.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, we know that war and conflict is the key driver of the number of refugees and asylum seekers. Given the state of the world, what is my noble friend the Minister’s assessment of the impact of that on the resources that will be needed to ensure safe passage?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid that this particular Minister is ill qualified to work out the effects of international conflict. What I should say in respect of those matters for which the department is responsible is that we have to be ready for all the numbers in order to ensure the safety at sea of all those who go to sea, however they go to sea.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, as is evident on the internet, social media is used to facilitate illegal migration in numerous countries globally, serving as a key tool for people smugglers to advertise their services. What are the Government doing to stop this advertising of illegal migration on social media?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government are committed to taking action in every way they can. Since I do not deal with social media—I have plenty to do with transport—if there is any more to say to the noble Lord on this matter, I shall write to him.
Media Freedom Coalition
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what their priorities are for strengthening the work of the Media Freedom Coalition during their term as co-chair.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the need for a strong collective voice for countries committed to free media, especially in today’s fragmented world. The Media Freedom Coalition provides that voice. The UK will raise its profile and expand its reach as a truly global partnership. We will foster exchange of expertise and drive timely, effective advocacy. We will explore viable ways to support public interest media, to navigate the opportunities and risks that stem from AI and other new technologies, and address the challenges faced by women journalists.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, in extending the reach of the work of the Media Freedom Coalition, of which the Government are co-chair, what progress do Ministers expect to make with regard to securing the safety of journalists who are working in conflict-torn Sudan and also the Iranian journalists who are in exile, some of them in this country, who face threats to their lives every day?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are many examples that the noble Baroness could have selected, but those two are particularly pertinent at this time. Clearly, we do everything we can that is necessary to keep journalists safe in this country—that is a commitment that I do not think any Government of this country would ever shy away from. In Sudan, the situation is incredibly precarious. We work alongside our allies and partners on the ground to try and make sure that journalists there can do their jobs safely, because we are getting far too little information out of the country about what is happening. It is a very difficult situation, as the noble Baroness knows. We could equally talk about Gaza, or many other contexts, where we are having similar challenges. That ability to report freely is absolutely essential, in terms of us knowing what is happening but also holding those responsible to account.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that right-wing ownership of newspapers is one of our biggest threats, not just in this country but across Europe? Do we not need to make sure that we do not let more of our media outlets be controlled by right-wing zealots?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend puts his position across forcefully and clearly, as ever. My concern is with the Media Freedom Coalition and to make sure that the UK plays the fullest part it can in its role as co-chair. This is a vital international mechanism, and we intend to use it for good.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister will recognise, the previous Government—indeed, I was the Minister responsible—set up the Media Freedom Coalition. It currently stands at 51 members, and I hope that as the UK now assumes the co-chair, since we have not seen an increase in numbers, there will be a focus on increasing those. Secondly, can the Minister give the assurance that the money that is provided for both protecting and sustaining support for journalists, both in cases they have to fight and also in the protection they need, will be safeguarded?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I absolutely commend the noble Lord for the work he has done. It was in 2019 that this was set up, so it has gone from strength to strength. His point about expanding membership is really important. One of the things we seek to do, using the leadership we can provide, is to expand that membership, particularly into global South voices, because this needs to be a truly global effort.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we all need to value the bravery and independence of journalists who operate in really difficult situations and who need the support of the coalition and Governments. What will the Government do to raise the UK’s position on the media index from 10, and on the international one from 23? Given the US is a member of this organisation, how can they square legal action against the BBC that, if successful, would destroy the BBC, the BBC World Service and BBC Media Action? Will the Government ask the United States Government to recognise that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Obviously, what the United States Government choose to do is a matter for the United States Government. On the World Service, I am very pleased that last Thursday we were able to announce an uplift in our grant funding to the World Service of an additional 12%, even in the straitened fiscal circumstances in which we had to make that choice. It does vital work and I would not want to see anything jeopardise it.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director at the Free Speech Union. In January, I pulled together a letter signed by about two dozen Peers, including two former national newspaper editors and the chairman of IPSO, asking the Secretary of State at DSIT when the free speech safeguards in the Online Safety Act are likely to be activated, given that it is now three years old. One of those safeguards is additional protections for journalistic content. I wonder if the Minister could let us know when we are likely to get a reply.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy to take that up with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at DSIT. I am sure she would be fascinated and interested in the points that the noble Lord raises and will wish to provide a response as soon as she can.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Thomson Foundation. The Government have understandably prioritised work in this area in Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon and Sudan. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is important that funding continues to be made available in other countries where the work may be more preventative and less reactive?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Just to make clear, the protected geographies that have just been described are for our official development assistance generally; our work on media freedom, though, goes much more widely—in a far greater list of countries, such as Mexico, the Philippines and Bangladesh. The noble Viscount can be assured that that will continue. Wherever we find an issue that needs to be addressed to do with media freedom, we will act.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, what is being done in particular to protect women journalists in the field? Probably many will agree with me that women tend to find the personal interest story more than the story about the guns and the manoeuvres, and that is absolutely vital when you are reporting. I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention the Marie Colvin network that was set up after the tragic death of Marie Colvin, in fact by the sister of my noble friend the Duke of Wellington. We provide aid to women, mostly in the Middle East, in terms of support and contacts and not being alone out in the field. Networks like this are absolutely vital. Is there any way that the organisation could look at things like that in other areas?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to draw our attention to that. One of the key themes that we want to use our leadership to do is to address exactly those issues around women journalists: women journalists and the persecution that they face—online as well these days—and also, too often, the experience of journalists working in newsrooms, which can present additional challenges, if I can put it that way. We want to use our position on the Media Freedom Coalition to address, in particular, those issues that face women.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the efforts that my noble friend Lord Ahmad made in setting up the Media Freedom Coalition, which is, as the noble Baroness said, an excellent organisation. As she mentioned in her opening remarks, there are many countries and cases that we could raise, but one particular well-known journalist in prison, of course, is Jimmy Lai. I know the Government are doing all they can to raise his case. The last statement of the media coalition on that issue was in 2023. Could the UK use its co-chairmanship to continue to raise that with the Chinese authorities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure that that will be the case. As we have said many times—I know that we all agree with this, but it is worth repeating—Jimmy Lai should not be imprisoned and should be released immediately.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, if the Government are going to use their position as chair of the coalition, what action will they take with regards to members who potentially break the founding pledge? Two members in particular—Serbia is one—have done things potentially in breach of that pledge. What action will the Government take to ensure that, if you are in the club, you have to abide by the rules of the club?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Welcome to multilateralism—it does throw up these issues from time to time. Personally, I take the view that being in the club gives you a greater chance of being able to exert influence and have those very direct conversations face to face rather than less directly. But each case should be taken on its merits, and the decisions on any such issues must be taken collectively.
Equality: Break Down Barriers to Opportunity Mission
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Baroness Nye
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote equality as part of their Break Down Barriers to Opportunity mission.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, our mission is to break the link between background and success, creating a Britain where ambition has no limits and opportunity is fair for all. That is why the recent Every Child Achieving and Thriving White Paper sets our ambition to raise standards for all children and to halve the disadvantaged attainment gap between poorer children and their peers at the end of secondary school, ensuring that where you come from does not determine where you are headed.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Research shows that early years inequalities account for almost half of the disadvantage gap by the age of five, and that although the UK has historically high levels of employment overall, the Government have inherited nearly 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training. Can the Minister say what cross-departmental strategy the Government are pursuing to ensure that children receive sustained support throughout childhood and adolescence, so that none risks falling through the gap at any stage?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
As my noble friend rightly said, the routes to success in adulthood start early in life. For this reason, we are working with the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, DCMS and the Treasury to deliver our ambitious agenda to give every child the best start in life, to enable an inclusive school experience, and to help young people develop their skills and talents. Our best start in life strategy and the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper set out how we are delivering on early years and post-16 commitments.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, the Government have pledged that 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs will be operational by April 2026, with at least one in every local authority. Is that pledge on track and, if so, how many are currently in use? How many will be in operation by April 2026, which is days away?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will get back to the noble Lord with that detail. A lot of local authorities are repurposing existing provision. Some local authorities did better at keeping previous Sure Start centres than others, so the introduction will be a bit patchy. However, the ambition is clear, and we are determined to deliver our objectives.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, when will the Government respond to the House of Lords Select Committee report on social mobility? That response is overdue. I appreciate that the Minister may not have the answer, but perhaps she could write to me.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The work that happens in Select Committees of the House is absolutely essential, and the noble Lord is right to ask about what comes next. On that specific issue, I will get back to him.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what consideration the Government have given to joining AgoraEU as a means of promoting equality? While she speaks about schools, we know that children have opportunities outside and around schools that can be very important in breaking down these barriers. She will know that AgoraEU combines three programmes, one of which is about citizens’ equality, rights and values. Does she agree that association with that could be a way not only to promote equality but to share best practice with countries with which we have opportunities, challenges and values in common?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We have a commitment to look at what works and to make sure we put young people at the heart of everything we do. An example of something that happened post Brexit is that UK cities kept their relationships with European cities, even though we are outside of the EU. We are looking at what works and at how we can improve and enhance opportunities that will help take young people forward.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as founder and trustee of the Health Equality Foundation and chair of The Pipeline, a gender parity consultancy. I welcome and applaud the Government’s commitment to break down the barriers to opportunity in this mission. The motherhood penalty remains a persistent barrier and a key driver of gender inequality. The latest report published by the Health Equality Foundation shows that 24% of women have either left jobs or reduced work due to childcare challenges. Can my noble friend the Minister say what the Government will do in this mission to address gender inequality and opportunities?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The aspect of gender inequality which my noble friend referred to has been well documented, and there is a lot of evidence to support what she described. That is why we are so focused on giving support during early years to help new mothers and young mothers cope with motherhood itself. We are also providing for more childcare and all the things that support and enable women to return, in full capacity, to the workforce.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Government have told us that they will measure the impact of this mission by attainment at the end of secondary school. Obviously, for millions of children, parents and, indeed, voters, this is many years away. What leading indicators are the Government going to track to give them insight into whether or not they are going to achieve their mission?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
It is important to recognise the work that we are doing in tackling disadvantage. One of the key indicators is around preparedness for school. We know that too many young children are arriving at school unable to take part in the work that needs to be done. Obviously, indicators are just a form of progression. While we are doing a lot of work with early years, it is important that we focus on the children and young people who are in the system already and that we look at their trajectory against the exams. Through the curriculum review, we will be looking, for example, at attainment data and at all the different measures by which schools and individual young people are measured.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister speaks about the arrival of young children in primary school. Does she recognise the key role that school nurses and educational psychologists can play in delivering care to younger people and support and advice to families? Will she ensure that the Department of Health and regional and local health boards are involved in the strategy?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I completely agree. I would go back a stage earlier and stress the importance of health visitors. It is very disappointing that the number of health visitors has gone down in recent years. They are an incredible link to families. They are trusted and they can share information at a local level. My noble friend is absolutely right. As I stressed at the outset, the relationship with health is pivotal. We know that poor health outcomes often lead to low attainment. This is why we are determined to work in such a joined-up fashion.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, more than 170,000 children are currently living in temporary accommodation. Nearly half of them—47%—frequently have to move schools. They are living in conditions that are not conducive to their health and well-being. Having to keep moving, often far away from their support network, is another major factor. What specifically is being done to support this cohort of children and to prioritise their needs?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
This lends itself to one of the key vulnerabilities: families ending up in difficulties and children having to come into care. The Government are investing £39 billion in affordable housing and £13.2 billion in the warm homes plan, working with the existing housing estate. Housing is critical to well-being. The noble Baroness is right that kids having to move around a great deal adds to their vulnerability.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, a key part of this mission is focused on the first 1,001 critical days of a child’s life. Evidence shows that having a father involved at this time supports the child’s future social and emotional development, as well as their future academic outcomes. Our current system of parental leave offers no support for self-employed fathers, meaning that only one in six takes any time off at all when their child is born. This contributes to the motherhood penalty. What are the Government going to do about this?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of the involvement of anyone who is in a parental position. Involvement starts before birth, in helping to prepare both parents for the huge changes that are about to happen. This is one of the factors that we will look into, to make sure that we create more opportunities where we can. I am not sure why men choose not to take up their parental leave offer, but I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness afterwards if I have misunderstood the tenor of her question.
Fuel Supplies: War in Iran
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord John of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure the continuity of fuel supplies in the light of the war in Iran.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
The UK benefits from a strong and diverse fuel supply. The fuel supply industry has been clear that fuel production and imports continue as usual. The Government continue to monitor the situation closely and will act if necessary. The essential lesson of this conflict, however, is that while we are dependent on fossil fuel markets, we are exposed to volatile prices. The answer must be to go further and faster towards homegrown clean power that we control.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Two matters prompted my Question: first, reports that 20% of the world’s oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and, secondly, reports at the weekend and since that the UK has only four weeks of fuel supplies in reserve. Given that, can he tell me how much of the UK’s supply is dependent on the oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz? If current disruptions to worldwide oil supplies continue, how long will it be before the Government are forced to introduce restrictions on or rationing of fuel supplies?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. His first statistic is correct. His second statistic, not that it is necessarily one that has his support, is categorically untrue—it is categorically untrue that there are only four weeks of fuel supply in the UK. However, the Government are closely monitoring the situation to ensure that supplies remain resilient. The UK remains a net exporter of petrol, with domestic capacity sufficiently filling this demand, while diesel volumes are met mostly by domestic production and imports from trusted partners. Only a small percentage is obtained from the Middle East. The majority of crude oil used for UK production comes from the United States and Norway, with just 1% from the Middle East. The UK obtains a proportion of jet fuel from the Middle East, but the fuel supply industry has been clear that fuel production imports are continuing across the UK as usual.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as part of a consultancy that provides geopolitics analysis to the Government of Qatar. Does the Minister agree that the continuity of fuel supplies may involve negotiations with those who have de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz rather than with those whom we wish had control of the Strait of Hormuz?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The issue of fuel supply through the Strait of Hormuz is relative to world supply and world prices; that is, because the UK obtains only a very small proportion of its supplies from the Middle East, the effect is more likely to be on prices across the world as other people seek to make up their supplies from different sources. The noble Lord is right that how we clear the Strait of Hormuz for those supplies has to be a question of disengagement, détente in the present conflict, and negotiation not in an ideal world but with those with whom we find ourselves in a negotiating position.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, do the Government understand that they have already presided over the closure of two of our oil refineries with their high-carbon taxes and unfriendly energy policy? Will they take urgent action to avoid the closure of the remaining ones, which would leave us without domestic supply and with shortages?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with his analysis of why the two refineries that have closed in the UK have done so, but the four refineries that we have in the UK are all producing well and in a robust condition. The Government will continue to monitor that process, but there is no reason to believe that further refineries are likely to close in the near future.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the conflict with Iran has driven up oil and gas prices, this is not currently a fuel supply crisis, and motorists and households should therefore continue to purchase fuel and gas as usual? If the conflict persists and international supplies are further disrupted, what steps are being considered to safeguard aviation fuel supply and to prevent significant increases in aviation fuel prices in the longer term as we head towards the summer?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
The noble Earl is right; this is currently, in essence, a price crisis and not a supply crisis. That will remain the case for quite a long time, depending on how long the war continues. If the war continues for a very long time, there obviously will be issues not necessarily of supply to the UK but offset issues relating to other people trying to eat the UK’s lunch, as it were, in their quest for supplies elsewhere in the world. The Government have already taken action in terms of taking part in the IEA’s release of substantial amounts of oil to make sure that that does not happen in the medium term and co-ordinating with efforts internationally to make sure that jet fuel, for example, is available on a world basis. Aircraft and other companies in that field hedge their supplies very long in advance, and therefore this is not an issue for the immediate future.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest as declared in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. It is not just oil that passes through the Strait of Hormuz. A third of global trade in fertiliser passes through the strait. I appreciate that this is not immediately within my noble friend the Minister’s portfolio, so if he does not have the information in his folder, perhaps he can write to me and place a copy in the Library, but what consideration is being given across government to the implications for farmers in this country but more particularly for global farming and long-term food supplies if this disruption continues?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
My noble friend is right that this does not fall within my brief particularly, but I do know a bit about the subject he is raising, which is synthetic ammonia supplies from the Middle East. We do not have ammonia production in this country at the moment, so there is potentially a long-term issue of ammonia supplies coming into the UK and into a lot of other countries across the world, as my noble friend mentioned. Part of the solution is to go for different sources of ammonia which are not synthetic, particularly green ammonia and other forms of fertiliser such as digestate, which can fulfil substantially the role played by ammonia in the farming cycle.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that any of the figures we have heard in the last few minutes are correct or substantial. In fact, there is a huge amount around the world of spare oil capacity and oil production potential which can be and is being brought into play. There is the vast boost in American shale, obviously, from which we get a lot already. There are the reserves which have been released under the scheme which I chaired in 1979 at the IEA, and those reserves are only a small part of more reserves that can be developed at any time we wish. There are pipelines which bypass the Strait of Hormuz. All I am saying is that the situation can be overexcited by an ill-informed media. Does the Minister agree that we should be careful not to excite these dangers and realise that this is a manageable situation if we take a strong line on what can be done to reopen the Strait of Hormuz when we can and in the meantime do not get so worked up that everyone starts talking about rationing and other idiotic ideas?
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord does not consider that the figures and other facts that I have presented this afternoon are all erroneous, because I assure him that they are not, but he is right to say that this is not a question just of whether stuff goes through the Strait of Hormuz or nothing. There are a great many other ways in which oil, petroleum products, gas and so on can be taken from their source to where they want to go without going through the Strait of Hormuz. For example, pipelines across Arabia are already beginning to take some of the oil that otherwise would go through the Strait of Hormuz out to port, and the same is true with gas supplies. It is not all about LNG coming in vessels going through the Strait of Hormuz. I totally agree with the noble Lord that we should not be too taken up by overexcitable, ill-informed press speculation but should concentrate on the real facts and the real opportunities that there are to gather ourselves a sustainable oil and gas supply, which also includes making sure that as much as possible of our energy supply comes from home sources in the medium and long term.
Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March. Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 and 5 February be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 March.
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:27 - Division on Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1) - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 145 - Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1) agreed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to make a short statement on the position regarding the legislative consent Motion on this Bill. While the majority of the provisions in the Bill apply to England and Wales only, certain provisions apply also to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions relate to a mix of excepted, reserved and devolved or transferred matters, and as such engage the legislative consent process in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am pleased to inform the House that yesterday, 24 March, the Scottish Parliament approved a legislative consent Motion in respect of the Bill put forward and supported by the Scottish Government. The Northern Ireland Assembly approved three legislative consent Motions on 23 June, 2 February and 16 March. However, on 10 March the Welsh Senedd debated a legislative consent Motion put forward and supported by the Welsh Government, but the Motion was not supported by the Senedd. This is regrettable, given the measures in the Bill that engage the legislative consent process include a range of offences, such as assault on a retail worker, mobile phone theft, sexual exploitation and others. I cannot for the life of me understand why Plaid Cymru, Reform, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members opposed the consent Motion in the Welsh Senedd—but they did, and they will have to be accountable for that.
I believe the Bill should pass. We are in discussion with the Welsh Government and the Wales Office about the way forward, and we will set out the Government’s position when the Bill is next considered by the House of Commons after the Recess. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Taking down intimate image content(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to take down—(a) content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 20A(2)), and(b) any other content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content,as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—(a) the content is not intimate image content, or(b) the person making the report is not—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”(3) After section 20 (duty about content reporting) insert—“20A Reporting of intimate image content(1) The duty in section 20(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—(a) declares that content present on the service is intimate image content,(b) declares that the report is made by—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,(c) provides sufficient information about the content for the provider to identify it,(d) provides contact details for the person making the report, and(e) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are to be met.”(4) In section 21 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 20A(2)), and(b) are about the content to which the report relates.”(5) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content) after subsection (3) insert— “(3A) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that individuals are no longer able to encounter—(a) search content in relation to which an intimate image content report is made to the provider (see section 31A(2)), and(b) any other search content identified by the provider as the same, or substantially the same, as that content,as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours, after the provider receives the report (unless subsection (3B) applies).(3B) This subsection applies if the provider considers that—(a) the search content is not intimate image content, or(b) the person making the report is not—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf.”(6) After section 31 (duty about content reporting) insert—“31A Reporting of intimate image content(1) The duty in section 31(2) includes a duty to operate a service using systems and processes that allow users and affected persons to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider.(2) An “intimate image content report” is a report which—(a) declares that search content is intimate image content,(b) declares that the report is made by—(i) the subject of the content, or(ii) a person acting on that person’s behalf,(c) provides sufficient information about the search content for the provider to identify it,(d) provides contact details for the person making the report, and(e) complies with any other requirements specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the requirements in subsection (2)(a) to (d) are to be met.”(7) In section 32 (duties about complaints procedures) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The duty in subsection (2) includes a duty to operate an expedited complaints procedure in relation to complaints within subsection (4)(a), (b)(i) or (b)(ii) that—(a) are made by users or affected persons who have made an intimate image content report (see section 31A(2)), and(b) are about the search content to which the report relates.”(8) In section 59 (meaning of “illegal content” etc) after subsection (10) insert—“(10A) “Intimate image content” means content that amounts to an offence under section 66B(1), (2) or (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sharing intimate image of a person without consent).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause amends the Online Safety Act 2023 to impose new duties about removing content which is reported to providers as intimate image content.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, government Amendments 1, 14 and 18 deliver on the Government’s commitment to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. They seek to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content, and any content which is
“the same, or substantially the same”,
is removed within 48 hours.
In moving these amendments, I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, in both raising and being a tireless campaigner on this issue in your Lordships’ House.
We all know that non-consensual intimate image abuse is utterly vile, and the Government are very clear that we will not allow the proliferation of demeaning and degrading images online. I believe that the House is united in recognising the profound and lasting harm that this form of abuse inflicts on victims, and we share a common determination to ensure that victims receive meaningful protection. The Government are committed to delivering a strong, clear, enforceable response across the online safety regime. I am very grateful for the constructive engagement that has been crucial in shaping this amendment, both by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lady Levitt.
The Online Safety Act already places robust duties on services to minimise illegal content, including intimate image offences, and provides effective reporting and complaints mechanisms for users. However, given the particular and often acute impact of intimate image abuse, the Government have now committed to going further to set out specific expectations of how platforms must respond when this content is reported.
That brings me to Amendment 1, which delivers on the commitment that we have made to ensure that the strongest protections possible on violence against women and girls online are in place. Amendment 1 seeks to create a reporting mechanism for non-consensual intimate images and a requirement that processes and systems be in place so that such content and any content which is the same or substantially the same is removed within 48 hours.
This builds on the work already undertaken to strengthen the Online Safety Act. The House has already agreed amendments that make requesting or making intimate images and sharing or threatening to share them primary offences under the Online Safety Act. This amendment will impose additional duties on all regulated services and will require platforms to prioritise, detect, mitigate and remove this illegal content more quickly and systematically.
Amendment 1 goes further and delivers on the commitment of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at the end of February to put social media companies on notice to take down any non-consensual intimate images within 48 hours. The Government’s amendment will introduce a clear, enforceable, statutory duty requiring platforms to have systems and processes in place to remove reported information as soon as possible and within 48 hours.
The duty is designed to work with the Online Safety Act’s systems and processes framework, ensuring that Ofcom can enforce it effectively at scale and deliver for victims of intimate image abuse. This also means that the amendment will be subject to the full suite of enforcement powers at Ofcom’s disposal.
I want to tell the House that Ofcom is to consult on additional safety measures to support the removal of re-uploads, including work on a hash-matching regime, which would require relevant services to adopt technology to detect and prevent re-uploads of non-consensual intimate images. Together, the statutory take-down duty and the hash-matching measures will create a joined-up system that delivers a stronger and more sustainable protection for victims than a stand-alone 48-hour rule.
“(3AA) A duty to record and report the average time taken to take down content under the duty in subsection (3A) to OFCOM and to publish the information publicly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must report the average time they take to remove non-consensual intimate images.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the government amendments and to the amendments in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. In doing so, I declare an interest as receiving pro bono legal advice from Mishcon de Reya on image-based sexual abuse.
I am grateful to the Government for working with me to bring forward their amendment in response to my amendment in Committee on 48-hour take-down. I am pleased they are working with me on the amendments that your Lordships’ House passed on Report on the creation of a centralised hash registry and hash sharing. I must add that it is disappointing that after months of speaking to the Government about the importance of hashing and 48-hour amendments working together that they cannot be scrutinised together.
While I am very pleased that government Amendment 1 addresses the concerns I brought forward on de-indexing and duplicates, I do not believe it is sufficient to achieve the mechanism I set out to create in my original 48-hour take-down amendment in Committee. My intention was to create a system where no victim is left behind. This requires the mechanism to be agile and for internet services to feel the consequence of not acting on each individual instance reported. The government amendment has done the bare minimum and simply updated the Online Safety Act where it already instructed internet services to swiftly take down such content, to now add,
“as soon as reasonably practicable, and no later than 48 hours”.
In reality, this represents very little change as the good actors will still move at pace and the bad actors will continue to ignore. One survivor, Jodie, who many noble Lords have met, responded to the government amendment by saying that
“it is hugely frustrating to see headline grabbing commitments without the substance needed to actually protect victims. A 48-hour deadline sounds strong, especially when delivered by the Prime Minister to millions on breakfast television, but without real enforcement it risks creating false hope”.
Another victim, Daria, said:
“As a survivor, I feel this is quite simply gaslighting”.
We must remember that Ofcom rules are about systems and processes, and not outcomes. If a service has followed the rules but individual violations still occur, an internet service will not be held responsible. Sophie Mortimer at the Revenge Porn Helpline confirmed this, stating:
“While the platforms that already act in good faith will meet these standards, the persistent bad actors who continue to drive the sharing of this content will ignore and the Government amendment does not give Ofcom enough weapons to respond”.
I am deeply concerned that the Government have not specified how Ofcom will even know if a service fails to act within 48 hours. Ofcom has confirmed that there is no automatic mechanism for it to know whether services are not meeting the 48-hour take-down requirement in any given case. Further, the only recourse the Government provide should a service be found to generally not comply are the long and bureaucratic business disruption measures. This means that women will still suffer ongoing trauma when platforms refuse to comply.
My amendments seek to address the gaps in the government amendments, and I will outline them briefly. Amendments 2 and 8 mandate services to publicly report—and report to Ofcom—their average take-down times.
Amendments 3 and 9 strengthen the government wording on finding duplicate images to ensure that services have to take all reasonable steps, instead of simply relying on what a service may identify.
Amendments 4 and 10 incentivise services to act by creating a more agile mechanism whereby they can be fined per violation, and this can increase for every 24-hour period in which they fail to act, thus ensuring there is a consequence for not acting on individual instances of abuse. I believe these amendments create a more agile mechanism and do not rely solely on business disruption measures. This amendment is based on the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which operates under the rules of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA. The sum I have chosen is based on the figure levied under FTC rules for continued instances of violation after companies have been notified.
Amendments 5 and 11 mandate the Secretary of State to create a mechanism whereby individuals can report to Ofcom in cases where the service provider has failed to remove the content within 48 hours. At present, it is not clear what a victim would do if they reported the content to a service which then failed to act after the initial 48 hours.
Amendments 6 and 12 ensure that services have “clear and conspicuous” notices of where victims can report NCII content. This uses the wording from the TAKE IT DOWN Act and gives more clarity to internet services. The government amendment and the Online Safety Act refer simply to being able
“to easily make an intimate image content report to the provider”.
Amendments 7 and 13 add provisions that seek to curb malicious reporting by requiring a statement that the report has been made “in good faith”. Additionally, this provides internet services with further assurances they need to act more quickly upon receiving reports.
I am grateful to the Government for coming to the table on this issue. However, victims deserve so much more than press releases that promise action but in reality represent little practical change in the most traumatic moment of their lives. I implore noble Lords to vote with me so that no victim is left behind. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, at Third Reading it is extraordinarily rare to find issues still in contest, and to be presented, as we have been today, with a choice on which we will have to vote. Normally, by this stage, the issues have been clearly discussed and the parties concerned—the Government on the one side and those proposing amendments on the other—have had enough meetings to be able to get to a point where they can agree on what is going forward.
Having said that, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward what he has brought forward. These are substantial changes to the Online Safety Act and they are extraordinarily welcome. They cover the ground very well, but, as has been pointed out, they perhaps do not go quite as far as they could do. We are at Third Reading, so it is therefore very difficult to find the time and space to be able to resolve what I think are relatively quite small differences between the two sides.
I point out simply to my noble friend the Minister that this places those of us who support the noble Baroness in her amendments in a difficult position about his amendments, which we want to support; but the only way to get them to resolution is probably to vote with the noble Baroness. I hope he will appreciate that, and I suggest to him that, when he comes to respond, he makes it very clear that the Government are still willing to talk about these issues and still willing to meet those who have concerns and views about what the Government have done. I hope he might be able to promise that action could be taken in the Commons to resolve this.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. As ever, she has spoken fantastically convincingly to her amendments, which sit in a broader set of aims that we have heard in Committee and on Report—at many stages. While recognising that the Government have moved considerably, I believe that we are debating this again in the context of a flood of women coming forward as survivors of non-consensual image abuse. As the harms are ever increasing, I am putting my faith in the noble Baroness’s interpretation of what is still necessary. Her amendments do something really important. I have spoken about this before and will do so on a later Bill this afternoon, but we need to tackle the issue of enforcement.
We cannot keep on adding duties to the Online Safety Act and expecting something to be different at the other end. In fact, we are adding a burden for people without giving them the tools by which that burden could be alleviated. The noble Baroness’s amendments have sought to create a more streamlined and agile system by allowing for fines every 24 hours in which an image is not removed. We have to find an incentive for tech to come to terms with the regulator, and the noble Baroness is doing just that. Unless we put a ticking clock on online services for failing to respond to harms to children and women, we cannot hope that women and children will be safe.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, puts her finger on it: enforcement is key here, and it is key because we all know that without serious enforcement, these companies, which will be acting in breach of the law, will simply not comply. What will make them comply are substantial fines to hit them in the pocketbook. That is the only thing that will make them comply, and that is why I support the noble Baroness, Lady Owen.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I point out briefly that the essence of where the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is coming from is that she speaks directly from the experience of the victims who have suffered from this. It is the victims themselves who have been struggling with the existing system, often in vain and with huge amounts of frustration. It is the victims who have been looking at the Government’s well-intended amendment, and on the basis of their own experience and knowledge, bitterly won, they feel strongly that it does not go far enough. They want others who are being abused at the moment, and trying to get some sort of redress, not to go through the same agony and pain that they have. I implore the Government to listen carefully, because this is the victims speaking directly to them. It is not the regulator; these are the victims, and the victims who are coming through the pipeline should be prioritised above all.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, can I add one word? In my experience in dealing with a large number of offences where corporations were responsible, it is only fines—and fines of a substantial amount—that have any real effect. The fines in this Bill are modest, in my view. I hope everyone will realise that unless we put something by way of a fine in, we are making law without effect.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I will not repeat what others have said eloquently. I will just speak quickly to my amendments, which are procedural. I have tabled Amendments 15 to 17, which I should have formally moved on Report—human error there, apologies. They were agreed by the Government to be consequential on my original Amendment 297AA, which passed with the support of this House, regarding the banning of depictions of step-incest in pornography. I shall simply move them formally and will not revisit the arguments, apart from to say I am pleased that the conversations I am having with the Government are positive. I am hopeful that we will be able to reach an agreement that sees this appalling and abusive content made illegal, as it should be.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I really wish this Government would listen to common sense sometimes. Can the Minister please go back to No. 10 and explain that this is urgent?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. I rise to express our firm support on these Benches for Amendments 2 to 13, which the noble Baroness has brought forward and which I have signed, to the Government’s new clause. We also support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, we acknowledge that the Government have moved “substantially”, which I believe was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. By tabling Amendment 1 they have accepted the principle of a 48-hour statutory take-down limit for non-consensual intimate images. I was also pleased to hear what the Minister said about ongoing hash-matching work.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Bertin, and the Minister, for their amendments. As my noble friend Lady Bertin said, her amendments were agreed as a package on Report and should have been moved then. We supported them at that time, and understand that the Government will accept them today.
While it is welcome that the Government have brought their Amendments 1 and 14, as they promised on Report, I join my noble friend Lady Owen in expressing concern about the drafting and the fact that the Government do not seem to know where they are going with this. The Prime Minister announced on 19 February that the 48-hour take-down for non-consensual intimate images would be government policy, but it is very clear that the Government do not actually know how they will implement the policy. My noble friend has explained why she believes that the Government’s amendment is defective. I hope that the Government will listen to her and accept the amendments. If they do not, we will support my noble friend in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the Baroness, Lady Owen, for tabling her amendments and initiating this discussion. I feel like someone who has brought a birthday cake to a party, only to have someone else blow the candles out. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, I have tried my best to bring forward proposals that meet the objectives the Government themselves have set, as well as those of the noble Baroness.
Taken together, Amendments 2 to 13 would amend government Amendment 1 by introducing fixed penalties, public performance reporting and new escalation routes to Ofcom. I note the support for these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower; my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick; and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I also note the short, sharp intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I very much welcomed.
On the proposal to require services to publish average take-down times, I say to the noble Baroness and others that I recognise the desire for both transparency and public accountability. Ofcom already has the power to request information of this nature, which would also apply to the Government’s amendment. However, publicly benchmarking speed in this way risks hardwiring the wrong incentive into the system. This duty is not intended to be a race to remove any reported content at all costs, including where reports are mistaken, malicious or vexatious. Parliament is asking providers to act quickly and responsibly, which necessarily includes occasionally verifying that reports are valid.
A single, public average-time metric could encourage the unintended removal of lawful content, undermine procedural safeguards and, critically, ultimately undermine confidence in the regime among the very victims this Government wish to stand with the noble Baroness in support of. Ofcom has strong powers to require detailed performance data where there are concerns about systemic compliance. Regulator-led scrutiny is a more effective, credible and proportionate means of accountability that ensures a regime that best delivers for its victims.
Amendments 3 and 9 would require providers to take all reasonable steps to identify duplicates or substantially similar content. I share that objective on behalf of the Government. Providers are already required to take proportionate steps to seek out this illegal content under wider illegal content duties.
On the proposal of specific fines, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned that it is important that there are financial consequences for any illegal action. I say to them and to the noble Baroness that, as they know, the Online Safety Act already equips Ofcom with very strong enforcement powers. Ofcom can already issue a heavy fine of up to 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue in the event of contravention of regulations that Ofcom is empowered to monitor, and these fines can even be augmented with daily fines on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it is not necessary to introduce an additional fixed-rate fine mechanism on the face of the Bill, given that a 10% fine on qualifying worldwide revenue is a significant and effective potential punishment from Ofcom, which has those enforcement powers.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
Can the Minister say what an individual woman should do if her content is not removed within 48 hours? Is the Minister suggesting that, without a mechanism to contact Ofcom, she waits for Ofcom to recognise that a website has failed in its duty, and therefore for the Secretary of State to mandate long and bureaucratic business disruption measures, and for Ofcom to seek 10% of the business’s worldwide revenue—and all the while her intimate image is left online?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The purpose of the regulation is to provide a disincentive to putting content up in the first place. If anybody who places that content on any online platform knows that Ofcom has the power to levy a 10% fine on worldwide revenue, there will be that disincentive. The purpose of that power is to deter people from breaking the law. Coupled with the powers in government Amendment 1, it will provide strong reassurance to anybody who has had illegal content put online by any particular organisation or individual.
There may be an honest disagreement between the noble Baroness and me on this, but I want to prevent any illegal content being put up in the first place. I would argue that a 10% fine of any worldwide revenue for the platform that hosts that content is a significant contribution. It would mean, ultimately, that Ofcom has the power to cause significant damage to any organisation that puts up that illegal content. I accept and understand the concerns that have been raised; I just hope that the noble Baroness can also understand that the Government are trying to support the very victims she speaks about.
We appreciate the intention behind enabling individuals also to report non-compliance. They can raise that concern through Ofcom’s reporting portal, and such reports can signal potential systemic issues and can be used for wider investigations, as I have just mentioned. I also recognise the urgency with which victims rightly expect this content to be removed—the very point the noble Baroness has just made. I consider that a systems and processes approach remains the most effective way to secure consistent compliance and deliver protection at scale.
On the amendment the noble Baroness has brought forward that would require providers to display reporting notices and routes, the 2023 Act already requires platforms to have clear, accessible reporting routes that allow users to easily make intimate image reports. Again, Ofcom is best placed to specify details about this in its code of practice. Turning to proposals for good faith declarations, the government amendment requires reporting individuals to state that the content is intimate image content and that they are the subject of that content or are acting on the subject’s behalf. Additionally, the Secretary of State has regulation-making powers to specify further requirements if needed. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness. I hope the House can recognise that the Government have moved significantly on this issue, but we will hear the noble Baroness’s response in due course.
Amendments 15 to 17, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, are accepted by the Government. They were, as she has said, tidying-up amendments agreed by the House on Report but sadly missed. As such, the Government will not oppose the amendments and will actively support them. This is, however, without prejudice to any further consideration of the substantive amendments carried on Report. We will set out the Government’s position on these and other amendments passed on Report when the Bill returns to your Lordships’ House after the Easter Recess, once it has been considered by the House of Commons.
I have tried to be constructive in my response on behalf of the whole of the Government—from the Prime Minister to the different departments that have contributed to this. I hope they were helpful engagements. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, for her amendments, and I hope that, having heard what has been said—it is, perhaps, with little hope—she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords I thank the Minister for his response. I feel that, on this point, we have not reached an agreement. While 10% of an internet service’s worldwide revenue is great, a more agile system where no woman and no victim is left behind is much better. With that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“(3AA) In fulfilling their duty under subsection (3A)(b), the provider must take all reasonable steps to identify any other content that is the same, or substantially the same, as the content in the report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must take all reasonable steps to find non-consensual intimate image content that is a duplicate of (or substantially the same as) reported content.
“(3C) Failure to comply with a duty under subsection (3A) may result in a fine of £39,000 for each 24 hour period following the 48 hours allowed to take the content down, payable to OFCOM.(3D) The fine payable under subsection (3C) may be increased by OFCOM following a review.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides an alternative to business disruption measures under the Online Safety Act 2023, so that fines can be levied more quickly, to incentivise content removal to happen faster.
“(3C) The Secretary of State must, by regulations within six months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed, establish a process for individuals to report to OFCOM that a service has failed in its duty under subsection (3A).(3D) The process under subsection (3C) must be easily accessible and must be identified by the service provider in their notice under section 20A(1). (3E) OFCOM must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the reporting process under subsection (3C) is easily identifiable and accessible.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, where an internet service has failed to act within 48 hours, individuals can report this to OFCOM.
(a) is easy to read and in plain language, and(b) provides information regarding the responsibilities of the service under this section, including a description of how an individual can submit an intimate image content report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services have to clearly display notices which explain how non-consensual intimate images can be reported and removed.
“(4) A report made under this section must include a statement that the reporting person or authorised representative makes the report in good faith believing that the content is of the kind specified in section 20 and a statement that the information provided in the report is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to curb malicious reporting.
“(3AA) A duty to record and report the average time taken to take down content under the duty in subsection (3A) to OFCOM and to publish the information publicly.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must report the average time they take to remove non-consensual intimate images.
“(3AA) In fulfilling their duty under subsection (3A)(b), the provider must take all reasonable steps to identify any other content that is the same, or substantially the same, as the content in the report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services must take all reasonable steps to find non-consensual intimate image content that is a duplicate of (or substantially the same as) reported content.
“(3C) Failure to comply with a duty under subsection (3A) may result in a fine of £39,000 for each 24 hour period following the 48 hours allowed to take the content down, payable to OFCOM.(3D) The fine payable under subsection (3C) may be increased by OFCOM following a review.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides an alternative to business disruption measures under the Online Safety Act 2023, so that fines can be levied more quickly, to incentivise content removal to happen faster.
“(3C) The Secretary of State must, by regulations within six months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed, establish a process for individuals to report to OFCOM that a service has failed in its duty under subsection (3A). (3D) The process under subsection (3C) must be easily accessible and must be identified by the service provider in their notice under section 31A(1).(3E) OFCOM must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the reporting process under subsection (3C) is easily identifiable and accessible.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, where an internet service has failed to act within 48 hours, individuals can report this to OFCOM.
(a) is easy to read and in plain language, and(b) provides information regarding the responsibilities of the service under this section, including a description of how an individual can submit an intimate image content report.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that internet services have to clearly display notices which explain how non-consensual intimate images can be reported and removed.
“(4) A report made under this section must include a statement that the reporting person or authorised representative makes the report in good faith believing that the content is of the kind specified in section 31 and a statement that the information provided in the report is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to curb malicious reporting.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In section 10 (regulated user-to-user services: safety duties about illegal content)—(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;(b) in subsection (5)—(i) the words from “each paragraph” to the end become paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of that paragraph insert“, and(b) subsection (3A).”;(c) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”.(3) In section 23(5) (record-keeping and review duties) for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(4) In section 27 (regulated search services: safety duties about illegal content)—(a) in subsection (4) for “and (3)” substitute “to (3A)”;(b) in subsection (7) for “subsection (2) or (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3A)”. (5) In section 34(5) (record-keeping and review duties), for “or (3)”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(6) In section 59(14) (meaning of “illegal content” etc) for “and “priority illegal content”” substitute “, “priority illegal content” and “intimate image content””.(7) In section 71(2)(a)(i) (duty not to take down content except in accordance with terms of service: exceptions) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(8) In section 136(5) (confirmation decisions: proactive technology)—(a) in paragraph (a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(b) in paragraph (c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.(9) In section 237 (index of defined terms) at the appropriate place insert—
(10) In Schedule 4 (codes of practice)—(a) in paragraph 9(1) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(b) in paragraph 9(3) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(c) in paragraph 13(3)(a) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(d) in paragraph 13(3)(c) for “or (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause makes amendments to the Online Safety Act 2023 which are consequential on those made by my new clause (Taking down intimate image content).
Baroness Bertin
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(ma) sections (Taking down intimate image content) and (Taking down intimate image content: consequential amendments);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the specified new clauses to have UK extent.
“(z4a) section 207(9);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives UK extent to the specified provision, since it amends an Act which has UK extent.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment (and my other amendment to Schedule 2) corrects an amendment to section 78 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to refer to a closure notice instead of an extension notice.
Member's explanatory statement
See my other amendment to Schedule 2.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we move on to the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has tabled an amendment. I expect the debate on that to be brief and to be contained to the narrow subject it seeks to address, relating to an impact assessment. This is not the opportunity for another long debate about the general issues which have already been debated at length in this House and on which the House has made its mind very clear. I urge noble Lords to consider carefully whether a contribution is necessary, and to keep any remarks concise and focused on the amendment before us.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships’ House for the contributions that have been made on the Bill. We have spent over 88 hours in Committee, we have had a full day’s Second Reading and 44 hours on Report, and we have spent an hour on the Bill now—all of which is good, rigorous scrutiny, and a considerable amount of it. The Bill leaves the House with a few extra pages and some extra government policy based on manifesto commitments. In doing so, it will better support the delivery of the Government’s safer streets mission to halve knife crime and see a reduction in violence against women and girls within a decade.
I am pleased, overall, with the contributions and the degree of cross-party agreement there has been across the House. We will continue to reflect on a number of the amendments that were made, contrary to my advice, and the debates we have had to date. When the Bill returns to the House after the Easter Recess, we will examine what else will be done in relation to the view of the Commons, the Government and this House.
I could not have done this Bill without the unstinting help of my noble friends Lady Levitt and Lord Katz, and I am grateful to them. Scrutiny is a great thing—I have done it myself when in opposition. It is important to test the Government and to put forward alternative ideas. Despite our agreements on some issues and our disagreements on others, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower, Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst, from the Opposition Front Bench, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Doocey and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this and other debates.
Given that we sat late on a number of occasions, I put on record on behalf of the whole House our thanks to the doorkeepers and staff of the House. There were a few days when I did not know what time I was going home—and neither did they. It is important that we recognise their contribution to our parliamentary scrutiny. I must place on record my thanks to the Home Office team and the Ministry of Justice Bill team, to the policy officials from the Department for Transport, Defra, the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Ministry of Defence and DSIT, and to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, No. 10 Downing Street and our private offices—all of whom have contributed and all of whom I and my fellow Ministers have spoken on behalf of in this Chamber.
This has been the largest justice Bill in a generation, and my goodness, does it not feel like it? It provides a number of measures for the Government on key issues to help prevent harms, to bring offenders to justice and to secure our community in a much safer way. There will be more parliamentary encounters to come after the recess but, in the meantime, I hope that we will help build safer streets, safer communities and a safer Britain. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness O'Loan
At end insert “but that this House regrets that no impact assessment was conducted in relation to clause 246, and that therefore the House has not been able to assess its potential effects on vulnerable persons, women’s health, criminal law, and policing”.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the effect of Clause 246 of this Bill is to decriminalise abortion at any stage of the baby’s gestation where the baby’s life is terminated by the mother, but in no other circumstances. It is a matter of concern that we find ourselves today passing a Bill which contains Clause 246, given the dearth of information upon which noble Lords were asked to make a decision—hence my regret amendment.
The Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation states that an impact assessment is a vital tool to help Parliament understand the
“consequences of a proposed intervention
and to identify the
“associated risks of a proposal that might have an impact on the public … and wider society”.
Undeniably, Clause 246 required an impact assessment to identify the consequences and risks. That did not happen.
It is possible to be both neutral and objective and to respect conscience while considering policy implications and outcomes. This clause originated as a late Back-Bench amendment. As others have said, there was not enough scrutiny in the other place, or indeed here. Last week, many Peers were denied the opportunity to speak to amendments which they had signed or supported on this most fundamental and important of issues—the life and death of the baby and the danger to its mother.
We have been unable to evaluate adequately the operational impact of Clause 246 on policing. We lack clear evidence on how the removal of existing deterrents will affect the investigation of genuine cases of infanticide or the detection of women being coerced by a third party into dangerous late-term abortion. We have not been able properly to assess healthcare implications. There will surely have to be guidance issued to those who respond to a request for help in connection with such an abortion, which may turn out to require investigation as a criminal offence may have been committed by a third party, be that a coercive partner or a family member or other who does not want any child, or in some cases, unfortunately, a girl child, to be born.
During the debate, I asked the question: how is the mother to kill her child at these late stages so that she can abort it? I never received an answer. It seems to me that the Government must be aware that, if a woman decides to abort a baby herself after 24 weeks, she may need help to do so. Do the Government intend to publicise the fact that it will still be an offence to help a mother abort her baby in these circumstances?
Do they intend to highlight the fact that heavy bleeding, infection, damage to the womb and sepsis are all possible consequences of an abortion? What of the risks of prescription or over-the-counter drug overdoses as a woman seeks to abort her baby and to control her pain and that of her unborn child?
Paramedics responding to a 999 call where a woman is haemorrhaging or where a baby is stuck in the birth canal will have to try to save the life of both mother and baby, unless the baby is already dead. But there are a few precious moments when a baby who does not breathe automatically at birth can be encouraged to live and may well do so. What is the paramedic to do? Presumably, if the woman gets to hospital before delivering, it will be incumbent on nurses and doctors to attempt to save not only the mother but the child. Surely the child will not be left to die uncared for, as happens when babies are born alive after abortion. Guidance will be needed. What additional services—medical and mental health services—might need to be provided in these cases?
Finally, do we need some provision on what the mother can do with her little dead baby? Is she able to bury it? Can somebody else bury it? How will the police be able to determine whether a baby was born alive and killed after death if the baby’s body has been disposed of? What if the trauma of delivering the child is such that the mother is unable to bury the child? What if she was subject to coercion and is torn by grief? What can she do? What is to happen?
Today, I am sending an open parliamentary letter to the Home Secretary and the Minister for Health from some 80 Peers and MPs, articulating these and other concerns. These issues should surely concern His Majesty’s Government. Can the Minister say how the Government intend to take these matters forward to address these life and death issues?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, regrets the failure to conduct an impact assessment in relation to Clause 246. Yet, as we have heard, the clause that decriminalises abortion up to birth will have the gravest of consequences for viable babies—now protected in law—for their mothers’ health and for our society. Including it in this Bill will render the Bill notorious.
Constitutionally, it is wrong. Laws, particularly on controversial and grave matters, are subject to two important conditions in Britain’s constitution. First, they must have a popular mandate, a condition that militated against the arbitrary exercise of executive power for hundreds of years, even before the 20th century brought universal adult suffrage, as Parliaments and leaders respected a popular wish. Secondly, they must meet the more formal requirements now in place for pre-election announcements, manifestos and pre-legislative consultation, including an impact assessment, detailed parliamentary scrutiny in both Chambers, revision, modification and, finally, some sort of legislative agreement.
Clause 246 is a highly controversial measure. Arguably, its consequences are the most serious of any legislation that this Government have passed. It has had neither a popular mandate nor parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 246 has been tacked on to a government Bill by a group of militant abortionists determined to manipulate parliamentary rules. It has had only 46 minutes of debate in the House of Commons. I am afraid it plays to the weakness of a Prime Minister orchestrating the factions of a divided Labour Party as he seeks to stay in power and fend off rival challenges.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
It reveals a Government unequal to the great task of governing the nation with which the electorate has entrusted it.
I particularly regret it because it brings disgrace to the Mother of Parliaments and, indirectly, to a country which, although it had no hand in the matter, could always hold its head high when its neighbours suffered instability, revolution and dictatorship. They could take comfort because, as has so often rightly been said, we have a constitutional way of solving our differences.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I know the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor and Lady O’Loan, feel very strongly about this matter, and they are perfectly entitled to do so. But we debated this at length in Committee: we had four hours-worth of debate then. We debated it for two hours last week on Report. Both noble Baronesses expressed their views very powerfully and at length, but the House did not agree with them. The House voted for this clause and I respectfully suggest that it is entirely inappropriate for us to debate it again.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Before anyone else comes in, I will just say that we should be addressing only the narrow issue of the impact assessment and nothing else.
Lord Biggar (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak for no more than 90 seconds in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
When we in this House voted through Clause 246 last week, we had failed to consider an important logical effect. In voting to decriminalise abortion by the mother up to the eve of birth, we decriminalised the deliberate killing of a mature, foetal human being. Between the human foetus on the eve of birth and the human infant 24 hours later, there is no significant moral difference. In passing Clause 246, we chose to breathe down the neck of legitimising early infanticide.
The fact that the clause leaves in place a general prohibition of abortion after 24 weeks makes no difference. In declaring that the killing is no crime, we declare that it does not matter. The killing does not matter only because what is being killed does not matter. What applies to the mature foetus applies equally to the early infant.
Our failure to assess that significant implication is highly regrettable, and that is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have great respect for the views of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. We understand where she is coming from. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, this has been democratically passed by both Houses. The very graphic descriptions of the physical aspects of abortion are intended to put us off, but those aspects apply to any abortion. Any abortion at any stage could go wrong and result in something very upsetting.
There is an assumption on the part of those who oppose this new law that desperate women will be reading the law in all its detail before they resort to what they do. I suggest that a woman in the very late stage of pregnancy, who has probably been abandoned by the man responsible for it and who has no support, is unlikely to take down the statute book and study what the consequences are. All this new clause does is remove the criminal element. It does not make anything better or worse. It just stops desperate, unsupported women going to prison.
Finally, as I always say in debates about abortion, it is all very well expressing great sympathy, but who is there when the poor woman on her own has to go home with a baby whom she cannot support? She is abandoned and unable to look after it. None of us here is going to volunteer to help her. We have to have compassion for a woman who is in that desperate a state.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I should have preferred that this particular clause had not been passed, but it was passed and we have to accept it. Following on very closely from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, in my view it is time we moved on.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We did not debate an impact assessment. We need a proper government impact assessment for this clause before it is made law. There are foreseeable consequences to taking down important guardrails within our abortion law for the sake of a relatively small number of people—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly give way?
Lord Farmer (Con)
I would prefer to get a move on so that everybody is happy that this comes to an end. Have we forgotten that hard cases make bad law and public policy should be a consideration? Knowing that she aborted a perfectly viable baby can haunt a woman for years. Even if we start and end with an individual woman, enabling her to procure her own abortion at an extremely vulnerable point in her life—the amendment points to vulnerability—without committing a crime creates a moral hazard.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not give way, because I wanted to ask him this question. In his first sentence, he managed to speak to the amendment before us. He then went off on a tangent. In relation to impact assessment, has he, like me and many others, received hundreds of emails with countless papers and briefings about the implications of this clause? Did he observe the Second Reading debate in your Lordship’s House, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick said, and the extensive debates in Committee and on Report? The issue is whether the House has had sufficient information on which to make a judgment. My argument is that we have. We have made a judgment. This is totally unnecessary. We should move on and invite the Front Benches to now wind up.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I am addressing the point of impact assessment, which had not been properly debated.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this Bill attempted to canter through some profoundly important issues, such as child sexual abuse, which the police have described to me as a “tsunami” and which I do not think is fully understood by most people, including some politicians. The other issue that is misunderstood is the rampaging impact of AI on our daily life. Both issues deserve a Bill on their own. But during the long hours of debate, we were constantly racing the clock. Starting debates at 3 pm, or later, and finishing them at midnight is not a way to make good legislation. If we are serious about effective scrutiny, we must modernise the sitting hours of this House as a matter of urgency. If scrutiny is to be meaningful, there needs to be more scope for the Government Front Bench to agree perfectly rational, sane and good ideas that have been suggested by amendments right the way across the House.
Nevertheless, I would like to thank the Ministers: the ever charming and affable noble Lord, Lord Hanson, who protected the Government with the tenacity that a lion would use to protect his cubs, ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and the brilliant forensic skill of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, whose ability to demolish, as I know from personal experience, a carefully crafted speech in one sentence but always with charm and a disarming smile made me think, “If only she was on our side instead of the Government’s”.
I also thank noble Lords across the House, with special thanks to the Conservative Front Bench, who have been a joy to work with. I also thank my wonderful Bill team, in particular my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks on the Front Bench, and Elizabeth Plummer from our Whips’ Office, whose tireless and excellent support on legislation has kept us firmly on track at all times. Finally, my heartfelt thanks go to Barbara Davidson, my researcher, who is one of the most hard-working, efficient and effective people I have ever had the privilege to work with.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly long time coming. This Bill has endured 15 days in Committee and six days on Report in your Lordships’ House. It has been a mammoth of a task, but throughout the Bill’s passage, I am pleased to say that we have executed our duties in this House as diligently as ever.
To address the regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel set out our concerns about the lack of scrutiny of the abortion clause both in Committee and on Report. Our view remains the same: that such a significant change of abortion law should not have been rushed through Parliament, tacked on to a completely unrelated Bill. However, the House has now decided the matter and, as always, we respect that.
I said at Second Reading and again in Committee that I do not believe that a 500-page Crime and Policing Bill is going to bring down crime rates. We have an enormous amount of criminal law. The problem is that much of it is not effectively enforced.
Having said that, there are elements of this Bill that we are happy to see being sent to the other place. The Minister knows the parts of the Bill that I support; indeed, there have been several occasions on which he and I have been on the same page. There are some very good amendments that we passed on Report. I am pleased that the House supported my amendments to allow the police to seize vehicles using fly-tipping offences and to endorse the driving licences of fly-tippers with three penalty points. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats and a number of non-affiliated and Cross-Bench noble Lords for supporting my amendment to increase the maximum sentence for the possession of a bladed article with intent to commit violence from four to 10 years and to force the Government to review the proscription of the IRGC. It is excellent that my noble friends Lord Young of Acton, Lady Buscombe, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge and Lady Bertin had the support of the House for their amendments as well.
I must, however, express my regret at a number of provisions that have ended up in the Bill. Clause 49, which makes low-value shoplifting triable either way, makes absolutely no sense to me. Clause 251, which gives foreign courts greater powers over the extradition of British citizens, is also undesirable. It is highly regrettable that the Government have inserted Clause 144, on aggravated offences. That clause is completely unnecessary, given Section 66 of the Sentencing Code and the raft of aggravated offences and hate crime legislation that already exists. It will only cause more problems for the police and is not going to contribute to the end of identity politics and a move towards greater social cohesion. When the inevitable happens and more people are arrested for speech offences, let it be known that the Conservatives warned the Government and tried to vote that down.
I am also deeply concerned that the Government’s amendment to grant themselves the mother of all Henry VIII powers passed. The Division was held outrageously late, which is not appropriate given the wide-ranging constitutional implications. Ministers will now be able to amend the entire Online Safety Act 2023 as they wish, and parliamentarians will have no say. This is not the way to regulate for AI chatbots. We should all be deeply troubled by this.
To end on a more positive note, I thank the Minister, genuinely, for engaging with me and with my noble friends Lord Cameron of Lochiel and Lord Sandhurst throughout the passage of the Bill. I am also very grateful to his officials and the Bill team for keeping us up to date with the government amendments. I thank all those in the Government Whips’ Office and in our Whips’ Office for their help, in particular Jamie Tucker in the Opposition Whips’ Office for shouldering most of the heavy lifting on this. And I thank the Lib Dem Front Bench for their co-operation on the Bill.
I sincerely hope that the Government will do some serious thinking over the Recess and take on board the suggestions from noble Lords in this place. When we come back to this Bill for consideration of the Commons amendments, I hope the Minister will be in a conciliatory mood.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, we are almost there. I want to respond to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. She had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Biggar and Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, on that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned the Labour Party. There are Members on my side of the House who voted on both sides of the abortion debate. It is not a party-political issue. It was a free vote on this issue, certainly from the Government’s perspective and, I think, that of all parties. I reiterate that the Government were entirely neutral on the proposal that was put in Committee and later on Report that now forms Clauses 246 and 247. It is an entirely neutral government position.
I note the comments of the three noble Lords who spoke in support of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. I also note those of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I echo what they said in an entirely neutral way. We have to respect the fact that the House of Commons passed that proposal quite considerably and that after many hours of debate this House came to the same conclusion. The Government remain neutral, but that is the position.
We are now looking at the implications of that. The Government have always said that should Parliament pass any abortion amendments, they will ensure the safe and effective implementation of those provisions. This includes any costs associated with the implementation of this provision and this Bill. There are existing processes in the spending review and in future spending reviews to identify funding and around implementation. The Government remain neutral, but I have to say to all Members of the House that both Houses have spoken and that is the position that we find ourselves in today.
Whatever noble Lords’ personal views on the provisions in Part 16, we should not set aside the other parts of the Bill. There are a number of areas of agreement between all sides of the House. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that three amendments were accepted by the Government on Report. We will look at some of the amendments that this House passed and their implications when the Bill returns to the House of Commons after the Recess.
At the end of the day, I am proud of this Bill. I am proud of its position to protect children from sexual abuse. I am proud of the action we have taken on online harm. I am proud of the action on preventing violence against women and girls. I am proud of the action on young men and knife crime. I am particularly proud of the long campaign that my union raised on shop workers and assaults. I am proud of the issues on communities and anti-social behaviour. I am proud of this Bill, and for that reason I commend that this Bill do now pass. With due respect—I spoke to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, today, and I understand where she is coming from—I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment. If she does, I am proud of this Bill as it stands. I am neutral on the issue of abortion on behalf of the Government, but I ask this House to pass the Bill.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and for speaking to me earlier today. He talked about the cost implications of the Bill, and there are many, but I am not sure that anybody knows what the cost implications of Clause 246 might be. Be that as it may, my amendment to the Motion was to draw to the attention of the House the fact that things need to be done to let people carry out the jobs for which they are responsible and to help women in this most desperate situation. I do not intend to move the amendment to a vote. I thank those who spoke. We deliberately decided that we would not ask a lot of people to speak and that we would ask people not to speak so as not to delay the House in its other deliberations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:31 - Division on Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G) - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 141 - Motion G1 agreed.
20:12 - Division on Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H) - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 150 - Motion H1 agreed.
20:24 - Division on Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K) - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 195 - Motion K1 disagreed.
20:36 - Division on Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L) - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 148 - Motion L1 agreed.
20:48 - Division on Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N) - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 147 - Motion N1 agreed.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
2A: Because the Commons consider the Amendment to be unnecessary in light of existing statutory guidance about bringing a child protection plan to an end and steps already being taken to strengthen multi-agency decision making relating to child protection.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, K and K1. In this group we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to child protection plans, multi-agency child protection teams and local authority consent for children not in school. For each, I will set out the rationale for why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motion A relating to Amendment 2, originally tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, regarding decisions to end child protection plans for under-fives when care proceedings are initiated or a care or supervision order is granted. When care proceedings begin, the child protection plan should not automatically be discharged. Statutory guidance is clear that a multi-agency meeting should take place to make this decision.
The Ofsted inspection framework reflects this statutory guidance and includes a focus on child protection. However, I note the noble Baroness’s concerns about children losing support at key transition points, potentially making them more vulnerable. This is why we will strengthen statutory guidance to make sure that the reason for the decision and any ongoing support is recorded.
We expect expert practitioners in multi-agency child protection teams to make decisions about plans ending. These teams bring fresh child protection expertise to concerns and will know the circumstances of the child well, so they are best placed to make these important decisions. While senior and experienced directors of children’s services should get involved only when needed, this is already provided for in the statutory framework.
Motion B relates to Amendment 5, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, requiring that the Secretary of State delay an evaluation of the families first for children pathfinder in Parliament before the multi-agency child protection team measures come into force.
Effective multi-agency child protection practice, which prevents tragedies and saves lives, needs to happen now. Delay is unacceptable. The Government will set out implementation plans covering the next phase of children’s social care reform following Royal Assent, including information about the planned pathfinder evaluation.
This summer, we expect to publish interim findings that are informing national rollout. Clause 3 also includes powers to make regulations about the functions of multi-agency child protection teams. The regulations will be subject to consultation and parliamentary scrutiny and will reflect learning from the pathfinders and national reform rollout. Regulations are not expected to come into effect until 2027, but the system is rightly changing now and we must not hinder this.
I turn finally to Motion K, relating to Amendment 44, and Motion K1, relating to Amendment 44B in lieu, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The amendment in lieu would require parents to obtain permission from their local authority before withdrawing their child from school for home education if their child is currently, or has ever been, the subject of care or supervision order proceedings, unless the child has since been adopted. We share the noble Baroness’s commitment to ensuring that every child is safe. However, we remain unconvinced about extending the consent requirement further. Children who are the subject of such proceedings would almost always fall within existing protections, either through a child protection plan triggering the Government’s proposed consent measure or as a looked-after child whose education is already determined by the local authority through their care plan.
We recognise concerns about children previously subject to proceedings potentially being vulnerable. That is why we have extended the consent requirement to children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years and extended the school attendance order power to these children who are already being home educated. This approach maintains the high threshold for consent to child protection action, recognises that children may be vulnerable if they are withdrawn from school within five years after a plan ends, and balances this with the reality that families can and do change.
On Report, the noble Baroness referenced the review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif. We have already amended the Bill to respond directly to its recommendations. We will pilot mandatory meetings before any child in a pilot area can be removed from school for home education, and the new power for local authorities to request to visit home-educated children in their homes will benefit the children that the noble Baroness is most concerned about. Importantly, our wider children’s social care measures also strengthen information sharing, improve early preventive support, create new multi-agency child protection teams and strengthen the role of education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. It is for these reasons that the Government disagree with these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments. I thank the Minister in her absence for the meetings we have had away from your Lordships’ Chamber. Clearly, protecting our young people is close to all our hearts and is something that we will keep a watching brief on. We have looked at the Government’s proposals. Early on, when I arrived at your Lordships’ House, I worked with the Children’s Commissioner and a briefing was sent to all noble Lords in June last year about something I was trying to bring forward on Report to try to make young people’s lives better. On that occasion, I failed to convince noble Lords on both the main two Benches and, as we live in a democracy, I chose not to pursue that.
I wish the Government well with their intentions. Clearly, as the opposition here—the smaller opposition—our duty will be to continue to hold the Government to account on the reassurances they have given us in briefings and, more importantly, on what they have written to us both from your Lordships’ House and the other place. These Benches are not minded to oppose what the Government are proposing, but we are putting them on notice that we will continue to watch the progress and we wish this Bill well.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion K1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I thank the Bill team and the Minister for our very useful meeting yesterday, and, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state school teacher.
When we talked to the Bill team yesterday, I thought that they almost seemed to use the language of this amendment. As we have heard, the Sara Sharif review says that the overview is at fault, not the system; but this amendment seems the very way of tightening oversight without, as has been mentioned, penalising adoptive parents and children, where the concern was about a previous iteration of their life. This seems to be the crux of the amendment. The Minister actually said the Bill says that “almost all” children fall within the Bill. I think this tightens it up, so hopefully all children will fall within the purview of this Bill.
Moreover, it seems to me that, in the Bill as it stands, the local authority could not require a child who left local authority care and returned to their family, say, three years ago, to attend school, while they could for a child who came off child protection three years ago. I do not understand that at all. At the moment, I am not clear about the Bill as it stands. I think Motion K1 makes it much clearer, and I implore the Government to accept this.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has just said. As a family judge, I had a number of cases where children had been on protection orders—and, in particular, supervision orders—and I vividly recall an appalling case in Liverpool where there was a continuing supervision order that was utterly disregarded. I called the Director of Social Services to explain it, and she was absolutely thinking that it did not really matter; so everything that can be done to put added pressure on making sure that children who are home educated are kept under proper supervision by local authorities seems to me to be absolutely crucial.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will confine myself briefly to supporting Motion B. It is commonly agreed now that the pilots of the pathfinder model in selected family courts have been a success and represent the way ahead. This model has been shown to reduce delays significantly and has forced the focus on to making things better for the child concerned, rather than on the parents’ disputes and confrontations. That model has developed sufficiently well, in that the delay in moving it on into the mainstream should really now be avoided. It means that the very recently announced expansion into child-focused courts will be welcome.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I will o speak to Motion K1, tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran. The Government are rightly acting to give local authorities the power to prevent children subject to a child protection plan being withdrawn from school. However, the scope of the Bill is clearly too limited, even with the amendment to give effect to a backward extension of five years for child protection plans.
I will briefly remind noble Lords of the characteristics of the children we are talking about. Clearly, they have all experienced abuse or neglect, but even apart from this we are talking about an exceptionally vulnerable group. Nearly three-quarters of children in care have special educational needs—often conditions they were born with that can make them particularly challenging to bring up and to educate—and often complicated physical or behavioural needs as well. Alongside that, these are children of parents whose ability to care for and protect their own children has already been shown to be inadequate, at least for a time. Even after a care order or child protection plan has been discharged, these are, in the main, children with serious challenges and complicated needs, whose parents have limited capacity. They are very often fragile families needing a lot of support and with a strong likelihood of further social care intervention being needed in future.
Therefore, there should be local authority consideration of proposals to home-educate any child who has been in care, had a supervision order or is under a child protection plan: first, to make sure that the child will actually get the education and support they need at home; and, secondly, to make sure that the child can safely be removed from view. Once a child is home-schooled, it may not be seen by any adult from outside the family for years. That may have been exactly the thing that was keeping that fragile family in balance.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to see that, in Motion K1, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has reduced the issue to being about only Section 31 and that she has provided a carve-out, as it were, for adoption. Imagine if you adopted a two year-old who had been in care and, 10 years later, you have to jump through another bureaucratic hoop, so I am very pleased to see that. I am sorry that the Government do not have that provision within their current approach.
When I raised this in an amendment—I think it was on Report—the Minister told me that in such a case, it would be a pure formality: that, in relation to an adopted child, the local authority would simply pass it through. In your Lordships’ House, we all know that what is a formality for the local authority can be a real worry and threat for the individuals involved. It is a threat of people passing judgment on them, and that is a really important point. However, this is not the only example of people who will be inappropriately caught within this amendment and within the Government’s current approach.
I want to give one example, which is known to both the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister. It is of a young boy who was abused and raped by his father. With the permission of his mother, I will read out or paraphrase a short extract from an email she sent to the Government. At the time when the care plan was created for her son, she said, he
“had made detailed disclosures of serious sexual abuse”
to the mother, to four police officers, to two doctors and a social worker
“yet the police had still not arrested the perpetrator and the family court offered … no protection”.
Under those circumstances, she said, the chair of the initial child protection conference agreed with herself, a doctor, a nurse and a police liaison officer that he should be placed on a care plan
“until his rapist had been arrested. This was done, and, I suspect, helped to speed up the arrest”,
she said.
This seems to be yet another classic case of somebody who should not be subjected to the retraumatising of going through this process again, with the possibility of receiving a school attendance order. That mother has been protecting and looking after that child, and making decisions on the way forward for the child. Being second-guessed in this way seems to me totally inappropriate.
The Minister is presumably opposing Motion K1. I would like to ask her how the Government will deal with these two issues of adopted children. In the other example, as that mother said to me, the family is not the same family as it was when the child was taken into care. It seems to me that it should be easy enough to get some kind of carve-out to pick out the point that it is only when the same circumstances pertain rather than when the child is essentially living in a different family. What guarantees will the Minister give to ensure not only that adopted children are not affected by this policy but that others, such as in the example I have used, are not affected?
I turn to the other point of Motion K1, which is that it is about anyone who has ever been in care, for whatever reason. My background is in health, and we recognise that health screening is a good thing, but sometimes it can do more harm than good. There is a danger and a parallel here, and in some of the rest of this Bill. In our zeal to do the right thing, we are in danger of doing more damage than good. If we look at the large number of people who will have to be considered—and at the enormous resources, and at the trauma that the process may put people through—I suspect that may be the case.
Let me be clear: I am in favour of a simple register. In a society where too many children disappear or are indoctrinated or abused, it is right that we should be able to identify where children are. Of course there will be rogues, but we should not treat every parent as suspicious. A very experienced local education authority officer told me that, with regard to safeguarding, they normally react to an issue or a sign, and for home education experienced home education officers know the signs. However, he added, this Bill treats everyone as guilty until proven innocent, and it is in danger of doing more harm than good.
My point in raising these issues is to ask the Minister how she will deal with the particular points that I raised about adoption, and about other people who would be inappropriately treated as though they were still in care. In addition, I ask how she will set about making sure that in the next stage of this Bill—namely, the setting of regulations that carry these things through to their impact—the Government will address some of these points and make a truly proportionate response to safeguarding.
There are plenty of home educators who are very happy to help them in this and have great experience in doing so. The vast majority of home educators, as we know, are reluctant ones. I speak partly because a member of my family adopted two children some years ago and sent them to school, but has reluctantly taken them out to home-educate them, at great sacrifice to her and to her family. That is the case for very many home educators. In passing some of what we have passed here, we must be careful to tell them that we do not think that they are all criminals, and that this needs to be a proper and proportionate response.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding Motion A and the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance, and for the publication of interim findings in relation to Motion B for the multi-agency child protection teams. To the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I say that there are multiple pathfinders, and the one to which he referred—the one he was worried that my amendment might delay—was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred. It is easy to be confused with so many paths going on.
I turn to my Motion K1, and again acknowledge that the Government have done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home-educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. Noble Lords know that we spent time testing the limits of what these concerns might be, in Committee and on Report, to ensure that they are proportionate. That has been informed in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school.
As we heard, in response to our debates, the Government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible. Then, on Report, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night we all received a letter from Ministers that covered the response to the Sara Sharif safeguarding practice review. I have read the letter several times. I find it extraordinary that, although I explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who had been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or my amendment anywhere in the letter—unless I missed it. Either officials and Ministers do not understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe—particularly of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today—or there is no political will to engage with this subject. I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House but, reading the letter, that is what it feels like. Either way, it is a very unfortunate oversight.
As the Minister knows, in the hierarchy of safeguarding, the greatest concern is for children who are in care or care proceedings, where the state judges that they cannot stay safely with their birth parents. These children are at greater risk than those on a child protection plan, but the Bill as currently drafted, and the Government’s rejection of my amendment to the Motion, leaves this specific gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, you could have two children: one who was returned to their parents three years ago, having been in care, and another who came off a child protection plan three years ago. If the parents of both children want to take them out of school, the local authority cannot have a say on the first child, but it can on the second. I am guessing that the Minister does not feel entirely comfortable about that.
When the Minister says that almost all children will fall within existing proceedings, that is almost all children except Sara Sharif. Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth, but she was never on a child protection plan again and there were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child we should all be thinking about this evening.
I will finish by quoting the Secretary of State, who made a Statement on 13 November last year when the safeguarding practice review was published. She said:
“The whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023. Aged just 10 years old, the unimaginable cruelty of Sara’s death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all … The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out-of-school education providers”.
I emphasise the following:
“The measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 31WS.]
Outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said but by what we did. Let us be crystal-clear: without my amendment, these measures will not ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. When the next serious case review happens—and sadly it will—I hope the House will remember this debate and the chance we had to do the right thing tonight by supporting my amendment when we come to vote later.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am exceptionally grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I recognise the commitment and contribution they have all made during the passage of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for not pursuing any of the points further, as he said.
To address the main points raised, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise the importance of what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with Amendment 2 on the discharge of child protection plans. I hope I have provided reassurance that, although the statutory framework already requires robust multi-agency oversight of child protection plans, we will strengthen expectations for reasons to be recorded.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Can the noble Baroness acknowledge that in the case of Sara Sharif and many other children—she will be aware of the report into the 41 children who were home-educated and were either killed or seriously harmed—the current system clearly does not work and that this small but important loophole could be closed by my amendment? I would be grateful if she could confirm that that is this case.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
The Minister needs to respond.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I cannot express my sadness enough about the issues that the noble Baroness raises, but I am seeking to reassure her and the House that the provisions we are bringing in will be sufficient as we move forward. That is the issue. I think the Minister she referred to from the conversation on Monday was the Minister in the other place, not me. I am sorry that she is not satisfied with the letter, but I know that he went into meticulous detail and I am confident that he responded.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sorry, but the meticulous detail in the letter did not refer anywhere to children in care or those who had been in care proceedings. It referred to my previous amendment and children who were classified as being in need. I will let the noble Baroness progress.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Perhaps if I continue with my comments, the noble Baroness can intervene if appropriate.
I reassure all noble Lords that the child would almost certainly be caught by the Government’s proposed consent measure due to a child protection plan, or by being a looked-after child, and therefore education provision would be a matter for the local authority to decide. Family hubs also provide support through targeted multidisciplinary support for vulnerable children. However, I want to reassure noble Lords that, as we move into implementation of the policy, we will continue to engage with noble Lords. Should it become clear that the proposal to extend consent to children who are currently, or were historically, the subject of care or supervision orders or proceedings would strengthen the policy substantially and improve protection for this wider group of children, we would, of course, be open to considering how it could be delivered.
Where a care or supervision order is no longer in place, and the child was not subject to a current protection plan or had not been in the last five years, it would be appropriate to require consent. Children who have returned home after a care or supervision order are already supervised by the local authority, and where the child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, child protection plans apply. The information-sharing duty included in the Bill will make sure agencies are talking to each other when there are concerns about a child, ensuring appropriate escalation. Using historic Section 31 orders as a blanket trigger could unfairly brand families long after risks have reduced.
The independent review into Sara’s death was clear that there were long-term, broader multi-agency failings that resulted in Sara not receiving the level of protection she needed. Extending the consent requirement to all children who are ever subject to supervision order proceedings was not actually a recommendation of the review. Instead, it highlighted the need for stronger multi-agency practice, information sharing, early identification of risk and better decision-making. Those are exactly the reforms that this Bill delivers. Of course, for further reassurance, we will include specific sign-off of child protection plans for children entering proceedings, in consultation with multi-agency child protection team regulations.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her contribution on the matter of evidence for multi-agency child protection teams. I hope she is now reassured and that I have set out how the findings from the independent Families First for Children pathfinder evaluation will be used and shared. We are also confident that there is strong evidence from evaluations on multi-agency safeguarding hubs, strengthening families and supporting families programmes and youth offending teams, which all demonstrate how effectively multi-agency working improves outcomes for children. Most importantly, I remind the House once more that the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, which means there is already adequate provision in place for parliamentary scrutiny ahead of the regulations coming into force.
On Motion K1, which would expand the home education consent requirement, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring that every child receives a safe, suitable education. The Bill’s current requirements strike the right balance, extending them to all children who have ever been the subject of care or supervision proceedings. They would capture children already benefiting from appropriate checks and would not risk indefinitely stigmatising families who have made sustainable changes. I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, but, having worked with families in this space, I can say that this is an issue. Stigmatisation is a very real thing for many families.
I recognise, of course, concerns that the current consent requirement would not have prevented Sara Sharif being removed from school. However, the home education measures are one part of the system that safeguards children, and we have also made significant changes to reform and strengthen child protection in the Bill. The Bill strengthens the wider children’s social care system and the children not in school measures, which directly responds to some of the recommendations and adds targeted safeguards where children can become less visible. Of course, I recognise the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that home-educated parents very often have a great deal to offer from their experience in this area.
In closing, I urge noble Lords to resist Motion K1 and I commend Motion A.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
5A: Because learning from the Families First for Children Pathfinder will be published and inform regulations under clause 3 and the Amendment would unnecessarily delay implementation of the legislative framework in the clause required to deliver multi-agency child protection teams.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 16, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 16A.
16A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C and shall speak also to Motions D, E, F and F1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to the adoption and special guardianship support fund, sibling contact, regional co-operation arrangements and deprivation of liberty. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak to Motion C, relating to Amendment 16, originally tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, concerning a proposed review of the per-child funding level for the adoption and special guardianship support fund. The Government have confirmed £55 million for the support fund in 2026-27, with continuation into 2027-28. A 12-week public consultation on adoption support is under way, seeking evidence on what best supports adopted children and outlining eight proposals for a future system. Introducing the review proposed in the amendment could potentially inhibit balanced consideration of the consultation responses. We therefore cannot accept this.
Motion D relates to Amendment 17, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield. As we have previously set out, the amendment will not alter the duties placed on local authorities. There is already a requirement in regulations for local authorities to record in the care plan any contact arrangements made between a looked-after child and any sibling with whom they are not living. This is why the Government do not support this amendment.
Instead, we propose Amendment 17B in lieu, to add siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. This will make clear the expectations on local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their whole, half and step-siblings where this is consistent with their welfare: a duty that already exists for contact been children in care and their parents. I acknowledge Liberal Democrat Peers’ constructive engagement, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, and acknowledge in the other place the honourable Member for South Shields, Emma Lewell. Both have tirelessly campaigned for many years on the importance of relationships for children in care, and I therefore urge noble Lords to support this amendment.
Motion E relates to Amendment 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham. This amendment seeks to include integrated care boards in regional co-operation arrangements. The Government agree that health partners play a vital role in improving outcomes for looked-after children. However, existing duties under Sections 10 and 16E, 16G and 16J of the Children Act 2004 already require local authorities to co-operate with relevant partners, including ICBs, to promote children’s well-being. These duties will continue to apply to authorities entering into regional co-operation agreements. Following helpful discussions on Report, and with the National Network of Designated Healthcare Professionals, it is clear that these duties could be implemented more consistently.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion D and briefly to Motion F. I place on record the fact that I am extremely grateful to the Government for bringing forward Amendment 17B in lieu, in response to the amendments that I tabled in Committee and on Report. It is a major step forward in strengthening and protecting children in care’s relationships with their brothers and sisters, including half- and step-siblings. I am particularly grateful that the wording of the government amendment is broad and inclusive—something I very much support, as we discussed in earlier stages. I thank the Minister, Minister MacAlister and the Bill team for their very constructive engagement on this issue.
Over the years, I have heard directly from care-experienced children and young people about the absolutely crushing impact of not having consistent or adequate contact with their siblings. Sometimes their siblings are the only other people who know, who understand, who have shared experiences of what they have been through and the emotional distress it has caused them. They are the ones who can provide mutual support; it is a lifelong bond. So this amendment is a really important step forward in ensuring that contact with siblings is given the same weight in legislation as contact with parents.
Getting to this point has felt like a long journey. I place on record my heartfelt thanks to the colleagues across the House and in the other place who have supported us in getting through this process. I also thank two charities, Become and the Family Rights Group, for their unwavering support; they have campaigned on this issue for many years. It is vital that this change, which I hope we will see in legislation, drives practice so that all children who are separated from their siblings are supported in having the contact with their brothers and sisters that they need, whenever it is in their best interests to do so. I will be monitoring this with great care.
I turn briefly to Motion F and the deprivation of liberty. It is quite a complex subject, so I will not go into all the ins and outs, but I think we can all agree that the needs of children who are deprived of their liberty is something to which we need to give serious thought and attention, particularly in understanding better the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders. I commend the work that the Nuffield Observatory has been doing in this area, because these children’s needs—including the help and support that they need, however they are funded—clearly require a package that involves health, social care, education and sometimes criminal justice. It needs to be effective. It needs to be a fully integrated package of health and support; at the heart of this is how that would best be delivered.
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to see the letter to which she referred, which was sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, about what is going on in this area. I read very carefully about what is happening in relation to the deprivation of liberty. I am encouraged that the work the Government are taking forward now has a national programme to try to understand the evidence better and to understand the options around things such as pooled budgets and the like. As I understand it, there are pilots taking place, with some more in train. Importantly, there is funding to test better-integrated, joined-up working and ideas for pooled budgets, improved collaboration, et cetera. It is encouraging that that is taking place.
My understanding—I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this—is that that work is being backed up by £15.5 million of DfE funding over the next three years. I would also be grateful if, given the concerns that have been raised in this area, the House could be provided regular updates on this programme, including on the outcomes and the key findings that it is delivering.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I gently remind all noble Lords that, if they wish to speak, they should do so before the Official Opposition wind up, and that they should not be repeating lengthy arguments that have already been debated in Committee and on Report. Should they speak, they should speak briefly and to the amendments.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I was going to be brief in agreeing with what the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, just said and in welcoming Motion D, because the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu, which relates to sibling contact, is to be welcomed; indeed, it is a pleasant surprise. It promotes the local authority’s duty from the schedule to the Children Act to Section 34 of the Act, and reinforces it as a positive duty to allow contact between siblings; at the same time, it gives the court a major say in the type of contact, the level of contact and how it should progress.
Through their amendment, the Government have recognised in primary legislation the real significance of sibling relationships, particularly when siblings have to be separated and have differing needs. These are children whose parents have failed them, and the most important relationship left to them is with a sibling. The courts and legal professionals are familiar with the working of Section 34, which will now govern these cases, and the amendment will be a valuable, beneficial addition to it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I chaired a Select Committee on adoption some years ago and very much welcome this sibling amendment. It is absolutely excellent. I remember we met a number of children who were in care. One boy of 15, with four younger brothers and sisters, said to us, “No one tells me how my brothers and sisters are getting on—I brought them up”. This is excellent, and the Government are very much to be congratulated on it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, we very much welcome the Government’s amendment in relation to sibling contact and hope very much it makes a tangible difference in practice. I will speak briefly to my Motion F1, which relates to how we can provide the highest-quality care for the most vulnerable children: those who are deprived of their liberty. As we have already debated, this must involve the local authority and the integrated care board.
The Minister will be very familiar with the difficulty of getting health to the table, even if the door is often held wide open by the local authority. But of course the cost of them not being there is borne by children, whose cases end up being repeatedly delayed because of disputes between health and social care as to who is responsible, who are moved from placement to placement without any join-up, and who attend emergency services without up-to-date information about their needs. My amendment would go some way to addressing this.
However, I am encouraged by the Minister’s promise—which is what I wrote down in very large letters, anyway—that the integrated care board involvement would be “locked in from the outset”. If that is what the Government are going to do, and if the Government are going to create some innovation funding opportunities to see true integrated work between health and social care, then I am grateful to the Government and look forward to following how that develops in practice.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this debate. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for her comments, and also say that I am totally confident she will keep a good check on how this goes forward. I am very appreciative of her role.
The Government recognise the vital role of adopters and kinship carers and the need for timely, appropriate support. That is why we are continuing to fund the adoption and special guardianship support. The department is also consulting widely on the future of adoption support, with over 600 responses received already and consultation events planned after Easter. Therefore, with the ongoing work, we do not believe a further review is necessary.
I note all of the comments from around the Chamber recognising the importance of the work we have done in adding siblings to Section 34 of the Children Act. I am sure that makes the Government’s commitment absolutely clear and I very much welcome the support of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston. We are committed to best practice in helping children to see their siblings; it is a huge step forward for the experience of so many young people.
I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, for highlighting through his Amendment 19 the importance of health involvement in the creation of regional co-operation arrangements. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I was very fortunate in having very good relationships with health colleagues, and I know through that the potential of when we get it right. I fully agree that integrated care boards need to move forward. The statutory mechanisms will be strengthened through the detailed guidance we will publish, alongside the expression of interest for the next wave of regional care co-operatives. I reiterate that this will require relevant ICBs to state their commitment as we go forward. I hope that gives noble Lords the reassurance they require. A financial incentive is an excellent way of moving forward. Therefore, we do not believe the amendment is required.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 17, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 17A, and do propose Amendment 17B in lieu—
17A: Because the Commons does not consider the review proposed by the Amendment to be necessary in light of the ongoing public consultation on adoption and special guardianship support services.
“Sibling contact with children in care
In section 34 of the Children Act 1989 (parental contact etc. with children in care)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and
(e) any brother or sister (whether of the whole or half blood) or step-brother or step-sister (whether by marriage or civil partnership) of the child.”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”;
(c) in subsection (8), in paragraph (za), for “(d)” substitute “(e)”.”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 19A.
19A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of existing arrangements that ensure local authorities work together with integrated care boards in discharging functions for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 21A.
21A: Because the Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 38 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A, 38B, 38C and 38D in lieu.
“Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
(1) The Online Safety Act 2023 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 214 insert—
“Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
214A Power to require internet service providers to restrict access by children to certain internet services
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring providers of specified internet services—
(a) to prevent access by children of or under a specified age to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services;
(b) to restrict access by children of or under a specified age to specified internet services which they provide, or to specified features or functionalities of such services.
(2) The provision that may be made by regulations under this section includes—
(a) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by a provider for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(b) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
(3) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) includes provision requiring a provider to limit—
(a) the amount of time per day, or over the course of a specified period, for which children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service;
(b) the times of day at which children may access the service or a specified feature or functionality of the service.
(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(c) includes provision for a requirement to be an enforceable requirement for the purposes of Chapter 6 of Part 7.
(5) Regulations under this section may—
(a) make provision applying any provision of this Act (with or without modifications);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions;
(f) make consequential provision.
(6) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (5)(f) may amend or repeal primary legislation.
(7) OFCOM must, so far as reasonably practicable—
(a) carry out such research or provide such advice as the Secretary of State may request for the purposes of making regulations under this section, and
(b) do so by such time, or within such period, as the Secretary of State may specify in the request.
(8) As soon as reasonably practicable after providing advice under subsection (7), OFCOM must publish the advice.
(9) In this section—
“primary legislation” means—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.”
(3) In section 225 (parliamentary procedure for regulations), in subsection (1), after paragraph (e) insert—
“(ea) regulations under section 214A(1),”.”
“Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services
(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 8 (child's consent in relation to information society services), after paragraph 2 insert—
“2A. The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) amend paragraph 1 so as to change the age for the time being specified in that paragraph (but not to an age lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years);
(b) make provision in relation to services specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations for a different age to apply for the purposes of paragraph 1 (but not lower than 13 years or higher than 16 years).
2B. Regulations under paragraph 2A are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”.
(3) After Article 8, insert—
“Article 8ZA
Child’s consent in relation to information society services: age verification
1. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about verifying—
(a) that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being specified in Article 8(1);
(b) in the case of a service specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under Article 8(2A)(b), that a data subject who has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data in relation to the offer of information society services is at least the age for the time being applicable by virtue of those regulations in relation to that service or description of service.
2. The provision that may be made by regulations under paragraph 1 includes—
(a) provision imposing requirements on persons specified, or of a description specified, in the regulations;
(b) provision about the steps that must or may be taken by such persons for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(c) provision about the monitoring of compliance with a requirement imposed by the regulations;
(d) provision about the enforcement of a requirement imposed by the regulations.
3. Regulations under paragraph 1 may—
(a) make provision amending, repealing, revoking or applying (with or without modifications) any provision of the data protection legislation (within the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018);
(b) make provision for exceptions to requirements imposed by the regulations;
(c) make provision about the time by which, or period within which, a thing must be done;
(d) make provision by reference to standards, arrangements, specifications or technical requirements as published from time to time;
(e) confer functions on a person, including functions involving the exercise of a discretion, and make provision in connection with the procedure for exercising the functions.
4. Regulations under this Article are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
5. In paragraph 1, the reference to information society services does not include preventive or counselling services.””
“(aa) section (Power to prevent or restrict access by children to certain internet services);
(ab) section (Age of consent in relation to processing of a child’s personal data: information society services);”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in speaking to Motion G, I will also speak to Motions G1, G2, N and N1. Lords Amendment 37 requires the Secretary of State to introduce regulations that prohibit under 18s from using VPNs. Amendment 38 requires the UK Chief Medical Officers to publish advice about children’s use of social media and requires us to make regulations to prevent under-16s from accessing user-to-user services within 12 months.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for his continued commitment to these important issues. Protecting children online remains a priority for this Government. The noble Lord’s amendments require us to legislate for an under-16 ban on social media. Many noble Lords have declared that they do not support an under-16 ban but are supporting this amendment to push the Government to do more. I assure the House that the Government will do more, meaning there is no reason to support this amendment.
The Online Safety Act introduced one of the most robust systems globally and we have already taken action to build on it. We have created new priority offences under the Act and we are closing gaps for unregulated chatbots. We know many people support a social media ban for under-16s, but other respected voices are concerned it is not the right approach. That is why the Government’s consultation is the responsible path forward. The consultation seeks views on the areas raised by the noble Lord’s Motion and beyond, including harms from gaming and AI chatbots. We have already received over 30,000 responses from experts, parents and young people. It is right we assess these properly, but we are clear we will take further action.
Turning to VPNs, I understand the noble Lord’s concerns, but I believe that a consultation is the best way to consider the issue. We are determined to act swiftly on the issues once the consultation has concluded, and we will respond by the end of the summer. That is why we have tabled amendments enabling us to act quickly and decisively on its findings through regulation-making powers. We fully recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny in this process, and I can confirm that any regulations brought forward will require a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
Amendments 38E, 38F and 38G, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would introduce a new duty of care on the providers of internet services and regulation-making powers to be introduced within six months. The amendments propose a review of Ofcom’s powers. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued dedication to these issues. The Online Safety Act introduced enforceable duties on platforms to protect their child users, but we have always said there is more to do. Already the Government are building on the Act, including through their consultation, which addresses the types of services and considerations set out in the noble Baroness’s amendment. The Government’s amendment provides the legislative means to achieve this, and I reassure the House our intention is to act swiftly.
On enforcement, Ofcom has the Government’s full backing to use all the considerable enforcement levers at its disposal. The Act includes a statutory post-implementation review, which must consider the effectiveness of these powers. We will not hesitate to strengthen the law if it is needed to keep children safe.
I therefore hope noble Lords will support the Government’s amendment, which provides a responsible, evidence-based and workable route to the outcomes we all want to achieve. We have been clear that it is not if we act but how.
I will move on to Motion N, relating to Amendment 106, and Motion N1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who insists on this amendment. Amendment 106 would prohibit the use and possession of mobile phones during the school day. However, we know that the majority of schools already have policies that prohibit mobile phones, so the issue is not about new legislation. What changes pupil behaviour is enforcement backed by a whole-school approach to behaviour management.
We have published strengthened guidance. We have asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide targeted support to schools. From April, Ofsted will inspect schools’ mobile phone policies. For example, evidence that mobile phone use is contributing to behaviour issues, bullying, mental health issues or belonging will make it likely that the expected standard for attendance and behaviour is not being met, and this will be reflected in Ofsted’s final reports.
To conclude, I am grateful for the constructive engagement and hope noble Lords will support the Government’s amendments and reject the alternative amendments proposed. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Lord Nash
Leave out from “its” to end and insert “Amendment 37, do insist on its Amendment 38 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A, 38B, 38C and 38D in lieu.”
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion G1, concerning my social media amendment, as an amendment to Motion G, I will support the spirit of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
I believe we need a dual-track approach. I pay tribute to those noble tech Lords, many of whom are here tonight, who worked so tirelessly on the Online Safety Act, but now it clearly needs updating and strengthening. Nobody could have foreseen the pace of technological change that has taken place in recent years. I believe that, in relation to children, we should have a dual-track approach to social media, which puts the onus squarely on the companies to make their products safe for children, as we would with any other product, using safety-by-design principles.
I have been a director of tech companies in California. The Californian techies are some of the most able, innovative, entrepreneurial, wealth-creating and job-creating people in the world. However, in the cavalier approach that they have taken to harmful content online for our children, they have gone way too far in prioritising their commercial instincts. We need to act now in a way that is truly effective—and of course we know that many of these techies do not let their own children anywhere near social media.
I do not need to spend much time talking about the clear evidence and causal link between social media and harm to our children, but I was horrified to hear the right honourable Liz Kendall say on the radio a few weeks ago that there is no proven causal link. Where has she been? This shows just how far behind the A ball the Government are in their thinking and why we can have no faith in the outcome of the consultation.
I provided noble Lords with an evidence document compiled by health professionals and others, showing the harmful effects of social media from 50 examples. Every day, I receive more research from around the world from experienced academics, health professionals and others to the same effect. This includes evidence from whistleblowers at social media companies about their company’s own internal research, showing clearly, based on the very extensive data available to them, the harms to children of social media. In recent days, the chief executive of Pinterest, a social media company with 600 million customers, has said that we are living through the largest social experiment in history and that social media, as it is configured today, is not safe for children under 16. As the Prime Minister of Greece said recently, when announcing measures similar to those dealt with in my Motion, as so many other countries have done, “The evidence is unambiguous”.
Only minutes ago, a court in Los Angeles found that Meta and Google were negligent and intentionally built addictive social media platforms, after a 20 year-old woman said that her early use of social media was addictive and made her depression worse. This comes after a court yesterday in New Mexico found that Meta is harmful to children’s mental health and fined it $375 million. These cases will likely influence the hundreds of similar cases now winding their way through the US courts.
There has been some comment in the press and by honourable Members in the other place that children’s charities are not united in their approach to protecting children online. I am delighted to be able to tell noble Lords that I have had extensive discussions with charitable and civil society organisations across the sector and there is broad agreement that an age-based restriction on harmful platforms should operate alongside full-throated enforcement of and increased potency of the Online Safety Act.
I turn to the consultation, and it is a shocker. It does not even satisfy the Government’s own consultation principles that such exercises should be clear and accessible—it has 62 questions, which I understand many parents have given up on after answering just a few—or that it should be targeted at appropriate stakeholders, as opposed to severely prejudicing parents’ ability to contribute. It has no structured engagement for front-line professionals such as clinicians, social workers and police, with no transparency as to how evidence would be used. The Government may have 30,000 responses but, given the length of the consultation document, I very much doubt that that represents a cross-section of society or the national conversation that they want. Market research professionals tell me that this would not begin to pass muster in a market research study. Some questions require technical or specialist knowledge, there is little information on how responses will be weighted between different groups, and it goes out of its way to emphasise, in square boxes, the benefits of social media without balancing sufficiently the disbenefits.
I turn to Commons Amendments 38A to 38D, and in particular Amendment 38A, which contains a very broad power enabling the Government to make changes to any Act of Parliament. There are many noble Lords here who are far more capable of pronouncing on this than I am.
This consultation and the amendments that the Government have tabled represent a blank cheque, with no definite timescale for action and no obligation to do anything. I have no doubt that no action has happened with the gender identity in schools consultation results—when they eventually came—and that they will require further lengthy consultation. I strongly suspect that this cheque will come back marked “insufficient action”.
Lastly, I pay tribute to the 21 bereaved parents who support my amendment, many of whom are here in the Public Gallery. I thank them for their hard work, their commitment and the fact that they are here—but I wish they were not, because I wish they did not have to be. I do not want to stand here in six or 12 months’ time, banging the same old drum, with even more bereaved parents in the Public Gallery. I urge noble Lords to support my amendment by agreeing to my Motion G1. I beg to move.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Nash and Motion G1 following his amazingly powerful speech. I also suggest that Commons Amendments 38A and 38B be rejected on constitutional grounds as they would give Ministers unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers. I declare my membership of the Constitution Committee, but of course I am not speaking on its behalf.
I draw your Lordships’ attention to seven features of these amendments. First, there is the power to amend other Acts of Parliament. Secondly, powers are given to the Secretary of State to restrict access by children of an age to be determined by the Secretary of State. In other words, it is not for Parliament to determine the age.
Thirdly, these amendments apply to any internet service, site, feature or functionality. It is not restricted to social media, which of course is my noble friend Lord Nash’s main objective. Rather, it applies to any internet service, including news services and search engines; that is unacceptably wide. Fourthly, and as importantly, nothing is said about the criteria on which these powers are to be exercised. There is no mention of harm, or of any rules or other constraints on the power of the Secretary of State.
Fifthly, there are provisions that enable the Secretary of State, in effect, to impose curfews—one must not listen at night or at certain times of the day. Sixthly, there is the power to impose time limits, such as half an hour a day, 40 minutes or two hours. These are very wide powers. Finally, there are provisions about mandating digital ID checks and setting an age of consent somewhere between the ages of nine and 13.
The essential point is that no Executive should have the power to restrict access to the entire online space, by children or anyone else, without clear limits defined in advance by Parliament in primary legislation, specifying in particular the age at which and the grounds on which such restrictions should apply, the limits of such restrictions and clear safeguards to protect democratic scrutiny. The correct approach is for the Government to continue with their consultation. When they have the information that they need, taking account of my noble friend Lord Nash’s criticisms of the consultation, and are fully equipped to deal with this, they should bring back to Parliament a Bill in which all these important matters are properly defined. The powers in question should be properly framed, rather than being rushed through, as they are now, on a Henry VIII basis.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy; I will reiterate the points that they have been making.
The amendments pose the question of how best to make meaningful change to online safety law for our children. We must choose between two possible options. The first, as the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposes in Amendments 37 and 38, is to make the changes through primary legislation, setting out the nature and extent of the changes to online safety in this Bill, with the finer details left to regulations. The second option, as the Government propose in Amendments 38A to 38D, is by delegating to the Executive the nature and extent of the changes to online safety by means of sweeping Henry VIII powers. These powers would enable Ministers to modify any provision of the Online Safety Act 2023, amend or repeal any provision of primary legislation to make consequential changes, and amend, repeal, revoke or modify any provision of our data protection legislation.
The first option is transparent and gives the decision on the nature and extent of the changes to Parliament by means of the strongest method of scrutiny and accountability in our constitution—primary legislation. Those changes would have to be implemented by the Secretary of State within a boundary set by Parliament in the primary legislation. The second option requires blind faith that the Government will in fact do anything at all—and, if they do, it means accepting a lesser form of scrutiny and accountability in the form of secondary legislation, which can be debated but not amended. It is very much a “take it or leave it” approach to whatever the Government come up with.
For example, the secondary legislation that the Government might at some point bring forward could provide that what is unsuitable for children on social media is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State, taking into account the extent to which the platform in question displays what the Secretary of State considers to be political bias, gender-critical views, the promotion of religious beliefs et cetera. There would be nothing in the primary legislation to constrain the Secretary of State when deciding which services should be restricted for children and how. Parliament would then have to either accept the secondary legislation in its entirety or reject the whole package.
For my part, I overwhelmingly prefer the first option. Whatever one’s view on the substance of what we are debating, it is a seismic and controversial cultural change for our children and parents. It imposes significant legal constraints on internet service providers and puts heavy monitoring and enforcement duties on Ofcom. The public need to have reassurance that the nature and extent of this huge change have been decided in the most robust way for which our cherished parliamentary democracy allows—unquestionably, that is primary legislation.
The Attorney-General, in his much-lauded Bingham lecture in 2024, said that “excessive reliance on delegated powers”, including
“Henry VIII clauses … upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law … but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”,
and raises
“real questions about how we are governed”.
Does the Minister agree with her Attorney-General and, if so, how does she reconcile that with Amendments 38A to 38D?
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, although the Government’s amendments have been put forward as a signal of their determination to act, sadly they commit to nothing. They simply buy the Minister a bit more time and the opportunity, at some unknown moment in the future, to push through a compromise half-measure with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I am appalled at this thought on this crucial issue. The Government are asking Peers to take a gamble on our children’s safety. They are placing their faith in a consultation that delivers nothing but more and more delay.
Regulating social media companies and keeping our children safe online are among the most defining challenges of our time. That is why we should vote for the cross-party amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which would raise the age to 16 within 12 months for the most harmful platforms—to be written into law before the summer. It is the safest option for our children at this time.
The Government’s complex, 62-question consultation is heavily framed towards the positive benefits of social media rather than towards the horrific harms which front-line professionals report every single day. On age assurance, the perceived downside is emphasised over obvious benefits. There is no clear process for managing conflicts of interest within the technology industry. How can this consultation be trusted? Reliable findings are precisely what this issue demands.
It is also worrying that the Government have introduced a Henry VIII clause which would give sweeping powers via secondary legislation, leaving little or no opportunity for this House to consider or scrutinise such measures. It would mean that the Government could dodge any scrutiny of their ultimate choice. This cannot be allowed to happen, because we would not be able to amend it. We would be able only to accept or reject it in full.
We are gambling with our children’s lives. That is why I strongly believe that the cross-party amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, is the safest, most common-sense option. We must not forget that every single day that we delay, more harms are done to the nation’s children. Do we want that? Their mental and physical well-being are under relentless attack. Let us not delay but do what we can to prevent this attack happening as soon as possible. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Motion G2 is in my name. I shall speak also to all the other amendments in this group.
I think we have acknowledged that everybody in this House wishes to protect children, but there is a vast difference of opinion in respect of our approach and the Government’s sense of urgency. If I understood the Minister’s argument in setting out the Government’s position, it was that Ofcom would take responsibility and that it had sufficient powers. Many of us were in this Chamber earlier when the chasm between Ofcom’s powers on paper and its ability to impact on survivors was laid bare. If people do not feel the impact of the law, and if the lived experience of children and the ability of parents to get help are not properly impacted, the law has failed. This is central to the problem and to the debate that we are having here tonight.
I think the House knows that I prefer to speak not of banning children but of banning products which are poorly designed and unsafe to have access to our children. That may appear to be a subtle point, but it is hugely important, because access to children must be conditional on treating them fairly and safely. Equally, many of us would like to see age-appropriate services, designed by companies with children in mind, be available to children. Motion G2 sets out that conditionality. Experts and campaigners across the sector contributed to its drafting—in short form, it is what we want from government. Frankly, it is what the Government promised when in opposition.
Since we last debated this issue, barely two months ago, researchers found that AI chatbots are becoming one of the most dangerous technologies for promoting violence against women and girls. The Internet Watch Foundation reported a staggering 26,000% increase last year in the number of AI-generated child sexual abuse materials. Specialist police email me to alert me to offenders using TikTok’s virtual gift system to incentivise children to perform sexual or compromising acts. Alexa+ has arrived in the UK, despite American parents raising their concerns about very young children being lulled into close friendships and about inappropriate language, including it asking to look at a child’s underwear. While we consult, children are harmed in real time. We cannot afford to wait.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I add one point to the powerful speeches that have been made in support of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. It is very important that noble Lords understand that the Minister is inviting the House to support Amendments 38A and 38B, neither of which imposes any obligation whatsoever on the Government. Those amendments simply confer a power on Ministers to introduce regulations. If those government amendments were approved, it would be entirely consistent for Ministers thereafter to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. Given the gravity of the mischief that we are addressing and the urgency of addressing that mischief, that seems to me to be an entirely unacceptable position.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I pick up on one issue that the Minister mentioned in her opening speech. To paraphrase, she said, “If, after consultation, there is a decision to act”. I hope that she is getting the sense tonight that the House is already very much of the opinion that it is not an if; it is a call to action, which has been made so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Nash.
As we have already heard from a number of noble Lords, having spent many hours debating online safety issues in this House, we have seen progress with the Online Safety Act, but more is to come. There is a simplicity in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash. We should send it back to the House of Commons and ask them to think about it again. If the Government decide in the Commons that they are still going to resist, disagree to the amendment and send it back, we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that there is a way forward so that it is not, as we have just heard, left to regulators or the Government to decide to act if they feel like it. There is a power in the Bill before us—we do not have to wait for the next online safety Act—to protect young people from harmful content online.
I urge Ministers to take the opportunity offered by the Bill being amended again this evening and going back to the other place—as I suspect it will—to really listen and engage with those of us who want to act now to protect young people from the harmful material that we absolutely know is, as we have heard, doing them no good online.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the government consultation, but I am distressed by how very wide its scope is and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, how very vague the outcomes seem to be.
The arguments that I put forward in my AI chatbot amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill also apply here. These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to age-gate any internet service or function. She will be able to determine at what age and by what methods a platform can be restricted. Any regulations under these powers will not be able to be amended by Parliament. All the arguments made by noble Lords last week about the severely limited parliamentary scrutiny of regulations are just as concerning this week with these amendments.
I support the Government carrying out a consultation on a social media ban for under-16s. Evidence of the effect of such a powerful measure needs to be examined and responded to. But I urge the Minister to look at the important changes that would be made to the Government’s amendment by Amendment 38E from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The government consultation needs to have parameters, which are provided by her amendment, as she has already set out. Many are issues that do not seem to have been covered by the Online Safety Act—addiction, different developmental ages, unsolicited contact and live-streaming. The restriction of these harms to children could be rapidly implemented under the amendment by the prospect of tech companies facing business disruption measures. These are the enforcement measures that so many of us campaigning against online harms have been calling for. All these issues would be considered not in a consultation without time limit but in one that must conclude within six months. I call on the Minister to take on board the concerns expressed in Amendment 38E and put them into action.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as mentioned earlier, Google and Meta were today found in the Supreme Court of California to be guilty of causing pain and suffering to a plaintiff who had brought the case. The jury has initially ruled that $3 million in damages will be paid for that pain and suffering. The jury is now considering punitive damages for malice and fraud. I put it to your Lordships’ House that today we are the jury. We have heard about the malice and fraud that these companies are visiting on so many of our children and, indeed, on their unfortunate parents. We as the jurors should deliberate today and give a resounding verdict.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief, because others have spoken so eloquently. I support my noble friend Lord Nash in his heroic efforts to stop social media for under-16s, and I support the spirit of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, as well.
I feel that I must represent the army of parents out there who are bitterly disappointed that the Government are failing to act decisively and quickly. A consultation is always code for a fudge. We have been there; we know what that is. The Government’s amendments are presented as action, but in reality they offer very little certainty. They create space for delay and a future compromise that may arrive with limited scrutiny, as we have heard so eloquently put.
We are being asked to accept a risk, and not an abstract one. It is a risk with our children’s safety and it offers an olive branch—a wholly inappropriate olive branch now, with all the court rulings that we are hearing about—to social media companies that have already done so much damage to our children and their childhoods. They must be absolutely delighted with this compromise that the Government have come up with. I predict that, over the coming months, there will be a PR blitz about how great they are, how concerned they are with safety and how much safety by design they are putting into progress—all of which will no doubt have to be policed by us, the parents.
Instagram’s recent effort, which I am sure it wants a medal for, was to alert parents who have put the highly complicated safety notices on that their child is searching for self-harm material. Here is an idea: let us stop them seeing that material in the first place. Like so many families, we are constantly negotiating this space: what is allowed, what is not, what feels safe, what suddenly does not feel safe. Something that seems harmless can very quickly change. The point that the Pinterest boss made is very powerful, because a lot of these sites that feel harmless are in fact constantly trying to sell content to our children.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I too support very strongly the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am not going to say anything about it because it has been very well said already by other Members of this House. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. I thought he put it, as so often, very powerfully. I will add one point to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said, with which I entirely agree. Parliament—both this House and the House of Commons—is being marginalised. These Henry VIII clauses are an extremely good example of this marginalisation, and it is time the House of Commons understood it, as we understand it very well in this House.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I was going to talk about the consultation, which is fundamentally not fit for purpose, but other noble Lords have covered that well, so I want to make a couple of other points about the way in which the Government are failing to understand the impact of social media on our children, as exemplified in the press today by this latest quick and dirty pilot on 300 children and young people, which would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What on earth are we going to learn from that when there is extensive literature, not least from Australia, that we can look at without doing something on which we are apparently going to base part of the government response? It is ludicrous.
The Government are taking a very narrow view of social media. They are locked into the psychological aspects of it, which are hugely important, but they are failing to look at the wider aspects and the direct harms that are being reiterated time and again by professionals in schools and clinics and by the families who are sitting up in the Gallery now. It is disrespectful to the trauma of those families and to the people who are suffering direct harm to continue to grab headlines with these cheap efforts to say that we are piloting something that will give us no information at all, when the strength of feeling in this House and outside this House is manifestly clear. I will again be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and I also support the approach outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in her amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am not trying to deprive other noble Lords of the chance to speak, but the idea that we go to the Front Benches because we have all heard these arguments before is not fair, because the Government have put before us the widest set of proposals that are completely new and came out of nowhere.
I am rather disappointed not to be supporting the Government. When we discussed this on Report, I did not support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to ban social media for under-16s, despite how powerful his speech was, because I thought that the Government had a sense of proportion. Everybody here is saying, “What is the point of consultations? They are all a waste of time”. That is good for people who are in Parliament to admit. There are a lot of consultations around, on all sides, and we all know—
Baroness Cass (CB)
Nobody here is saying that consultations are all a waste of time. What we are saying is that this particular consultation is deeply flawed in its construction.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
People from different political parties have pointed out that we all know that consultations are a way of kicking the ball down the road and are not serious. Call me naive, but I am just saying that I thought they were.
It is very important, as we make the decisions about this, that this is not a competition about who cares most about children online. This is a discussion about how we deal with it, and that should not be so frenzied that we get into a situation where we are reckless democratically or we make decisions in a way that is informed not by evidence but by emotions and quite a highly charged atmosphere.
When the original amendment was tabled, it was very late in the Bill’s progress on Report in the Lords. More recently, there has been controversy about that. The way we make laws matters. There has been controversy, for example, about whether it was right to use the Crime and Policing Bill to push decriminalising late abortions, which I did not object to in principle. I have some sympathy with these very important law changes being tagged on to another Bill. We need to consider that the parliamentary process needs to allow scrutiny. Yet many of the same noble Lords who, for example, raised a justifiable critique on the decriminalisation of abortions seemed happy to bring forward another huge law change—the under-16 media ban—on Report on this Bill, so late that it curtailed proper scrutiny. I had a lot of sympathy with the Government—
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness has said a couple of times that my noble friend Lord Nash introduced his amendment on Report. It was tabled in Committee and on Report and it was debated at Second Reading. Maybe she would like to correct her remarks.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I had a lot of sympathy with the Government’s position on Report of trying to think about whether we could use consultation before embarking on drastic measures. I am just disappointed that the Government have brought forward at such a late stage these amendments that potentially give draconian powers to control the internet in general in the form of delegated powers. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, have explained why that is so dangerous.
Can the Government explain why they are asking us to legislate so comprehensively pre the completion of that consultation? If there is this rapid pilot of 60 children, about which I share the reservations of the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, what is the point in us knowing that if we as legislators will not be able to deal with it? The Minister said that we would all get a chance to vote, but that is not what we want. We are being asked to hand over these major powers without any opportunity for meaningful debate about the outcomes of the consultation or the pilot.
The use of a statutory instrument means that there will be no chance to amend proposals or raise principles or practical concerns about unintended consequences. The Government’s “Delegated Legislation Toolkit” in their Guide to Making Legislation sets out the clear rule of thumb that
“the more significant a legal change, the stronger the presumption that it should be set out in primary legislation”.
I agree. It emphasises:
“Delegated powers are unlikely to be appropriate … because there has been insufficient time for … policy development”.
I worry about the rhetoric from all sides of “Think of the children”, “We have to do something”, “a sense of urgency” and so on. I have a great deal of sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who I know has not rushed in here with little thought. Since I have been here, and long before that, she has been thinking about it.
I cannot help but feel that there is a huge amount of confusion even about what evidence there is. Every time I hear this evidence being cited and look at it myself, it is just not black and white. I do not want us to be rushed into making the wrong decision because, in all the evidence I have looked at, there is no correlation between screen time, social media—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Can the noble Baroness say why the bar for evidence in this area of policy is after the event? Most critical industries have to abide by standards and they have to prove that a product is safe. Why are we, with all the bereaved families standing in the Gallery, talking about the lack of evidence on a day that a court case in the US has found the evidence against the companies? It does not make sense.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The noble Baroness is perfectly reasonable to raise that. It is certainly contested in academic studies, even if it is, like, “Never mind the evidence, the product should be safe anyway”. I am suggesting that evidence-based policy requires evidence and that, when the evidence is at least contested and there is no direct correlation between screen use and mental health, we should pause. I am saying that because I think that teenagers and young people using the online world can be both virtuous and full of vice. Therefore, I do not want a ban on all 16 year-olds going on the internet. It is as straightforward as that. I have explained that before, so I am not going to—
Lord Nash (Con)
It is a long way from a ban on all teenagers going on the internet. It is highly selective for those apps that are clearly harmful.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I do not want to delay, and I have written a lot more.
At the very least, to finish off, I would have thought that, before Parliament embarks on such drastic measures in delegated power form, handing these powers over to the Government—I note that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that they were only powers and the Government were not going to act on them, and I thought, “Good, I don’t want them to act on these particular powers because these powers are very far-reaching and we have no control over them”—should we not at least look at what has happened in relation to the ban in Australia? More than 50% of children—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I keep being interrupted. In Australia, after the ban more than 50% of children are still using social media. Teens are being pushed underground, away from mainstream platforms into darker corners of the internet, without safeguards and with zero moderation. It is risky and dangerous behaviour. Rather than having adult help and guidance in negotiating the online world and recognising its virtues, not just its vices, they are just being banned.
Finally, I also think we need to be open that it is not just children who will be affected by both sides of these amendments. We know that there will be detrimental effects on the civil liberties of all UK internet users, of all ages, because they will lead to mandatory biometric age checks and/or digital ID requirements that will apply to the whole of the UK population, whatever age they are. I appreciate that whenever we talk about children and protecting children, civil liberties and freedoms are pooh-poohed and wafted away. I happen to think that it is important for the children we are rearing and socialising to understand that a free society requires somebody, somewhere, remembering that freedom and civil liberties are worth fighting for.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, there have been very few speakers from the Labour Benches and I want to make sure that those who are supporting the amendments before the House today understand that, within this party, it is not exactly as was set out by the Minister. There are those of us who are very keen to support the movement that we can detect today in the thinking of this House. I want to be quite clear that I am not alone in that.
I want to say three things. First, part of the problem we have here is that we are running towards the end of a Session that does not have the right Bills, which makes it very difficult to get the issues we want into play. Secondly, there is no guarantee that there will be Bills in the next King’s Speech that will allow us to continue the debate and move forward at the pace we want to. The feeling that the House has, and I am sure I speak for all of us when I say this, is that something has gone wrong with the legislative structure that we have in place in this area and, in line with what so many people have said today, we need to find a way of getting into our laws the sorts of measures that are needed to take us forward on this.
I offer the Minister the following option: the only way we can get this in play, continue it and get to the right solution is to back the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I think we should do that. I do not agree with all that he is saying, and he knows that because I have talked to him about it, and I do not think bans are generally a good thing, but it is the only way to get in play a chance to look again at the other amendment that is before us today on this issue, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I know that she has worked hard on trying to get a form of words into her amendment, which she will not press, that would take the Government to a place where I think they will be comfortable, limiting the powers they want to take, focusing on the areas that they have not yet covered but which they must cover in terms of the way in which we relate to our regulator, and doing it in a way that is expedient and effective and will get quickly to the help that we so urgently need. I urge the Minister to think carefully about that and to support us as we move forward.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to sum up this debate briefly, I have nothing new to add. I merely agree with certain noble Lords who have already spoken. As for the Government’s approach, Henry VII’s son is all over it, and that is never a good thing for a Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on that. The approach I and many on these Benches would have preferred is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but what we are dealing with here is something that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, has done with considerable success and skill: namely, seize the argument and throw it back to the Government to see what they are going to do. I suggest that the Government listen very hard to us. What they have proposed is not meeting it for this House. What we want to do is to get something effective in play. I hope the Government will listen. We will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in the Division Lobby if he decides to come forward.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief. I shall say a few words on smartphones and Motion N1 in my name. I acknowledge that the Government have made efforts in their new guidance on mobile phones, but their approach does not go far enough to meet the needs of pupils, parents or teachers—hence the need for my amendment. I thank Generation Focus and Health Professionals for Safer Screens, who have helped many of us have the privilege of listening to a range of head teachers and educational psychologists who have been able to share their experience.
Their views are absolutely clear. First, they are calling for a statutory ban so that they can be clear with the minority of parents that smartphones have no place in school. Evidence from the University of Birmingham shows that head teachers are spending literally hundreds of hours that they do not have dealing with the implementation of individual school policies. Clearly, that is not a good use of their time.
Secondly, they want a clear focus on smartphones. I noted that the Minister referred to my amendment as the “mobile phone amendment”. Of course, that was the slip of the tongue, but it is important because it is the connection to the internet in general and to social media in particular that is causing such a huge problem in relation to safeguarding incidents and suspensions in our schools.
As I said on Report, smartphones are the gateway drug to social media. One head teacher reported in a round table that we held recently that prior to having a ban in their school for children in year 7—that is, children aged about 11—almost a quarter of all suspensions in the school were for children in year 7, and they were linked predominantly to smartphone use. That is unrecognisable from a few years ago, when it was an exception to suspend a pupil in year 7.
Thirdly, those schools which ban smartphones are seeing a delay in the age at which a child receives one. Brick phones and Balance Phones do not pose the same threats to attention, concentration and safety. This has implications not just at school but on the journey to and fro, and at home. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly raised concerns about children with special educational needs. The evidence from the medical profession is that it is precisely these children who are made most vulnerable by having a smartphone, and teachers are quite clear that it is not appropriate for a child’s special educational needs to be met with a personal device. I shared that with the noble Lord before this debate.
I am absolutely baffled by the Government’s resistance to my amendment. I am grateful to all noble Lords across the House who have supported it so far, and I hope that the Government will change their mind.
I turn to the amendments relating to social media and children. Some of your Lordships will have read the extraordinarily brave letter this morning from Ellen Roome, mother of Jools Sweeney, and other bereaved parents, many of whom are behind me in the Chamber tonight. Given the weakness of my tear ducts, which some of your Lordships have already witnessed, I will not attempt to read any of it out, but whatever noble Lords’ views, I commend it to them to read it. It is one of the most dignified and brave letters noble Lords will read.
On these Benches, we stand firmly behind my noble friend Lord Nash and his Motion G1. His Motion establishes unequivocally that there should be restrictions on harmful social media for children under 16. It leaves the details of implementation to secondary legislation and, of course, the results of the Government’s consultation could be put to good effect in informing these regulations. It places the onus on the social media companies to change their products to being safe for children to use rather than leaving everything to an already overwhelmed regulator to resolve.
I recognise and welcome the spirit in which Motion G2 is framed, building on the great expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the other now affectionately known “tech Lords”—not to be confused with the tech bros—and other noble Lords. This expertise has been forged over many years of working on these issues, showing the Government how they can improve on their current approach.
During the passage of the Bill, the House has shown great collaboration across all Benches and yet the Government appear unwilling to engage with any of us. The Minister has access to extraordinary legislative and sector expertise and to all the most expert stakeholders, who are coalescing around a proactive and effective approach. I urge her to use us.
My noble friend Lord Nash mentioned Bill Ready, CEO of Pinterest. In closing, I would like to pick out some other remarks that he made. In May last year, he said:
“Now is the time to apply the same creativity and innovation that built the social media ecosystem to the vital task of protecting kids online. And if we can’t do this effectively, we lose any credibility to oppose a ban. As both a tech CEO and a parent, I know that legal compliance is not the same as safety … Our industry has had years to mitigate these harms, but has time and again failed. The time for self-regulation has passed, and if tech companies don’t change, then the path should be obvious to lawmakers. We need a clear standard: no social media for teens under 16, backed by real enforcement, and accountability for mobile phone operating systems and the apps that run on them”.
This evening, that path is obvious. It points directly to supporting my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive and heartfelt contributions made in the House today. We have heard a wide range of views, and I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords who have engaged so closely with Ministers in recent weeks as we work through these complex questions. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not only for the expertise that she brings but for her comment that all in this House share a commitment to children’s well-being online. It is this that motivates us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, has set out the reasons behind Amendments 37 and 38 and why he wants to see swift action. I fully understand those intentions. To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I said that it is not if we act, but how. It is the intention of the Government to act. The question is how.
The noble Lord’s amendments would require us to act before the consultation is concluded and would commit the Government to a specific set of measures that may not ultimately represent the most effective or proportionate way to protect our children. That is why the Government cannot accept Amendments 37 and 38; it is not because we do not agree with the objectives but because legislating could risk unintended consequences. It would mean acting before listening to what the consultation tells us and to what parents and children need.
Some 20,000 parents have responded to the parent-specific survey. We are extremely keen to assess and hear what parents and children say. Additionally, these amendments are restricted to user-to-user services under the Online Safety Act. It is hugely important that we seek views across other services. We know that children use other mechanisms, such as AI chatbots and gaming, which are not consistently caught by the definition of user-to-user services.
I just want to say that we are taking the consultation extremely seriously, as we are the national conversation. Alongside the publication of the consultation, we announced that a parallel academic panel will be formed, and this panel of experts will assist in assessing the development of the evidence base, drawing on the international expertise that many noble Lords have mentioned today, for example from Australia, to advise us as we take these matters forward.
Many noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—have rightly pressed the question of pace and swiftness of action. The reason for the Government’s amendment in lieu is exactly that: to provide a clear and deliverable route to take forward what we want to do, informed by the results of the consultation. The consultation closes in May and we will respond by the summer to set out next steps. That means we can act within months, not years.
The use of those powers and the parliamentary scrutiny of them were mentioned by many noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Carter, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we absolutely recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and the expertise that parliamentarians in both Houses provide. Each of these powers will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny before we enact policy changes. We feel that the delegated powers the Bill proposes are justified and proportionate, and we have sought to provide as much detail as we can to support their scrutiny.
Lastly, on Amendment 106, on mobile phones in schools, our position is clear: mobile phones have no place in schools. We believe this is primarily an issue of enforcement, and that is why we have set out the strengthened guidance and why we are supporting with our network of attendance and behaviour hubs. We are backing head teachers to take the necessary action.
In closing, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment, which gives us power to take effective, evidence-based action, and to resist Amendments 37, 38 and 106. We share a goal: the question is simply how best to achieve it. Our amendment is the right one and I hope that noble Lords will join us in supporting it.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has to say, but I have also read the consultation very carefully and listened to the statements made publicly by the DSIT Secretary of State. I can only conclude from those that the Government have no real commitment to do anything serious about the harms that our children are experiencing on social media, and I ask the House to agree to my Motion G1. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House on my social media amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
I must inform your Lordships that, if Motion G1 is agreed, it pre-empts Motion G2.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 41A.
41A: Because the Commons consider that imposing a monetary cap on branded items of school uniform may have undesirable effects.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion H, I shall also speak to Motions H1, J, L, L1 and M. In this group, we are debating amendments relating to school uniforms, published admission numbers and allergies. For each, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I turn first to Motions H and J, relating to Amendments 41 and 42, and Motion H1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. The amendment in lieu, Amendment 41B, seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of uniform costs. We will, of course, monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it.
However, our manifesto commitment is clear: to reduce the cost of uniforms by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require. This approach is overwhelmingly backed by parents, with the Children’s Society finding that 78% agree with such a limit. We believe that a cost cap would not create the same level of parental savings as a numeric limit. It is complex and burdensome for government and schools, and it risks appearing protective, while failing to constrain actual costs. It creates a financial target and could encourage schools to increase the number or price of their branded items. It risks strengthening supply and monopolies, reducing parental freedom and increasing costs. A numeric limit opens the market, giving parents greater choice and affordability.
A cost cap would entail unnecessary regulatory complexity and assumptions about retail pricing for size variations, promotions and parents’ purchasing of spare or replacement items. Enforcement would create significant burdens for schools, forcing annual reviews of uniform policies and prices, and drawing them into disputes between parents and retailers about prices and compliance. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and easily enforceable, and statutory guidance can make it clear that high-cost items should be avoided.
I turn to Motion L, relating to Amendment 102, and Motion L1, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which insists on this amendment. The amendment seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number, or PAN, following an upheld objection. We have committed to update the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school quality and parental choice are paramount in any decision on a PAN. We have set out more detail on our planned approach in a paper deposited in the House of Lords Library yesterday, including plans for new statutory principles that will ensure that the availability of high-quality school places is central to decision-making, and that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places should be a last resort.
We already expect schools and local authorities to co-operate to ensure that admission numbers give parents a choice of high-quality local school places close to home. However, this amendment would impose inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to deal with those instances where this does not happen. An individual school’s decisions can impact school quality and choice across an area, especially at a time of declining pupil numbers. This can impact both urban and rural communities. This measure will ensure that, as a last resort, an independent decision can be taken, with choice and quality for all children at its centre.
I turn finally to Motion M, relating to Amendment 105, which was tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and seeks to introduce mandatory allergy safety provisions for all schools. The Government agree with Members campaigning for improved allergy safety in schools. I am therefore pleased to confirm that we have tabled our own amendment in lieu to place allergy safety on a statutory footing. It is intended to enshrine Benedict’s law in primary legislation, securing robust allergy safety measures.
I pay particular tribute to the tireless efforts of Helen Blythe, in memory of her son Benedict, and the members of the National Allergy Strategy Group. Helen, her husband Peter and their daughter Etta are here today in the Chamber. Parents should be able to send their children to school in the knowledge that they will be safe there, regardless of any medical condition or allergy.
Our amendment in lieu requires schools to have and regularly review allergy safety policies, and to publicise and publish them on their websites. In doing so, schools must have regard to statutory guidance, which has been co-produced with many expert stakeholders. Our amendment in lieu also creates regulation-making powers permitting the Secretary of State to place specific duties relating to allergy safety, including the content of policies, stocking adrenaline devices and securing allergy awareness training, and to record and report incidents.
This amendment applies to all schools in England. It provides for the same requirements to be placed on independent and non-maintained special schools. The noble Baroness’s amendment set clear timescales for its implementation; I reiterate our commitment that our new statutory guidance will be implemented from September 2026. We further commit to commencing the duties contained within these clauses as soon as possible, and to introducing the regulations as soon as possible, noting that we have undertaken to give schools at least a term’s notice of any new duty.
We believe that this will deliver the key protections for children with allergies and the flexibility for our requirements to evolve as clinical advice changes. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 41B in lieu—
41B: Clause 29, page 50, line 21, at end insert—
“551ZB School uniforms: review of limits on branded items
(1) The Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of measures intended to limit the cost to parents of branded items of school uniform required by the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use during a school year.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must, in particular, consider—
(a) whether a monetary cap on the total cost of branded items of school uniform could provide a greater reduction in costs for parents in comparison to an item-based cap,
(b) the impact such a monetary cap would have on pupils at—
(i) primary schools, and
(ii) secondary schools,
(c) the impact a monetary cap would have on schools and their uniform policies, and
(d) what further measures could be effective at reducing the cost of school uniform.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the coming into force of section 551ZA, lay before Parliament a report setting out the findings of the review under subsection (1).””
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, my Motion H1, as we heard earlier, is around the issue of a monetary cap on school uniforms. I will not rehearse the arguments that we have had already in Committee and on Report. However, if the Government are minded to continue to push for a numbers cap, as opposed to a monetary cap, on which your Lordships’ House voted before, I say to them that, ultimately, they should leave all the options open. If their numbers cap does not work, they should therefore have the option to revisit this.
The numbers cap is not my preferred option. I still would like them to consider the actual monetary cap, but what is wrong with coming back in, say, 12 months’ time when they do their review? Supporting my Motion H1 today would allow them to say, “Okay, we thought this would work and it doesn’t”. If it has not quite met the intentions of their aspirations in both their manifesto and this Bill, there would be an alternative provision that your Lordships have voted on previously. That is why I wanted to move this Motion. I do not want to prolong the debate, because we have had a bet on that we were going to keep our contributions to a minimum, so I shall stick to below two minutes.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Motion M. I support the amendments in lieu, Amendments 105B and 105C. I would like to thank the Ministers; I know that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is here speaking tonight but perhaps he would pass on thanks to both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the House of Commons for their engagement and the fact that they have listened on this issue. In particular, there are details in these amendments which I think the Government had talked about putting in regulations, but it has given real assurance to those who care passionately about this amendment to have these matters on the face of the Bill.
I thank all the noble Lords who signed the original amendment and spoke in favour of it. I also thank Alicia Kearns MP, who led the campaign in favour, but most of all, as the Minister has said, the thanks should go to the tireless campaigners, particularly Helen Blythe. If she is looking for alternative things to do, she would make an excellent legislator in this House. She has been indefatigable in her pursuit of Benedict’s law; it is a pleasure to welcome both Peter and Helen to Parliament today and, I think, friends of Benedict as well.
Helen Blythe was clear that this should not just be statutory guidance, although that was a great step forward, and that legislation was needed. I welcome the fact that the change will come in from September of this year. In her article for The House magazine—this was just before the vote in the House of Commons—Helen said:
“We are closer than ever to allergy-safe schools. Progress has been made. The government has shown it takes the protection of children with allergies seriously. The question now is whether we can secure that progress in a way that guarantees equal protection for every child in every classroom, for children like our son. Benedict’s life mattered. His death must matter too”.
I think the Government have risen to the challenge in putting down this amendment. As the Minister will know, there is a little question about funding, but I know that the department is very aware of that and will work for schools, which, as we all know, have budgets under pressure. But again, I am very pleased to be able to support the amendments in lieu that the Government have laid this evening.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, please bear with me again; I will keep to the two-minute limit. I too speak in favour of Amendments 105B and 105C, tabled in lieu in Motion M, and in doing so declare my interest as COO of the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the UK’s food allergy charity.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, for all her work on behalf of all those children living with allergic disease and their families. Tonight, I want to briefly emphasise the importance of these amendments, which are testament to the efforts of the noble Baroness but also to the Benedict Blythe Foundation and Helen and Peter’s work. I want to read out a couple of the hundreds of positive comments that the Natasha foundation received when the allergy community learnt of the Government’s intention to bring forward statutory guidance on allergy safety in schools. The mums said:
“This is a gift to allergic families”;
“As an allergy mum I can’t tell you what amazing news this is. This will save lives and help so many children feel safer in school”;
“This will mean so much to so many parents and children in this country living with allergies”;
“This will change everything for my family, my son has multiple food allergies. This is a life changing moment”.
These words demonstrate the impact on people’s lives the Government can make when they listen, engage and work collaboratively with charities and Members from all sides of both Houses.
My noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath cannot be in her place today but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we too want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, and Minister Bailey in the other place, along with their civil servant teams, who have worked constructively with allergy charities over many months. Of course, there is always more to do and we look forward to continued discussions with the Government on what practical support and funding will be available to enable schools to effectively implement this guidance. But to conclude, these amendments in lieu will help to keep children safe in schools and help to ensure they are better protected, and more included in school life.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion L1, and I am looking round to see where everybody is.
The Minister described Motion L1 as a “last resort” and, when we met them yesterday, the Bill team seemed to think that the example of a highly successful school next to a school that is struggling is quite unlikely. But I know from my own experience what it is like, both professionally and as a parent of two children. This seems to be an efficiency drive that ignores both parents and children. While I admire the intent, as a parent I would be deeply unhappy if access to my preferred school was closed in order to even up numbers. Should the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, be minded to take this to a vote, I would go with her.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with this reinstatement of her original Amendment 102. I speak as the chairman of an academy trust; I have faced the dead hand of the bureaucratic tidying-up exercise. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton: just last year, it was suggested that we restrict our PAN at two of our best schools, so that failing schools nearby could be kept going. The inconvenience of having to enact cuts to their own schools, faced by local authorities in particular, is such that it is much easier for them to go after another body that has to bear the financial burden.
I accept that the letter, which arrived amazingly at the 11th and a half hour last night, makes some attempt at compromise. If the Government were serious about protecting improving schools, however, they would go with the amendment that is being proposed.
I can tell your Lordships’ House how hard it is to improve previously failing schools. The Minister may be interested to know that failing schools already receive a huge subsidy in what is euphemistically called “lagged funding”. In the year following a falling roll, they receive the full amount that they were been paid in the previous year with more children. The opposite effect occurs for improving schools with rising rolls. So this year, we are educating nearly 240 children for free in my trust, which is nearly £1.5 to £2 million. Next year, that will be 300 children. The question, then, is how difficult does the noble Lord want to make it to improve previously failing schools?
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
My Lords, I stand to support the Government in their attempt to create a situation where there is an adequate regulator for school admissions. At a time of greatly falling rolls, particularly in primary, this is especially important, and even more so when there is going to be a much broader curriculum as a result of the curriculum assessment review. It will be important that all schools can teach this broad curriculum. To do so, we need to have children in those schools. As I said in Committee, the problem with schools that simply expand is that very good schools can be left unable to operate.
I also have a question for the Liberal Democrats on the opposite Benches: in Committee, they supported the opposition to the local authorities having a say as an admissions adjudicator. The last Lib Dem election manifesto of 2024 promised parents and the public that local authorities would be given the power and resources to act as strategic education authorities for their area. This included responsibility for place planning, exclusions and administering admissions, including in-year admissions and SEND functions. I simply ask whether that is still the Lib Dems’ position. If it is, will they be supporting the Government’s position?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on these Benches we share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about the rigidity of the Government’s approach to trying to control school uniform costs. Indeed, we would have been quite happy if he had wanted to bring back his previous amendment unchanged. We also warmly welcome the Government amendment in relation to children with allergies in school, and I echo the remarks made by others across the House to recognise the incredible work of the Benedict Blythe Foundation—in particular, Benedict’s mother Helen—that has culminated in this amendment today.
My Motion L1 simply supports the rights of parents and pupils to attend the school of their choice and get the best possible education in an area. We understand the financial pressures faced by schools that are dealing with falling rolls, but the way to address them is not by reducing choice, nor by cutting places in the most popular local schools. Furthermore, if the Government are to be successful in closing the disadvantage gap, which we all want to see, they will need these schools and should not be shrinking them.
In the letter that the Government sent to Peers last night, they set out the principles they intend to follow in the updated regulations and School Admissions Code. I accept that the Government have moved and have tried to clarify their position. It is a pity that this arrived so late and that there has been no time to discuss any of this with Ministers, despite having requested meetings since early February. I am very open to discussing further with Ministers but, as drafted, I do not think that the proposed wording is as watertight as the intent of my Motion. In particular, the language of “long-term sufficiency” seems to give more wriggle room than is needed. At this stage, it is also hard to see the point of the measures in the Bill, given the statement that we have just heard from the Government. The Bill’s own impact assessment is clear that it will limit the ability of good schools to grow. We are in a bit of a muddle of policy-making now, with a different position in the Bill, a different position in the letter, and a different position in the White Paper.
As long ago as the 2002 Labour Party conference, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair asked:
“Why shouldn’t there be a range of schools for parents to choose from? Why shouldn’t good schools expand or take over failing schools or form federations?”
This remains a relevant question today, more than 20 years on. I only wish that the Government would listen to the views of their former leader, whose reform laid such important foundations on which subsequent Governments have built, and which have contributed significantly to rising school standards. The fundamental principle that we have set out in earlier debates on school choice is a crucial one, and it should not be eroded.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. I start by addressing the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. To be clear, and as I said in my opening speech, we will of course monitor the effectiveness of the limit as we implement it. One of the concerns I and the Government have is that the cost cap effectively creates a target price, incentivising price rises for any school currently below the cap. Many schools could in fact brand more items, reducing savings for parents, and it would be more complex for parents and place unnecessary burdens on them. So I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his position. I think a numeric limit is clearer and simpler, it will deliver savings more quickly—which is what the Children’s Society survey says is overwhelmingly backed by parents—and it is of course a commitment in our manifesto.
Lords Amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can set a lower published admission number. We want a system that ensures that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have committed to updating the statutory School Admissions Code to ensure that school standards and parental choice are central to any decision on PAN.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged, we have been developing proposed changes to the code and associated regulations, considering stakeholders’ views and the important points raised by Members as the Bill has progressed. I note what the noble Baroness says about the timing of the publication, but our proposed framework, which was deposited in the House Library yesterday, contains at its heart new statutory principles to help ensure that requiring high-performing schools to reduce places will always be a last resort. We will conduct a full public consultation on the proposed changes, and the updated code and regulations must be laid before Parliament.
Finally, I turn to allergy safety. I am grateful for the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Government’s amendment. I will repay the compliment by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her work on this. I will certainly pass her gratitude on to my noble friend Lady Smith and my honourable friend in the other place, and her acknowledgement of their work. I pay tribute to the people who have really made the difference: the campaigners who have worked so hard to ensure that this is implemented. Given the critical importance of allergy safety, we will seek to continue to work collaboratively, and we will continue to do so as we develop the regulations and prepare to implement the new duties.
To close, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendment on allergies in schools, to support Motions H, J, L, and M, and to resist Motions H1 and L1.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support. I am still not convinced; the Government need to have another option at the end of it. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 42, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 42A.
42A: Because the Amendment is consequential on Lords Amendment 41 to which the Commons disagree.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 44, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 44A.
44A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
Baroness Barran
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 44B in lieu—
44B: Clause 30, page 51, line 23, at end insert “, or
(c) conducting proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision) in respect of the child, or has ever initiated such proceedings in respect of the child (other than proceedings which resulted in the child’s subsequent adoption).””
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.
102A: Because the Amendment imposes inappropriate restrictions on the scope of the adjudicator’s powers to determine school admission numbers under clause 56 and the clause already provides for regulations to make provision about the matters the adjudicator must consider when making a determination about a school’s admission number.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
Baroness Barran
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 102.”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 105, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 105A, and do propose Amendments 105B and 105C in lieu—
105A: Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
105B: After Clause 28, insert the following new Clause—
“Allergy safety policy for pupils at schools
After section 100 of the Children and Families Act 2014 insert—
“100A Allergy safety policy
(1) The arrangements made under section 100 by the appropriate authority for a school to which that section applies must include an allergy safety policy.
(2) An “allergy safety policy” is a policy for the management of allergies affecting pupils at the school (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about matters that must be covered in an allergy safety policy.
(4) The appropriate authority—
(a) must, at least once every year, review the school’s allergy safety policy;
(b) must make such changes to the policy as it considers appropriate following a review.
(5) The appropriate authority must publicise the school’s allergy safety policy in the form of a written document by—
(a) making the policy generally known within the school and to parents of pupils at the school,
(b) taking steps, at least once a year, to bring the policy to the attention of all pupils at the school and parents and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment), and
(c) publishing the policy on the school’s website.
(6) In meeting the duties under this section, the appropriate authority must have particular regard to guidance issued for the purposes of section 100(2) that relates to the management of allergies (including anaphylaxis) in schools.
(7) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.
100B Regulations about allergy safety
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations impose duties on specified persons in connection with the management of allergies affecting pupils at schools to which section 100 applies (including the management of pupils at risk of anaphylaxis).
(2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision about—
(a) the keeping of, and access to, medicinal products and medical devices on school premises and at other places where pupils at a school are under the lawful control or charge of a member of the staff of the school;
(b) procedures for identifying, and managing risks to, pupils with allergies;
(c) provision of training on the recognition and management of allergies for teaching staff, non-teaching staff, persons providing catering services at the school and such other persons as may be specified;
(d) recording and reporting of incidents.
(3) Regulations under this section may require the appropriate authority for a school to which section 100 applies to designate a specified person to have responsibility for specified matters.
(4) A person on whom a duty is imposed by regulations under this section must, in meeting the duty, have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
(5) In this section—
“appropriate authority for a school” has the same meaning as in section 100;
“specified” means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.
(6) The Education Act 1996 and this section are to be read as if this section were included in that Act.”
(2) In section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (approval of non-maintained special schools), after subsection (5) insert—
“(5ZA) Regulations made by virtue of subsections (2) and (4)(a) must impose—
(a) a requirement for an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) to be in place at a school,
(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and
(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),
and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.”
(3) In section 94 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (independent educational institution standards), after subsection (3A) (inserted by section 37(2)(b) of this Act) insert—
“(3B) Standards prescribed by virtue of subsection (1)(c) must include standards that have the effect of imposing—
(a) a requirement to secure that an allergy safety policy (within the meaning of section 100A of the Children and Families Act 2014) is in place at independent educational institutions,
(b) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed by section 100A(4) to (6) of that Act (duty to review and publicise policy etc), and
(c) requirements that correspond or are similar to the duties imposed on the appropriate authority for a school by regulations under section 100B of that Act (allergy safety regulations),
and the requirement referred to in paragraph (a) includes a requirement for the policy to comply with provision made by regulations under section 100A(3) of that Act.””
105C: Title, line 5, after “uniform;” insert “about allergy safety in schools;”
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 106A.
106A: Because the Commons does not consider the Amendment to be necessary in light of the existing guidance about mobile phones in schools.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend has already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)
Baroness Barran
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 106.”
National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:22 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 95 / Noes: 137 - Motion A1 disagreed.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
1A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, D, E, F, F1, G, G1, H, H1, J, K, L, M and M1. The other place has disagreed with Amendments 1 to 12, as they would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is deemed sufficient.
While the Government disagree with the substance of these amendments, I am pleased that we have been able to discuss and debate these issues. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Kramer and Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Altrincham, Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Fuller, Lord Mackinlay and Lord Londesborough, for ensuring that these important matters have been addressed. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords are content not to insist on these amendments.
I turn now specifically to Amendments 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 6B, 6C, 7B, 7C, 8B, 8C, 12B and 12C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. These amendments would make commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers, employees making student loan repayments and small and medium-sized enterprises.
Before addressing each of these in turn, it may be helpful if I remind your Lordships’ House of the documents that have already been published by the Government and the Office for Budget Responsibility. The tax information and impact note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer. The policy costing note sets out details on the costings of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees.
The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the Government’s policy costings. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note which provided additional information it received prior to last year’s Budget to further increase the transparency of this measure.
I should also like to remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy costing note and both the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and supplementary note. Both the Government and the OBR have been transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals.
I turn first to amendments which make the commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on basic rate taxpayers. As set out in the Budget document, the £2,000 cap means that 74% of basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected by these changes. The remaining proportion of basic rate taxpayers who have contributions above the cap will still get national insurance contributions relief for the first £2,000 of contributions made by salary sacrifice in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions. Further, 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a fair and pragmatic reform, and the distributional effects of it are clear. On this basis, the Government do not consider a separate and additional impact assessment on basic rate taxpayers to be needed.
I turn to amendments which make commencement of the Act contingent on the publication of economic and behavioural impact assessments on individuals repaying student loans. It is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given that, over the past 14 years, they have seen their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. Importantly, though, the £2,000 cap means that young graduates are broadly unaffected. In fact, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure. Both this and the prior set of amendments make a broader point about pension savings and pensions adequacy for these populations. This is a real challenge for our pensions system, but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. As discussed at earlier stages, salary sacrifice existed in the 2000s and early 2010s, yet there were falls in private sector pension saving during that period.
There has been a clear consensus throughout our debates that the key factor that has led to an increase in saving in recent years has been automatic enrolment. As a result, more than 22 million workers across the UK are now saving each month.
Although we all share a commitment to improving pensions adequacy, many groups at highest risk of undersaving, including the self-employed, lower earners and women, are not the most likely to benefit from salary sacrifice. Only one in five self-employed people save into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but higher earners are more likely to be using salary sacrifice. Many women are undersaving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.
The pensions tax relief system remains hugely generous and there remain significant incentives to save into a pension. The £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contribution relief which the Government currently provide on pensions each year will be entirely unaffected by these changes.
I turn to the amendments seeking an impact assessment on small and medium-sized enterprises and charities. The Government agree on the importance of supporting small and medium-sized businesses and charities, but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in the Bill will help level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors.
The amendment also requires assessment of the expected impact on business and compliance costs. This analysis is already set out in the tax information and impact note. As set out in that document, the administration of this measure is estimated to result in a one-off cost of £75 and an ongoing £99 per business per year for those using salary sacrifice.
The Government recognise that these changes will impact those currently using salary sacrifice. That is why we chose a long lead-in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for these changes. As mentioned previously, HMRC is engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with the fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes that use salary sacrifice. For the reasons I have set out, I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness does not press her Motions. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 1B and 1C in lieu—
“(3A) The amendments made by this section do not have effect in relation to basic rate taxpayers until the assessment required by section (Economic and behavioural impact assessment: basic rate taxpayers: Great Britain) has been laid before Parliament.”
“Economic and behavioural impact assessment: basic rate taxpayers: Great Britain
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare an economic and behavioural impact assessment of the expected effects of the provisions of this Act on basic rate taxpayers in Great Britain, and
(b) lay that assessment before Parliament.
(2) The assessment must, in particular, include—
(a) an analysis of the expected behavioural effects of the provisions of this Act, including changes to pension contribution patterns, salary sacrifice arrangements, and employment practices, and
(b) an assessment of the expected impact on net incomes, pension savings, and pension adequacy,
for basic rate taxpayers.
(3) In preparing the assessment, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the adequacy of retirement incomes, and
(b) the effect of the £2,000 cap on long-term financial security,
for basic rate taxpayers.””
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government sought to have all amendments passed by your Lordships’ House treated as engaging financial privilege. In light of this, we are unable to insist upon the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House. However, the issues we have raised remain of real significance. There is no sign that the Government have seriously engaged with the concerns we expressed. Significant features remain undefined.
The amendments we have brought forward today reflect a concern raised by many noble Lords on Report: crucially, that the Government have not undertaken the necessary analysis to understand how the Bill will affect basic rate taxpayers, those repaying student loans, and SMEs and charities.
The most worrying thing about the Bill is that it will reduce the incentive to save, particularly among the less well paid. Whether Ministers like it or not, it strikes at the heart of this and will inevitably reduce pension adequacy. The Minister himself has admitted that many of those paying the basic rate of tax and even some earning under £30,000 a year will be affected.
Not only will the Bill affect savers and pensions adequacy, it will impose costs on businesses and charities. The detail on these points is, concerningly, seriously lacking. Our three amendments in lieu and the consequential amendments dealing with Northern Ireland require a proper assessment of the projected economic and behavioural impact of this policy on those three groups. Crucially, this work has to be carried out before the Act comes into force.
First, for basic rate taxpayers there is a very real concern that this policy will reach far beyond those it is ostensibly aimed at. Individuals on modest incomes—those paying tax at the basic rate—may find themselves drawn into its effects. They are ordinary working people, often making careful decisions about how much they can afford to save. Yet we have not seen a clear assessment of how their net incomes will be affected, how their pension-saving behaviour may change or what this will mean for the adequacy of their retirement incomes.
Secondly, for those repaying student loans, the interaction between salary sacrifice, pension contributions and student loan repayments is not straightforward. There is a real risk here that some individuals repaying student loans could face higher effective deductions from their income or altered incentives around saving for retirement. Our amendments would ensure that the Government properly assess the impact of these interactions.
Thirdly and finally, small and medium-sized enterprises and charities are the backbone of our economy and our communities. They operate with limited margins and limited administrative capacity. Changes to employment costs, compliance requirements or remuneration structures can have tangible effects on hiring, wages and growth.
The Government must be able to answer these questions. By how much will this Bill increase their costs? Will it change employment practices? Will it have an impact on wage growth or the critical area of job creation? This Bill would change how people save, how employers structure pay, and how organisations make decisions.
Our amendments would simply require the Government to set out clearly and transparently what the effects are expected to be. They would offer the Government a constructive way forward and would seem to get round the problem of financial privilege. In responding, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain more clearly precisely why these provisions do not come into force until 2029. It looks as if this matter is regarded by the Government not as a serious measure but as a nasty present to their successors.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments in lieu. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for returning these issues to the House despite the very disappointing decision to cloak all our previous amendments in the financial privilege. Up and down the country, SME businesses are horrified by this. They have had a wall of difficult legislation sent their way, such as the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Bill, so they have not focused on this, but those I talked to who have focused their mind on it are very unhappy to say the least with the possibility of this Bill affecting their business.
I want to focus on one particular issue. We have heard repeatedly in recent weeks of the position facing graduates repaying student loans, which is simply not fair. For those on plan 2 loans in particular, the picture is particularly stark: an anaemic jobs market, high rents, high living costs and, on top of that, what amounts to a 9% graduate tax with interest rates of around 6.2%, meaning that for many, full repayment is not possible. I urge the Minister and others to speak to their children or their grandchildren who will tell them that they are put off by this Bill.
This policy now risks making the matter worse. It threatens to increase the effective burden on graduates precisely when they are trying to do the right thing by saving for their retirement through salary sacrifice. They see the costs that are ahead of them when they retire. For many, particularly recent graduates, disposable income is already stretched to the limit with rents and the cost of living, so they have little scope to save beyond the auto-enrolment minimum, which, as we have heard, is insufficient to provide savings for their longer life. If the Government undermine the salary sacrifice regime, they risk entrenching a generation who simply cannot afford to save enough for their retirement.
In conclusion, that is why this amendment from my noble friend matters. It asks the Government to do what they should already have done: properly assess the impact of this policy in relation to student loans. I do not think anything the Minister said specifically addressed the issue of the impact on students. I did not see it in any of the Explanatory Notes or anywhere else. It may have been because they did not think it affected it or they did not realise it, but it has not been done. In the absence of that work, the least the Government can do is pause and consider the long-term consequences before pressing ahead. The Treasury now has the opportunity and the responsibility to get this right. I urge the Minister and all other Peers to do so.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to throw my support behind the four Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I will be brief. Is the Government’s apparent resistance to the impact assessments proposed in these amendments in any way connected to the fact that the measures in this Bill will not take effect until 2029? The Secretary to the Treasury stated in the other place on Monday, while rejecting all of the Lords amendments, that,
“the status quo is indefensible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/3/26; col. 84.]
If that really is the Government’s view, why are we waiting three years to bring in the pension gap? But, since we do have this three-year gap, there is happily plenty of time for the Government to prepare economic and behavioural impact assessments, and it would surely make sense to do so.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support these four amendments and, had it been permitted at ping-pong, I would have added my name.
I am going to be very brief. We are all aware, through freedom of information applications, that the OBR forecasts of the impact of this Bill present us with a high degree of uncertainty. In that circumstance, one would think that an impact assessment was the logical response, particularly since there is a time delay to the introduction of this measure.
Sometimes you come across a Bill and you just know that the Government have misunderstood what its impacts are going to be, and that when it is in force there will either have to be very dramatic changes or the whole Bill will need to be reversed. Frankly, this Bill is one of them.
I am not going to take up any more of the time of this House, but I hope that the Government understand and realise that this is not a Bill that will work in its present form and that an impact assessment would have been an assistance, not a burden.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I was speaking to a young man just yesterday who has done everything he has been encouraged to do. He has studied well and he has worked and saved in order to put a deposit down on a house. He has been helped by people who have been fortunate enough to make some money to be able to help him. He had just moved into his first flat in London, and he could not be happier. Yesterday, he was called into his boss to be told there would be a period of consultation because of the Government’s introduction of various taxes and penalties on employers trying to employ people. He is now in a very difficult and despondent position.
We talk about impact assessments for pension contributions. Has the Minister any idea of the impact on people’s lives when they have done everything right and now find themselves in the most vulnerable position? This may not be completely focused on the amendments that have been laid today, but the principle is the same. The Government are creating anxiety. The whole thing is making people wonder what the point of trying to better their lives is. I ask the Minister to think again. If we want a country that is robust, where people feel that everything is to gain, this is not the way to go about it.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I will be extremely brief. I support all these amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. My main concern is that some basic rate taxpayers will be disincentivised from making pension contributions because of that extra 8% that they are going to pay. That will take away the real advantage that we have seen in auto-enrolment and they will opt out of those schemes because they need to fund their houses. The Government should please look at it again.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, once again, taken together, this is a further insult to working people. As we have heard this evening, it is about not the fat cats but the youngsters and the poorer paid who are starting off and trying to do the right thing, making their way in the world. There is already intergenerational unfairness, and this Bill amplifies it and makes it worse. The Government have a tin ear. When they say they are trying to look after the youngsters, they are speaking with a forked tongue. Youngsters just want a break, but this Government are beating them with a stick. We have got to stop it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
On the topic of impact assessments, I remind noble Lords of the information that we have already published. The tax information impact note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer. The policy costing note sets out detail on the costing of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees. The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note which provides additional information it received prior to last year’s Budget.
I also remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy costing note and both the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and supplementary note. Both the Government and the OBR have been very transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about the 2029 implementation date. As I have said already, we chose a long lead-in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for the changes. As I have mentioned before, HMRC is engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with the fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes which use salary sacrifice.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, spoke about small and medium-sized enterprises. I say again that the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees and SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The noble Lord also mentioned students. He is absolutely right; as I said before, it is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given that, over the past 14 years, they saw their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. The £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure.
These are fair and balanced reforms. They give employers many years to prepare and they ensure that both our pensions system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. The £2,000 cap protects lower-earning employees who use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions and preserves the tax benefit of salary sacrifice for all employees on the first £2,000 of their contributions.
Importantly, these changes leave the tax reliefs on regular pension contributions completely untouched. These reliefs are worth £70 billion a year and are available to all workers and employers, not just those who use salary sacrifice. For the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, not to press her Motions. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, particularly on the question of the behavioural assessments that we have had. They are really not fit for purpose. I give notice that will I seek to test the opinion of the House on Motion A1 and, if successful, on further Motions.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Lord Livermore
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
7A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
8A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
9A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.
10A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
11A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Livermore
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
12A: Because the Lords Amendment would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.