Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Grand Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Grand Committee do consider the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 20206
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument introduces fees for applications in the residential property division of the Property Chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. It is made under the powers provided by Section 42(1)(a) and 42(2) and Section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform which will introduce a fairer and more sustainable fees framework in the Property Chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector brought by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark changes which represent the biggest expansion of rights for renters in a generation. But rights matter only if people can enforce them, and this depends on a sufficiently resourced tribunal that is accessible for all. At present, only half of the application types brought to the Property Chamber incur a fee. This has created an unfair system that neither reflects the cost of proceedings nor supports a proportionate contribution from users, and it has resulted in inconsistencies whereby some users have to pay to access the service where others do not. The Government are therefore introducing a new tiered fees framework.
In summary, once introduced, it will consist of three levels. The first is a standard fee of £200 for applications to the tribunal, together with a hearing fee of £300. Secondly, where there are concerns about access to justice issues, there will be a lower level—an application fee of £114 and a fee of £227 for hearings. There is a final third tier for those cases with the most acute need to preserve access to justice, such as applications to appeal a rent increase. In these cases, there will be a modest application fee of £47, but there will be no hearing fee. Exemptions will continue to apply for urgent building safety issues and low-value claims.
The average cost to the taxpayer of a case brought to the Property Chamber is more than £900. Therefore, the fees in this framework represent a modest contribution to running costs and illustrate a commitment to maintaining access to justice. I will now describe in a little more detail how the regime will work.
First, the Renters’ Rights Act will extend the right to apply to the Property Chamber to request a determination of rent to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants can make such a request upon notice of an annual rent increase, or within the first six months of a tenancy, if they believe that the proposed rent is above the open market rent. The Act includes the tenants’ rights to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase. As I have just said, under the new regime these applications will attract a £47 application fee but will be exempt from hearing fees.
Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under this new regime, these applications will cost £47 but will be exempt from a hearing fee.
Thirdly, this instrument applies the proposed new standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act.
Finally, this instrument brings new rent repayment order routes created by the Renters’ Rights Act into the existing fees structure and applies a £114 application fee and £227 hearing fee, to match comparable applications.
I shall briefly outline the impact of this instrument and what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in this instrument stem from new or amended rights introduced by the Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. This reflects the move towards a fees framework that more consistently reflects the cost of proceedings and asks for a proportionate contribution from users.
In the case of rent appeals, as I have already said, the need to protect access to justice is more acute. I wish to reassure your Lordships that the introduction of a fee for these cases has been carefully considered. In such cases, the consequences of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, and therefore a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. In addition, there are mitigations that further ensure that fees do not deter tenants seeking to challenge a rent increase. The Help with Fees remissions scheme will remain available to eligible applicants who cannot afford to pay a fee.
Under the Act, any rent increase will take effect from the first rent period following the tribunal’s decision to approve any increase and will not be backdated. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent above the level proposed by the landlord. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the rent increase by up to two months. These measures ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge proposed increases without fear of additional financial pressures.
Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord. Without these measures, the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a greater proportion of the costs of the system. This instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is fair and accessible for all those who need it. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, for the first time we start to consider some of the practical effects of this controversial Act. I will make no comments on its merits; the Act has been passed, as was the will of Parliament, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The schedule of fees here provides for the cost of enforcement of the judicial tribunal framework for the provision. We see a large expansion, consequent to the Act, of the number of things that can spawn a complaint. I am thinking particularly about the appeal for a rent increase. The lowest level, at £47, provides no disincentive to bringing a claim. In fact, a single month’s delay can pay for itself. I understand that it is important that we have open justice, but this is creating a perverse fiscal incentive to have a go, especially, as we heard just a few moments ago, as any rent increase that might happen following the appeal would not be backdated to the point at which the appeal was made.
Landlords are already waiting a year to gain possession, for example, in the case of non-payment of rent. It occurred to me to wonder whether the Government have made an assessment. What assessment has been made of the likely consequential number of cases and any additional timescale and further delay as a result of these fees passing into the regulations? Will we see an avalanche of claims that will gum up the tribunal system and give further incentives for claims to be made which provide an asymmetry between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. It forms part of a wider programme of reform to the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We recognise the Government’s objective: to move towards a more sustainable system of cost recovery while maintaining access to justice. Where fees do not fully reflect the cost of the service provided, there must be a legitimate discussion as to how that gap should be addressed.
This instrument would introduce fees for new categories of cases, including financial penalty appeals and rent appeals. The decision to set the fee for rent increase appeals at £47, with no associated hearing fee, reflects concerns raised by stakeholders about affordability. While it is right that the Government have listened to those concerns and adjusted their approach accordingly, there must remain important questions about the broader context in which these changes are being made, not least the valid concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller.
These reforms sit alongside significant changes to the private rented sector, including the abolition of Section 21. As has been raised previously from these Benches, there is a risk that reforms to tenants’ rights proceed ahead of necessary improvements to the capacity and efficiency of the courts and the tribunal system. There is a balance to be struck. While fees must not become a barrier to justice for tenants seeking to challenge rent increases or enforcement decisions, we on these Benches are concerned that the structure of the system could create unintended incentives; we have heard that from my noble friend Lord Fuller. For example, where an appeal delays the implementation of a rent increase, even where that appeal is ultimately unsuccessful, that may create uncertainty for landlords and have an adverse impact on the functioning of the market.
Further, while the Help with Fees scheme will remain in place, the Government have not produced a full impact assessment of these changes. Given that this is the first stage of a wider reform programme, the Committee would benefit from greater clarity on the cumulative impact of these measures, particularly on access to justice for lower-income applicants and how that is to be balanced.
We do not oppose the principle of these changes. A fair and sustainable tribunal system is in the interests of all parties. However, it is essential that, as the Government proceed with the later stages of reform, they do so in a way that carefully balances cost recovery with genuine access to justice and does not build in unreasonable deterrents for landlords. The Government must ensure that the system is properly resourced to deal with the demands being placed upon it. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these points.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Fuller, for their helpful and constructive contributions. A point that they both made, with which I agree, is that this is always a balancing exercise. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there is no question of trying to recoup the entirety of the cost of running the system. This is merely about seeking a contribution because it is right to do so.
The setting of the lowest level of fee, particularly in relation to rent increases, was not intended to try to dampen demand; rather, it is a small contribution designed to be fixed at a level that does not hamper access to justice. I remind noble Lords that some of those who are subject to rent increases are some of our most vulnerable citizens. While £47 may seem a modest amount to us, to some people it can seem an almost insuperable burden, which is why I have sought to reassure that there is help there for those who cannot afford it at all.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about the amount of demand, I hope to be able to reassure him by saying that we are ready for Friday. Friday is when all of this will begin. We have a centralised operational hub and have recruited extra staff, which is why we are bringing in all these reforms in tranches, to ensure that the system is not overwhelmed.
This draft instrument is a necessary step that strengthens the sustainability and fairness of the Property Chamber. It delivers, as I said, the first phase of the new fees framework. It is one that strengthens fairness and consistency, supports greater levels of cost recovery and protects access to justice. Our reforms ensure that users of the Property Chamber contribute to its cost where they can afford to do so, while ensuring that vulnerable renters are able to benefit from the protections contained in the Renters’ Rights Act.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I would like to press the Minister just a little harder. While I know she is ready for 1 May, which is in five days’ time, is she able to give us an assessment of what she thinks is the best estimate, either by percentage or the number of cases, of what might be spawned as a result of the fees and charges that are laid out before us? I am asking for a number, so at least we can benchmark success in the months and years to come and see whether we are better or worse than intended. That would help us scope what the resources of the tribunal system may need to be in future.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, no full impact assessment was done in relation to this because it does not reach the required threshold for one. However, some assessments have been made, including looking at 250 types of applications to see whereabouts to fix the fees to try to make the greatest contribution while balancing it with access to justice. The best I can do is offer to write to the noble Lord and provide such figures as we have.
Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, port state control is the system used by the United Kingdom and other countries to inspect foreign-registered visiting ships to ensure that they meet the necessary international safety and pollution prevention standards. These regulations apply not to British ships but only to foreign-registered ones, to ensure that they meet the expected standards to operate safely in our waters.
The United Kingdom is a party to the Paris memorandum of understanding, the well-established collaborative regional agreement to co-ordinate this activity, with the aim of ensuring that international standards that reduce the risks to health, safety and the environment are met. It allows us to information-share and work with our neighbours to ensure the effective targeting of vessels to identify those that are substandard. The purpose of the proposed regulations is to replace and update the existing 2011 United Kingdom regulations on this subject and to reaffirm our commitment to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements by giving effect to them in UK law.
A four-week public consultation was carried out, during which responders expressed support for the implementation of the proposed regulations. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency published a consultation report, including responses to comments received. Before the regulations were laid in draft, they were sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for informal pre-laying scrutiny. The JCSI provided drafting comments on the regulations at that stage and then formally considered them after they were laid and noted them without further comment. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has not drawn this instrument to the attention of the House.
The background to this statutory instrument is the Paris memorandum of understanding, which I understand dates from 1978 and is one of a number of collaborative regional agreements setting out a framework for carrying out port state control inspections globally. It is not a European Union agreement, although some parties are EU member states.
At the time when the 2011 regulations were made, the United Kingdom was a member of the European Union and the regulations were required to implement the relevant EU directive on port state control in accordance with the UK’s obligations as a member state. However, the UK remains a party to the Paris MoU and continues to maintain its commitments under the agreement as a non-EU member. The proposed regulations give effect to the Paris memorandum of understanding requirements in UK law and update the list of conventions against which inspections are undertaken to include those to which the UK has become a party since the 2011 regulations were written, and which the UK will now also enforce against foreign ships visiting the UK.
These regulations also remove references to EU legislation, instead referencing the Paris MoU directly. This has had the effect of making the regulations longer than the 2011 regulations, but the relevant legislation is now contained just in a UK instrument. Following the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the proposed regulations also remove reliance on this power. While Merchant Shipping Act powers are also used to the fullest extent possible, it has been necessary to use the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers to fill some gaps before those powers expire next month.
I have set out the purpose and scope of these regulations: to update merchant shipping legislation and ensure it reflects the UK’s commitment to the Paris MoU. These regulations reflect our continued commitment to uphold international standards, not only for UK-registered ships but for all ships using UK ports, while tailoring the legislative framework to the UK’s post-EU exit context. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these measures and I beg to move.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his officials for their helpful briefing last week. As we have heard, this instrument revokes and replaces the Merchant Shipping (Port State Control) Regulations 2011, which implemented the UK’s commitment under the Paris memorandum of understanding and the associated EU directive. As I learned from last week’s briefing, the Paris MoU obligates the UK to operate a regime of port state control for the monitoring, inspection and control of foreign-flagged ships calling at UK ports, to reduce the risks that such ships may pose to health, safety or the environment by ensuring that they meet relevant international standards. We have been part of the Paris MoU and its predecessor since the 1970s.
The MCA has around 100 inspectors and inspects around 1,300 ships a year. This instrument will mean that new maritime conventions are properly referenced and reports will be written in the international context, which will improve shipping safety. However, this SI shows just how much work there still is to amend legislation a decade after Brexit. Does the Minister agree that the time and effort that have to go into technical tweaks and amendments such as this distract from tackling other important issues and take up resource?
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, say that making laws for our own country, through our own processes, is somehow a distraction from what we should be doing, and that it would be better, presumably, if we were to hand this responsibility over to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. I cannot say how much I would want to distance myself from such a position.
Since I have very little to say about the instrument, I shall add a little local colour. I did on one occasion seize an unseaworthy ship. When I was the third secretary in the British embassy in South Africa, I was the duty officer one weekend. In those days without mobile phones, that meant I had to stay home all weekend, very close to the telephone. Nothing ever happened but to my astonishment, I got a telephone call from the harbourmaster at Durban, saying that there was a British-registered vessel—or, rather, I think it was registered in some territory, dominion or whatever in the Caribbean that none the less fell under the Crown—in his port. It was so unseaworthy that he intended to seize and immobilise it but, apparently, he needed the permission of Her Majesty’s consul-general. I knew nothing about consular services, but there we were: I was the representative, for that weekend, of Her Majesty’s consul-general in South Africa. After a moment’s thought, I reached the conclusion that, on the whole, it was probably safer all round for me to say, “Yes, you have my authority to seize this vessel”, than to say no or prevaricate in any way—so that is what I did.
It has not happened since, but I am therefore not wholly unfamiliar with the idea that there is a degree of port inspection going on and that vessels not meeting appropriate standards are appropriately dealt with. This instrument affects no change whatever in current arrangements. It advertises itself as achieving no change in current arrangements, and that is absolutely fine. I have no objection to this instrument.
However, I will raise the same point that I raised when we discussed a statutory instrument—I think on aviation safety—a week or two ago. This instrument is made—the Minister said “in part”—using powers under the retained EU law Act. By common agreement, that Act expires in June. From that date onwards, we have no capacity to amend regulations of this sort, which are crucial in the world of transport. Statutory instruments are the normal means by which these regulations are made in the field of transport, but this spreads across the whole of Whitehall and many other departments as well. I say that we have no power to change them—we have no power to do so other than by primary legislation and Act of Parliament; we cannot use statutory instruments.
This failure of foresight on the part of the Government seems a massive dereliction of duty. Even if the Minister was able to assure us today that there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to correct this oversight—I fully appreciate it is unlikely that he can tell us today what will be in the King’s Speech—it is most unlikely that it will possible to pass it in both Houses and enact it by the end of June, when it will be necessary. As I say, I regard this as a massive dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government, and I expect there to be serious potential consequences unless something is done.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their consideration of these draft regulations. I am grateful for the scrutiny and interest that they have shown in ensuring that the UK’s port state control regime remains relevant and compliant.
The noble Baroness invited me to comment on whether this and other changes distracted the Government and officials from more pressing matters. She would not expect me to do other than make an official reply, which is that the development of the new regulations has been a lengthy process, due to the complexity of the existing legislative regime. There have been a number of changes as a consequence of leaving the EU; my understanding is that this is one of the last. It has been left until late because the Paris memorandum of understanding is behind all this. As the noble Baroness said, we were a signatory when that started in the 1970s, and therefore this could be left until quite late.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has one on me: he has seized a ship. I was thinking of withdrawing the whole lot and changing the regulations so that, in the future, he had to seize all the ships. He would be very busy doing that, or might at least be very busy attending ships. However, on reflection, it is better if we leave the arrangements just as they are in the way that this statutory instrument is drafted. The noble Lord certainly has some experience there that I have never had, and I doubt that I ever will.
The noble Lord makes a more serious point about the remaining EU legislation. My information on the maritime sector is that this is one of the last things because the Paris MoU is there and we can revert to it. I will not comment on what might be in the King’s Speech; the noble Lord and I, and everybody else, will have to wait for it.
Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Amendment and Revocation) Regulations 2026.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 19 March 2026. They reflect the Government’s commitment to securing strong outcomes for nature recovery while supporting sustainable economic growth, as outlined in the Corry review. The regulations are a practical example of that approach in action.
The UK’s wildlife trade regulations give effect to our international obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. CITES exists to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants is legal and sustainable and does not threaten the survival of species. The United Kingdom has long played a leading international role in strengthening the convention and combating illegal wildlife trade, and we continue to do so.
Domestically, CITES controls are implemented through a strict licensing framework administered by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Every year, approximately 60,000 permits are issued to businesses and organisations engaged in legal and sustainable trade—ranging from the pet trade to horticulture, cosmetics, zoos, museums and orchestras. While modest in overall scale, this activity supports diverse livelihoods and interests across the UK.
However, parts of the current system are complex, duplicative and rooted in processes designed for trade within the EU. These regulations therefore modernise this framework. They retain strong protections for endangered species while removing unnecessary administrative burdens where risk is low, improving efficiency for businesses and regulators and strengthening enforcement where needed. The instrument amends four pieces of assimilated EU law and revokes one that is no longer required. Taken together, the amendments strengthen conservation protections while allowing the digitisation and modernisation of administrative processes.
The reforms reflect a precautionary, risk-based approach and have been informed by consultation with environmental non-governmental organisations, industry representatives, enforcement bodies and the UK’s scientific authorities. This ensures that protections for species at risk of overexploitation not only remain firmly in place but are enhanced where the evidence supports doing so.
Let me now outline some of the key changes. First, for some low-risk species, the current system goes further than it needs to. Export permits issued by the exporting country confirm sustainability. Import permits issued by the UK authorities add a further layer of due diligence. For the most threatened species, that extra layer of scrutiny is absolutely right and will remain. However, for lower-risk species, these regulations will allow a lighter-touch import notification instead, meaning that we will keep oversight and traceability while cutting out unnecessary duplication and delay for legitimate businesses. Low-risk species will be identified based on the best available scientific evidence; examples of this could include some species of artificially propagated plants from highly compliant destinations. These will also be kept under close review if risks or trade patterns change.
Secondly, the regulations streamline our Article 10 certificate system, which supports how we control domestic trade in the most vulnerable species. Many UK businesses legally breed CITES-listed species or produce derived goods for export. At present, that can mean the need for an Article 10 certificate and a separate export permit. In clearly defined cases, to be outlined in guidance, these regulations will allow an export or re-export permit to serve as an Article 10 certificate for a limited six-month period; this will reduce duplication while, at the same time, keeping any necessary safeguards in place.
In addition, the regulations will introduce a targeted exemption from Article 10 controls for three low-risk Mediterranean tortoise species when traded domestically. These species are widely and legally captive bred and are not found in the wild in the UK. The existing controls were designed to protect wild populations elsewhere in Europe but, in a Great Britain-only context, they now deliver limited additional conservation benefits. Importantly, all import and export controls will remain fully in place, ensuring continued protection against illegal or unsustainable trade.
Thirdly, the regulations will deliver practical improvements for touring orchestras and travelling exhibitions. By recognising certificates issued by other countries and allowing agents to apply on behalf of performers, they will remove unnecessary duplication and support cultural exchange without weakening important conservation controls.
Fourthly, the regulations set out clear criteria for the temporary designation of ports of entry for CITES specimens—for example, to support urgent conservation or animal welfare cases. These provisions cannot be used for commercial trade and apply only where the necessary expertise and safeguards for effective checks are in place.
We estimate that these changes, as well as the other proposed amendments in the regulations, will reduce the number of permits issued by up to 30% each year; that is in the region of 20,000 fewer permits being issued every year. This will generate significant savings for businesses and the regulator, contributing to the Prime Minister’s target to reduce the administrative costs of regulation by 25%.
The regulations will also strengthen enforcement for cases of non-compliance by extending the use of civil sanctions. We will apply civil sanctions to six additional existing offences under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species Regulations and the Customs and Excise Management Act. These offences include using, obtaining, trading or transporting CITES specimens without valid permits or using false, altered or misused documentation. This fills a gap between issuing a warning letter and a criminal prosecution, allowing regulators to respond proportionately while maintaining a strong deterrent. Criminal sanctions will continue to be used where they are deemed proportionate to the infraction. Statutory guidance will be published prior to the civil sanctions being brought into force, ensuring that their application is both consistent and fair.
In conclusion, these regulations will strengthen our implementation of international obligations, uphold high standards of species protection and animal welfare, and ensure that regulation is targeted where it is most needed. The Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders to support effective implementation and ongoing compliance. Taken together, they strike the right balance between rigorous protection and practical delivery, safeguarding nature while allowing legitimate and responsible activity to proceed. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the Minister for presenting this statutory instrument with her usual clarity and purpose as we race towards the end of this Session. Everyone should be able to enjoy our natural environment. We have a duty to ensure that future generations inherit a world defined by biodiversity, not decline. It is important, therefore, that we look beyond administrative modernisation to its practical impact on the protection of endangered species. The United Kingdom has the potential to demonstrate great leadership in conservation, but that leadership depends on maintaining our strong, credible and enforceable standards. We on these Benches have consistently argued for a fair deal for the environment, including a commitment that trade and imports should not undercut our very high standards of animal welfare and environmental protections.
Against that backdrop, I have some concerns about the direction taken in these regulations. First, there is a shift towards ministerial discretion. The regulations provide for additional measures and restrictions to be set out through guidance, rather than being clearly defined in legislation. Although flexibility may have its place, the use of guidance in areas of environmental protection raises issues around transparency, consistency and accountability. Clear, statutory rules provide certainty for enforcement bodies, businesses and the public. If greater reliance is to be placed on this guidance, we must have reassurance that it will not weaken oversight or reduce clarity in practice.
Secondly, on the simplification of permit and certificate requirements, efficient systems are important—no one would wish to impose unnecessary administrative burdens, and we welcome the progress on that—but simplification cannot create unintended opportunities for exploitation. Changes affecting so-called low-risk movements, including for certain Annex B specimens, for example, require careful scrutiny. Even limited relaxations in documentation can, if not properly designed and monitored, create openings for the illegal wildlife trade, whether in exotic pets, hunting trophies or wildlife-derived products such as fur.
Thirdly, the regulations do not address a long-standing concern raised by conservation organisations: the absence of a clear domestic offence covering the trade in wildlife that has been illegally sourced in its country of origin. Without such a provision, there remains a risk that the UK could be used, however unintentionally, as a market for products that have contributed to environmental harm elsewhere. If the Government are serious about tackling biodiversity loss globally, this is an issue that needs attention.
More broadly, it is important that any changes to this framework do not result in the UK falling behind comparable international standards. Our approach should be to maintain and, where possible, strengthen protections. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, how will the Government ensure that the increased use of guidance provides the same level of transparency and legal certainty as provisions set out in legislation? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the risk that simplified permit requirements for Annex B specimens, as I explained earlier, could be exploited; and what safeguards will be in place to prevent abuse? Thirdly, will the Government either reconsider the case for introducing a domestic offence, covering the trade in wildlife illegally sourced aboard, or commit to reviewing this issue within a defined timeframe? These are not small, technical matters—they go to the heart of whether this framework will operate as an effective tool for conservation.
Finally, although I recognise the intention to streamline the system, I look forward to us being reassured that these changes will maintain robust protection, support enforcement and uphold the UK’s reputation as a responsible actor in global wildlife conservation.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this SI forward. This is a complex and wide-ranging area. It is about protecting our country’s health as much as it is about animal welfare. It involves scientific authorities, Border Force and police inspections, and compliance checks.
Let me begin by saying that we support efforts to reduce administrative burdens and costs, as well as attempts to simplify the system without undermining it. CITES was designed with membership of the EU in mind. We now have the freedom to amend it to our own needs and tailor the framework to meet specific challenges, using our own expertise at Kew Gardens and the JNCC. I note that the Government consulted on these changes with both conservation groups and businesses, all of which deserve a fair hearing.
I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to a few specific changes on which I would appreciate some assurance from the Minister. This SI enables the Secretary of State to determine which specimens require an import notification, rather than an import permit, for those deemed “low-risk”. We welcome the shift to risk-based controls, but can the Minister outline what criteria will be used and how often the risk categories will be reviewed? Does the import notification still give authorities the same oversight and ability to trace specimens? That could be particularly useful if a specimen is deemed to be a higher health risk at a later stage.
Travelling exhibition certificates from other countries will now be recognised as a result of this legislation. It is absolutely right that we prevent unnecessary duplication, but can the Minister provide further detail on which countries will benefit and how their certification processes differ from ours?
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the enforcement approach and fully addressing my questions in that area, but it is currently not a criminal offence in the UK—as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, pointed out—to possess or trade wildlife that was illegally sourced in its country of origin. So what steps are the Government taking to track down the original perpetrators of these crimes, as well as to support buyers in identifying and reporting illegal wildlife trading? Can the Minister indicate whether the SPS agreement and other related negotiations with Europe are likely to have any impact on the implementation of these regulations—or, indeed, to overrule any of them?
Finally, we have previously debated the impact of invasive non-native species on our own ecosystem, including the pernicious effect of grey squirrels on successful tree-planting and red squirrel populations. It is critical that no additional burden is created. It would be helpful to have an assurance that, in the extremely unlikely event that an endangered species were to escape into the wild in the UK and breed successfully, aggressive control of that species would be possible in order to prevent it becoming invasive.
I appreciate that this is a complex framework. We agree with the aim to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens. It is clear that an appropriate balance must be found, so I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on the points that have been made.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords both for making some important points about the legislation before us and for contributing to the debate.
As I set out earlier, these regulations are designed to modernise an important regulatory framework so that it works effectively for the UK, supports legitimate trade, and keeps protections firmly focused on the species and risks that matter most. The idea is for them to deliver practical improvements but noble Lords clearly have some concerns, so let me cover some of the issues that have been asked about.
Questions were asked about the new powers, including those for the Secretary of State. The idea is that the regulations will allow the UK to improve its implementation of CITES and the environmental protections it holds.
The new powers are to require the Secretary of State to publish formal lists where import suspensions or additional measures are in place. In some cases, these are already being applied in practice for endangered species: examples are strict controls on rhinos, tigers and bear bile. The powers are tightly defined and will be used only for purposes that are consistent with the CITES convention and the wildlife trade regulations. Any changes to this have to be informed by scientific advice from the UK CITES scientific authorities and are limited to the application of import suspensions or additional measures where there is a clear conservation or welfare justification. I hope that helps with some of the transparency around the Secretary of State’s role.
This is not going to reduce parliamentary scrutiny because the circumstances and conditions under which changes can occur are clearly set out in the legislation, and that legislation is subject to the usual parliamentary scrutiny. Publishing lists will provide transparency and legal clarity without requiring new regulations each time it is updated. That will enable Parliament and stakeholders to see very clearly what applies at any given time while also allowing the system to respond more quickly to any urgent conservation risks. We recognise the interest in updating wider wildlife legislation, but I make clear that this statutory instrument is specifically focused on the implementation of the UK’s obligations on trade in endangered species.
The issue of environmental and animal welfare protections was raised, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. The crucial and necessary core protections for endangered species and trade will remain unchanged. That includes requirements for higher-risk trade, scientific non-detriment findings and enforcement checks at the border. The proposed reforms are deliberately targeted and evidence led. They have been informed by the consultation that the noble Lord referred to, and by advice from UK scientific authorities. They will focus regulatory effort where conservation risk is highest while removing the duplication of administrative requirements where there is little evidence of conservation benefit. The idea behind a risk-based approach is that it allows us to respond more effectively to changing trade patterns and scientific evidence without lowering those standards or protections. Again, no changes are being made to the welfare assessments that are required as part of the CITES applications.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about risks opening up. I will say why the Government have taken this approach, particularly around annex B import permits. We have not removed the import permit framework because it plays an important role in controlling high-risk trade and preventing laundering, but we intend to simplify requirements in limited low-risk circumstances where there is little conservation benefit or just duplicate paperwork. These changes do not weaken protections because import permits will remain firmly in place for high-risk species and activities. Core compliance checks, including Border Force inspections, will continue to apply. A low-risk list will be developed but it will also be kept under review, based on the most up-to-date scientific and enforcement evidence, and all annex B imports will still require a valid CITES export permit, while the use of import notifications will ensure that we maintain oversight in order that we can respond quickly to any changes in risk.
On enforcement capacity, Border Force applies strong enforcement of CITES controls at the UK border and the police enforce CITES controls inland. The amendments in this statutory instrument will support their efforts by bringing in civil sanctions and other changes. The idea is to provide a much larger range of tools that can be used so that efforts can be far more targeted to tackle any illegal wildlife trade.
Domestic wildlife crime was mentioned. Birds of prey prosecution is a national wildlife crime priority, and there are strong penalties in place for offences committed against not just birds of prey but other wildlife. Through Defra, we fund the National Wildlife Crime Unit, which helps to prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats and directly assisting law enforcement in its investigations. Defra funding for the NWCU for the financial year 2026-27 is £530,000. In addition to that, we are providing funding to Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture to develop DNA forensic analysis for the police and other organisations.
On illegal wildlife trade, we are fully committed to global efforts to address the drivers of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss, including environmental crimes such as illegal wildlife crime. We have an annual allocation in Defra of £150 million a year, which will run from 2026-27 to 2028-29. A significant portion of that will be used to continue to support the biodiversity challenge funds.
I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the SPS agreement, but I hope that it is moving forward and we will be able to give more clarity on that later in the spring or in early summer.
On invasive species controls, I work very hard with the invasive species team—we had a meeting last week. We are determined to increase Defra’s ability to tackle invasive species. In particular, we have a target to stop new invasive species coming in and taking hold in this country. We are working very hard on that.
I hope I have addressed all the issues that were raised and that noble Lords will approve the instrument. I thank noble Lords for their support.
Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Whitehead) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 17 March 2026.
Since 2011, the warm home discount has supported low-income and vulnerable households by reducing energy bills during the coldest months of the year, when support is most needed. The Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2022 ended on 31 March 2026. These regulations will extend the scheme in Scotland for a further five years, until 2030-31, providing certainty for households, suppliers and delivery partners.
Fuel poverty is a devolved matter in Scotland. Under the Energy Act 2010, as amended by the Scotland Act 2016, Scottish Ministers have powers to design their own fuel poverty scheme, subject to consultation with and agreement from the Secretary of State. To date, Scottish Ministers have chosen not to exercise those powers and have instead consented to the UK Government laying regulations on their behalf. That remains the position for the next scheme period. Under devolution arrangements, the Scottish Government have provided their formal consent for these regulations to be made.
In September, the Government consulted, with the agreement of the Scottish Government, on proposals for the next scheme period. Consultation responses relating to Scotland were shared with Scottish Ministers, who have determined the eligibility criteria for the next scheme period within the agreed spending limit, as set out in these regulations.
The regulations will continue to require energy suppliers with more than 1,000 domestic customer accounts across Great Britain to participate in the scheme. Suppliers with fewer than 1,000 domestic accounts will, as now, be able to participate in the scheme on a purely voluntary basis.
These regulations will continue to provide for £150 rebates to be provided by scheme suppliers under the data-matched core group and the application-based broader group, a different division of groups than is the case with the English scheme. Participating suppliers will continue to be obliged to provide a £150 rebate to eligible households in the core group, applied directly to their electricity bill. These regulations set out new eligibility criteria for the core group in Scotland, aligning qualifying benefits with those of the Scottish winter heating payment as of December 2025 for the next scheme period. It is estimated that the number of households that receive a core group rebate will increase by roughly 250,000 to 345,000 households per year compared with 2025-26.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out so clearly the warm home discount SI before us today. How confident are the Government that this scheme will both reach the right people in Scotland and, probably more importantly, will spend the full envelope that Parliament is authorising? The Government and my noble friend’s department should be commended for the doubling. I know we are just touching on Scotland here, but across the whole of the warm homes discount, if we get it out to the right families, we are looking at moving from just about 2.7 million households across the UK to nearly 6 million, which is something to be commended.
Turning back to the SI, Scottish Ministers have taken a different approach to eligibility with changes to the core group. Can the Minister set out which additional types of low-income and fuel-poor households in Scotland will now be brought into the scheme? He touched on how many households that represents, which is appreciated, but what estimates have been made of those who will still fall outside the new core group, particularly those in rural, off-gas and high cost of heating homes?
On spending, as the Minister outlined, there is a fixed annual Scottish spending limit running until 2031. What specific mechanisms are in place to avoid underspend in any year? If suppliers are falling short of their Scottish obligations, will there be in-year monitoring and automatic reallocation or flexing of criteria, so that every pound intended for those Scottish households is delivered to Scottish families and not allocated to drift back to suppliers’ margins?
This is a GB-wide framework but, as the Minister said, in practice the Scottish scheme is shaped by the decisions of Scottish Ministers. That makes transparency and joint accountability all the more important. Can the Minister tell the Grand Committee what level of detail we will see in the published data for Scotland, from both the department and Ofgem? For example, will we be able to see take-up broken down by local authority, tenure type, disability status and the main heating fuel, so that this Parliament and the Scottish Government can judge whether the support is reaching those at most risk of fuel poverty?
Finally, given that these regulations run through to 2031, will the Minister commit to a formal mid-period review so that if the evidence shows that the scheme is not fully spending its allocation or is missing key groups, the regulations can be adjusted rather than simply left on autopilot for the rest of the decade? The doubling of the warm home discount is a great Labour Government initiative, but I am sure that all noble Lords will want to ensure that it is spent—and is seen to be spent—wisely
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing forward this SI and explaining it in such detail, especially given the fact that we have already debated this at some length, when my colleague from the Liberal Democrat Benches also participated in certain aspects of it.
The focus on Scotland allows us to look at some specific aspects relevant there and to consider why the Warm Home Discount (Scotland) Regulations 2026 are so important for Scottish households—needed as they are, I might add, because of the high cost of energy and electricity in not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom, because of the doubling down on the policy of building intermittent wind farms far from the grid and energy costs that are sky high relative to international comparisons. With those wind farms operating at some 31% to 40% of their maximum potential capacity, we are required to continue to import gas and to pay for gas-fired CCGTs all year long for the sole purpose of being available when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. For that reason, it is all the more important that this draft warm home discount provision is available—because of the high prices of electricity and the need to protect those most in need in Scotland.
We understand how important this is, since the warm home discount is being immediately offset for so many by rising energy prices, driven by the Government’s own policy choices. It is important to note that suppliers are not funding this support; it is paid for by households through an additional levy. The Government are increasing taxes on working people to fund handouts to others, rather than fixing the problem at source by addressing the issue of making electricity cheap.
In addition, the administration costs will continue to rise. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the administration costs alone are estimated to be about £20 million per annum. It is time the Government addressed the need to cut electricity bills. We hope that during the brief coming recess, DESNZ will have the opportunity to see whether it can axe the carbon tax, scrap renewable subsidies and overturn the North Sea licensing ban. That will provide the greatest benefit to people on low incomes, not least vulnerable Scottish customers.
As the Minister has said, the WHD scheme supports those on low incomes, vulnerable to cold-related illness, or living wholly or mainly in fuel poverty. That is of course right—it is a policy that has been supported by both sides of the Committee. We need to target fuel-poor households, with the highest estimated energy costs identified through data matching, which we covered when we last discussed this important measure in the context of the rest of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the recognition of the Secretary of State being able
“to direct energy suppliers to communicate with ‘matched’ customers identified through automated data matching, and … requiring suppliers to provide information on eligibility, the use of automated decision-making, and where to find the Scheme’s privacy notice”.
We already agreed to that in a previous debate on the application of the WHD extension elsewhere in the United Kingdom. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we should also consider Professor Dieter Helm’s concern that, in not considering the WHD orders in the context of the wider energy policy being pursued by the Government, we are, to use his words, simply “moving the deck chairs”. The most important issue is that the warm homes discount scheme must be judged in the context of the fundamental issue of energy costs, and, most importantly, the high energy costs that make us so lacking in competition, particularly in the UK industrial sector but also in terms of very high domestic costs.
For many of the people concerned, fuel is perhaps the most important and noticeable change in energy prices for low-income households. Only recently, industry chiefs have warned that British electricity costs mean that domestic refineries are struggling to compete, and therefore that Britain will be increasingly reliant, as will Scotland, on imported fuel. Average petrol prices, at 157.62p a litre, are currently 25p higher than at the start of the war, and diesel has risen twice that to 188.9p a litre. Does the Minister recognise that, as the war has proven, it is important for a major economy to be focused on increasing its reliance on domestically generated fuel and not on imported fuel? This issue of security of supply is one I hope that we will return to and that the Minister can also address today.
We still import 60% of our gas, which is around 20% of our national energy demand. I hope that, during the brief Recess, the Secretary of State will reconsider his refusal to allow production at remaining North Sea gas fields, particularly Rosebank and Jackdaw, and that, at least recognising that there may be political motivation behind his decision, he will return to this subject shortly after the 7 May elections. As we know, when we look at Rosebank and Jackdaw, the emissions intensity is substantially lower than imported LNG from the United States. Therefore, on any environmental grounds, it makes great sense to develop our own gas reserves, not to mention the benefit to the Treasury of the revenues that are generated.
In the context of Scotland, we are losing nearly 1,000 jobs a month in Aberdeen—1,000 valuable jobs that are highly regarded around the world. It is so important to recognise that, from Aberdeen to Ardersier, we need to make sure that we protect jobs in Scotland and that this policy of being completely opposed to new licences, and not adjusting the commercial and fiscal terms that would encourage the extension of current production in reservoirs and tie-backs, is very damaging to the economy, puts up prices and, in turn, means that, in future, more people may have to avail themselves of the regulations we are discussing today.
We are approaching a brief break, which is an opportunity to test how popular the Government’s energy policies are in Scotland. I hope that this will allow DESNZ to undertake a comprehensive review of its doubling down on an energy policy that is high-cost—one of the highest in the world—and regrettably more polluting than it needs to be. I gave the example of LNG imports from the US against our own production from, for example, Rosebank and Jackdaw.
We are increasingly highly reliant—I know that the Minister will always expect me to say this—on Chinese solar imports from Uyghur slave labour and coal-fired factories. We are also highly dependent on ever-enlarging warm home discount schemes, which, we both agree, are a fundamental responsibility of parties in government. However, those schemes, which should be welcome because they ease some of the consequences of these policies, do not deter us from the most important issues: addressing the policies and reducing the cost of energy. Ultimately, if we can do those things, such policies will be less necessary because we will have addressed the facts that we need to be more competitive, that energy needs to be more affordable and that we need to protect jobs—not least in Scotland—which are absolutely vital to our economy and our energy mix.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate; I will attempt to address them in the best way I can.
I have got to know the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, well during my time as a Minister in this House. I say to him, with respect, that, although he is unfailingly constructive and courteous and makes important points, I fear that he has today given us a tour d’horizon of all the things we have been discussing over the past few months, wrapped within the carapace of the SI before us, which relates only to the specific Scottish circumstances of the warm home discount scheme. I hope he will forgive me if I do not give a detailed reply to some of his points because they have been discussed on other occasions; perhaps we could, over a drink at the end of the Session, tease out some of these issues between ourselves as we prepare for the proroguing of Parliament.
On the contributions concerning this specific SI, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for his contribution. His concerns relate to the enormous increase in coverage that has been achieved by these new arrangements. Because the Scottish Government asked the UK Government to set up an SI for a scheme similar, but not identical, to that in the rest of the UK, the benefits of the substantial increase in coverage now relate to Scotland and England just the same. However, there are of course questions relating to the fact that there are, and have been since 2011, considerable differences between some of the detail of the Scottish scheme and the English one. That is partly because of the identification of virtually everybody who is taking part in the expanded scheme in England, but it is not quite so as far as the Scottish scheme is concerned.
In the Scottish scheme, there is a core group and there is a broader group. The broader group is subject to identification by application and is then put into the assistance system by the energy suppliers, but there is a question about whether those energy suppliers are going to do that properly. How will it be ensured that they do, and, if they fall short, how can that be rectified by things such as making sure that industry initiatives are brought up so that the broader group does not suffer in the way that it might otherwise do? It is down to the Scottish Government and Ofgem to make sure it happens, but it is clearly something that we need to keep a close eye on as the scheme develops.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the Government are taking action on energy prices and bearing down on them. As he will know, we have the energy price cap, which has made sure that prices go down by about 7% over the next few months. We have had the transfer of renewables obligation levies and the ending of eco-levy costs to reduce bills. We have an ambition to take considerably more off energy bills in the future using those sorts of devices.
The noble Lord talked about domestically produced fuel. We completely agree on the need to have domestically sourced power in the UK. That is exactly what the Government are doing with increased offshore wind and solar. I have already talked to the noble Lord about how we can increase the amount of domestically produced onshore gas by increasing the biomethane that is injected into the grid—a completely domestic source of gas. The Government are acting on these things.
The noble Lord quoted Dieter Helm, saying that we are only moving the deckchairs. Sometimes moving deckchairs is a good thing, particularly if the deckchairs were previously in the shade and you can bring them out into the sun by the things you are doing. For example, one of the things that we are doing here is to move the effect of the funding from standing charges to individual markers related to the amount of power that is being consumed by particular customers. Instead of that money being taken for these warm home discount schemes from standing charges, they will be a combination of matters now, which will save people something like £39 on standing charges. So yes, we can move the deckchairs. I am conscious that we need to move further and faster—to move more deckchairs more rapidly—and transcending that. If this measure is about moving deckchairs, the deckchairs have been moved very efficiently and we have a good scheme as a result.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I listened careful to all the deckchairs moving around, but the Minister’s analogy is incomplete, because the deckchairs that are referred to in the famous aphorism relate to the deckchairs on a sinking ship. That is the pointlessness of some of the things we are looking at. It is important that, rather than rearranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship, where everybody goes down with the vessel, we look at keeping energy prices as low as we can. The high energy prices that this nation is labouring under are de-industrialising our nation, killing our chemical industry and giving everybody the highest energy costs in the industrialised world. That is something we need to bear down upon.
Lord Whitehead (Lab)
As I was just saying to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, moving the deckchairs depends on the fact that the ship is not sinking. Of course, this ship is not sinking. That is why we have been able to double the eligibility for people to take part in the scheme and are further doubling down on energy price reductions through the devices that I set out and the further development of clean, domestically produced power to make sure those prices stay low for the future. We are doing other measures, such as de-linking the arrangements between gas-based electricity and renewables-based electricity. The purpose of a number of things might seem to be moving the deckchairs, but certainly not on a sinking ship. The ship has all its deckchairs in the sun now and is steaming forward to a bright energy future.
Motion agreed.
House of Lords
Online Challenger Banks
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ranger of Northwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of how online challenger banks assess and process new applications for accounts.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the decision to provide banking services is largely a commercial one. Banks have strict obligations to ensure the legitimacy of a new customer and to protect against financial crime, and all new customers opening an account must be subject to due diligence under the money laundering regulations. The regulations are not prescriptive about how this should be done. The FCA expects banks to treat customers fairly and to take a proportionate approach commensurate with their assessment of the risk.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the support and the need for regulation of new challenger banks—and all banks—but, in my career of delivering public services with innovation, I have noticed the need to balance innovation with fairness. From personal experience, and more from what I have heard from a great many members of the public, this balance does not seem to be right at the moment in a sector that I really feel we want to champion: fintechs and challenger banks. So does the Minister feel that the balance between the innovation and the growth we are looking to see is right, when we see services providing no explanation or opportunity for engagement when making decisions such as offering banking services, especially as we are now looking at an era of digital assets and agentic banking, where we would like to see fairer digital services for all?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for our brief conversation last week about some of the issues he has experienced. He will be aware that many of the issues he raises are ultimately commercial decisions for individual financial institutions, and how they choose to communicate with their customers and potential customers are largely decisions for themselves. He will know that, where a bank decides not to allow an account, it can disclose why it has made that decision, but it is not generally required to do so or to provide detailed reasons. In some cases, banks are legally constrained in what they can or are able to say. I think the noble Lord is interested in the use of AI in some of these decisions. The FCA is clear that automation does not remove a firm’s responsibility; it must retain effective oversight of automated decisions and ensure that decisions are fair and made in accordance with regulatory requirements. But, as I say, the decision about how and whether to communicate that is largely a commercial one for the individual financial institution.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister seen reports that members of defence companies are being refused accounts with challenger banks? The whole issue of de-banking, the difficulty that defence companies are having in finding suitable accommodation to rent, and the removal, with the assistance of the Edinburgh Council, of Leonardo’s recruiting advertisements from the city’s trams are all surely indications that ESG concerns are being used for overtly political purposes. Is this not yet another baleful consequence of the Government’s failure to lead a national conversation on defence, which they themselves admitted was so badly required?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thought I was going to be able to agree with everything the noble and gallant Lord said—right up until the last sentence. I agree with 99% of his question, and I absolutely agree that access to finance for defence firms is incredibly important. The instances that he cites are troubling, and I share his concerns about them. Access to finance is a significant issue for defence firms, particularly SMEs. No company should ever be denied access to financial services solely on the basis that it works in the defence sector, and the banking sector should never take a blanket approach to any one sector. The Government are actively engaging with banks to ensure that they understand the importance of the defence sector and the FCA’s work to understand why banks might close or reject accounts. Where it has found areas in which firms need to improve customer outcomes, the Government expect firms to consider the FCA’s findings.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister find, as I have done, in conversations perhaps not dissimilar to those with the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, that the challenger banks and fintechs are largely serving the same group—although perhaps more efficiently—that is served by the high street banks? Therefore, will he look much more seriously at the potential not just of banking hubs but of community development financial institutions and a way to combine them, so that small businesses can finally get access to the loans and services they need and that individuals who remain excluded finally have access to the banking sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree in large part with what the noble Baroness says. As she will know, as part of the small business strategy, the Government have introduced a range of measures to remove barriers to accessing finance for SMEs. She will know, too, that access to banking services is vital for businesses across the UK. While provision of financial services to companies is largely a commercial matter, the Government of course believe that all customers should be treated fairly.
On access to banking for consumers and banking hubs, we have set out an ambition to have 350 banking hubs. Cash Access UK will deploy a banking hub wherever the industry co-ordinating body responsible suggests that one is appropriate.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, during my time as a trade envoy to Rwanda and Uganda, I noticed first hand that UK businesses could open a bank account in those countries in less than five minutes, but it will take three months, if they are lucky, to open a bank account here. The Minister mentioned that it is a commercial decision, but is heavily legislated for through the Bribery Act, the money laundering Act and many others. Can the Minister please look into this, particularly for SMEs that are starting new businesses and are having real difficulty opening a bank account?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord will know that the money laundering regulations rightly mean that, for new customers opening an account, banks are required to take due diligence measures to verify the customers’ identity, assess the intended purpose of the account and flag any suspicious transactions to law enforcement. The regulations are not prescriptive in setting out specific steps that banks should undertake to satisfy customer due diligence, but instead require them to take a proportionate approach, which I think is what the noble Lord is asking for. Each bank will therefore have its own policies and procedures, and those policies should be informed by each bank’s own assessment of the risk faced by its services and customers, based on sources such as the national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, this year has seen a massive increase in offshore unregulated betting. Are these challenger banks following the same procedures and checks as the normal high street banks?
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the anti-money laundering regulations are imposed on people who are politically exposed without any nuance whatever, and not in accordance with the legislation or regulations, which require banks to assess people on a case-by-case basis—nor are customers told why they are being refused. There appears to be no mechanism for any kind of appeal or redress. Will the Minister talk with the FCA and the numerous ombudsmen who appear to work on this area and at least allow customers to talk to a human being rather than a computer that is programmed to say no in all circumstances?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I fully recognise and understand many of the things the noble Lord says. I understand that being a politically exposed person means enhanced scrutiny and administrative burdens and has impacted many noble Lords. Banks and other regulated firms must apply additional checks to customers who meet the definition of a politically exposed person, as well as to their relatives and close associates. That is to mitigate the increased risk that they are targeted for bribery and corruption attempts. While those checks are important, it is essential that they are proportionate to the risks posed; checks should account for the nature of the proposed business relationship and the potential for the product to be misused.
The noble Lord will know that changes to the money laundering regulations now require banks to treat domestic politically exposed persons as inherently lower risk and, in the absence of any other high-risk factors, banks should apply due diligence measures proportionately. In July 2024, the FCA also published its review of the treatment of politically exposed persons, which identified a range of required improvements by the firms that it assessed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I think we all recognise that there is a balance to be found between protecting the consumer and encouraging enterprise and growth in this area. But my observation, the observation of many Peers and my own experience of trying to open a new account with Metro Bank is that there is a vast bureaucracy around the FCA and money laundering rules and that that is disadvantaging our challenger banks. Does the Minister agree that the current system tends to favour incumbents, which obviously harms growth and consumers? What practical steps can the Government take to help challenger banks meet the standards efficiently and compete on a level playing field, which we need for innovation?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think I agree with the noble Baroness on the question she asked about disadvantaging challenger banks. As I have said already, the regulations are not prescriptive in setting out specific steps that banks should undertake to satisfy customer due diligence; instead, they require them to take a proportionate approach. Each bank therefore has its own policies and procedures, which should be informed by each bank’s own assessment of the risks faced by its services and customers.
Student Visas
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the adequacy of training and quality-assurance processes for student visa caseworkers, and (2) decision-making in the student visa route.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The UK Visas and Immigration service has a comprehensive training programme kept under regular review to support consistently high standards of decisions. This is supported by a quality assurance framework that draws on feedback from the study sector and incorporates evidence from the independent administrative review process, ensuring that lessons are learned and systematically embedded into operational practice.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. The universities agree that the changes to thresholds in the compliance assessment metrics should help to further reduce the scope for abuse and non-compliance, but I understand that some real problems have arisen. These relate to the red/amber/green methodology, the lack of real-time data sharing with UKVI, visa processing delays and the lack of clarity about the reasons for a sudden upsurge in visa refusals. Given the massive impact of decisions on international student recruitment on the finances of universities, will the Minister agree to meet me and Universities UK to try to help to resolve some of these concerns?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very happy to meet my noble friend and representatives from the university sector. It is extremely important that we make this work properly for both sectors as a whole, and I know that officials in the department are in constant touch with the sector to look at how we can improve performance. In 2025, 448,241 entry clearance applications were received and only 18,434 were refused, which is about 4%.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Government are about to introduce a new independent appeals body for asylum cases. Would it not be better to focus on raising the quality of initial decisions, improving efficiency in the current tribunal system and funding legal aid adequately?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, it is important that we get the first decision right, because it is important for the person who is applying and for the process and the cost, as she mentioned. Student visa decisions are made by trained caseworkers, who apply the Immigration Rules and are supported by clear guidance, quality assurance and oversight. Original performance decisions are kept under continual review. I hope that we can, over time, improve the decision-making process.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, 90% of Pakistanis who claim asylum enter the United Kingdom on a student, work or visit visa, as well as 87% of Bangladeshi nationals and 71% of Indian nationals. This is clearly a major abuse of the system. How will the Government get a grip on this problem and clamp down on the abuse of the visa system?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, we have already put a brake on Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan for the very reason that there were high levels of asylum claims from them—470% of their 2021 levels. That is a temporary halt. We keep all options under review and it is important that the student route is not seen as a precursor to an asylum claim.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, this is a real case where artificial intelligence would enormously improve the speed and quality of decision-making. When my noble friend the Minister meets the universities, will he point out to them, as the Home Office has had to do for many years—as well as to the Department for Education—that there is still considerable fraud in entry to colleges and universities being used as a basis for working in the regular or the black economy in the UK, irrespective of any claims for asylum? That is to the disadvantage of many existing workforces.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend has been a constant advocate of tackling fraud in the system, and I pay tribute to his work on that. We keep this under review at all times. It is in nobody’s interest to have fraudulent applications or for individuals to use a different route and subsequently to apply on a fraudulent basis. That is why we have taken the steps we have with the asylum student brake on the four countries I mentioned and why we have a rigorous process for assessing claims.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will know that a further problem is that only one in six failed asylum seekers is then returned to their country of origin. What are the Government doing to address this serious problem?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He will know that the Government are taking extremely serious action on the removal of people who do not have the right to be here. That involves several mechanisms. First, we have to speed up the results of asylum claims in the first place. Then, when individuals have failed, we need to ensure that there is an appeal process, if required, that is speedy and efficient. Then, if people’s claims have not been accepted, we need speedy removals. I do not have the figures to date in my head, but there has certainly been an improvement. If the noble Lord will allow, I will write to him with the figures on removals that we have made in the past two years.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that one of the real problems in these areas is criminal gangs that operate by setting out false promises to very vulnerable people, especially in areas such as Bangladesh? Is there more we can do at the international level to tackle these criminal gangs through the use of intelligence and cross-border working?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend is right that there is a criminal network involved in trying to secure entry to the United Kingdom through a range of illegal ways—small boats, the illegal use of asylum claims or illegal applications for student visas. We are cognisant of that and the Government are trying to ensure, through intelligence-led policing, the use of Border Force and work that we are undertaking, that we deter those gangs, hold them to justice and, where possible, take assets from them. There is a strong level of government activity in this area; we have debated it on a number of occasions and I will continue to make sure that we press against those areas of abuse.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, some time ago when I was Immigration Minister, we had problems, which I think exist today, in getting countries—many of which we have strong, close relationships with, both fiscal and otherwise—to take back people who had no reason to remain in this country because they had failed to meet the criteria for refugee status. Will the Minister update us on this? Is there nothing more that the Foreign Office and others can do to deal with this matter in relation to countries that appear reluctant to take back these people, for no good reason whatever, bearing in mind the relationships between them and us?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important that the Government take a whole-government approach to this issue. I know that my colleagues in both the Foreign Office and the Home Office, and in some cases in the Ministry of Justice, are very focused on ensuring that we have a whole-government approach on the removal of individuals who have no right to be here. I will supply the noble Lord with figures on the removals, which have increased. It is important that we focus on continuing to remove people who have no right to be in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, is it really not possible for the Government to have a more targeted approach—similar to what my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested—by increasing the workforce to assist asylum applications? Rather than the blunderbuss of removing the right of nationals from certain countries to apply for visas, can the Government not home in on the individual abuse of the system? The blanket approach risks being unfair.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The brake on the four countries is a temporary brake while we assess the reasons for the rise in numbers that took place. The Government are trying to speed up the asylum processes along the lines that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. We have put additional staff in to approve the processing, because we want to get to a stage where individuals know quickly whether they have a genuine asylum claim, whether they have been accepted—and, if they have been rejected, that they have the right to appeal—and whether we have to remove them. That is self-evidently part of the Government’s approach to this issue.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, when the ISC did its study on China last year, we were very concerned to find a large number of Chinese students blocking or filling up courses on quantum, AI and the like. When we analysed further, we found that quite a large number of those students were members of the People’s Liberation Army. What has been done to put a check on this or to spot exactly what is happening?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have to make sure that individuals have a proper and right method of applying for student entry into the United Kingdom. That is why we have accepted over 448,000 people, but it also why we have rejected 18,000 applications to date. There is a very strict check on what the reasons are, how people are coming and whether they have a right to enter the United Kingdom. I do not want to comment on individual cases or countries, apart from the four we have put the brake on, but we keep this under review at all times. The 18,000 rejections are for reasons linked to the country they are from, the application or the motivation behind the application.
National Museums and Galleries
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to retain universal free entry to the UK’s national museums and galleries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I am sure all noble Lords will agree that our national museums are truly exceptional. I can confirm that we are not considering any changes to free entry for UK nationals and residents. In response to the independent review of the Arts Council by my noble friend Lady Hodge, DCMS is working with the museum sector to explore potential opportunities for charging international visitors at national museums and galleries. This is a highly complex issue that requires detailed work with the sector before any evidence-based decisions are taken.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, it is disappointing that the Government are even considering this. They do not seem to realise what a precious, globally recognised brand universal free entry is. Apart from the negative logistical and financial implications of applying a selective charge, including the lack of universal ID, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, has pointed out, would the Government not rather restore the grant in aid to its real-terms 2010 level? The 18% drop in money since then represents frankly peanuts in the overall economy, yet that funding is vital for the success of our national museums.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are committed to supporting our national museums and to ensuring that art and culture are accessible, representative and shared across the country. Our £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere package ensures everyone has access to world-class culture. There are no current plans to reduce grant in aid, although I will say that we cannot prejudge spending reviews. We want to enable new income generation for our national museums, and we are going to be working with the museums to explore ideas for how this income could be used.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, as the co-chair of the Arts and Heritage All-Party Parliamentary Group, I will say that several institutions have expressed to me their many and varied concerns about how the introduction of the charging of international visitors might negatively affect not just them but the wider tourism and hospitality economy. I ask the Minister, what assessment are the Government going to make—or have they made any assessment—to allay the concerns about the wider economic consequences that this might have?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We are making sure that we work with the museums on this, not in isolation from them. Last week, for example, officials at DCMS sat down with representatives from all the national museums to talk through how the process might work, in terms of having a working group with the national museums. We are clear that it is a complex matter. It is not, “It’s right to, or it’s wrong to, or we should do this as a point of principle”: we just want to work through the issues with the museums. At the moment, we have been working through the terms of reference for what that working group would be looking at, and we are not planning to come to any conclusions before the autumn.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, the much-anticipated return of the Bayeux Tapestry to the UK, to be exhibited at the British Museum, reminds us of the value of sponsorship, philanthropy, cultural diplomacy, soft power and, on a more practical level, the need for conservation skills, and indeed curatorial ones. How do the Government intend to support such skills going forward? We welcome their curriculum review, but when are we going to see actual action that reverses the years of arts education and these skills being marginalised?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am delighted, as I know the noble Baroness is, that the UK has been able to agree the loan with France of the Bayeux Tapestry. The noble Baroness correctly identified that skills are at the heart of any future policy. Every single conversation I have at every single institution I visit focuses on skills, and I have done a number of round tables around this. This particular area of curatorial skills is one that I know the museums are keen to explore. Getting our young children into museums is the first step in them stepping off on the journey of a career in the sector.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, HMRC’s own definition of free admission requires that the public can enter without pre-booking. Has the department taken legal advice on whether any charging scheme, even a partial one for foreigners, would disqualify museums from Section 33A of VAT relief entirely?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his really constructive engagement with me over the months I have been the Minister for this area. In terms of Section 33A, we are working across government and with the museums to understand the impacts. We will look to find solutions to any operational issues as the discussions take place over the coming weeks and months, and my officials are working with their counterparts in the Treasury.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would agree with me that the introduction of the free entry scheme by the Labour Government in 1997 was one of the glories of that Government’s achievements. It would be an enormous pity if that were to be diluted at this stage—although, of course, we all understand that the income streams museums are able to draw on are diminishing, and that the real-terms value of what they get in public funding has diminished since 2010. Can she expand a little on what other ways of increasing income streams she and her department are discussing with the museum sector to avoid having to put charging back on the agenda?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree that it has been an iconic policy. We are just at the very early stages of exploring this. However, we are clear that we should be looking at ways to increase access for all young people from underrepresented groups from the UK. Unfortunately, the most recent DCMS participation survey demonstrated that there are still geographical and economic disparities in terms of who visits our museums.
In terms of other income streams, we had a very interesting debate last week on philanthropy and I think we are going to see some major developments at the National Gallery as a result of that. Most museums are diversifying their economic and events work, and they are all exploring a whole range of ways. The Government have invested considerable amounts of money through our Arts Everywhere funding and schemes such as the museum renewal fund, which we delivered last year and was specifically around bringing resilience to some of our regional and civic museums.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think we all know that money is very tight and getting tighter. I am trying to understand why the very distinguished trustees, who are charged with governing these great institutions, cannot be trusted to decide themselves on the charging or non-charging policy.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
This has been a national scheme, so we are working with the museums. Most museums would charge for special exhibitions. We are working with the museums to identify how this might work in practice. Clearly, one of the ways would be for museums to take a decision through their trustees.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I note my interest as a steward of a modestly successful but long-standing private heritage enterprise in Devon. We compete with three national museums and galleries, as well as with well-heeled charities such as the National Trust, for tourists’ visits, both domestic and foreign. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that those institutions should not fear fair competition with privately owned heritage, which is a globally recognised strength of our national culture and identity?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure that there is fear baked into their concerns, but I recognise that there are a large number of museums out there that do charge. Where museums charge, they tend to be quite modestly priced. The issues that we are exploring are broader than that. We will look at the whole range of things and could look at whether there is an issue around competition with other institutions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to hear that this is a policy under active consideration in Whitehall. As the Minister said, it is a complex matter. As the Government look at this, will she ensure that they look at all the implications and practicalities, such as how we actually identify the nationality of people in a nation without ID cards and the impact on British people of ethnic minority backgrounds and, of course, on the many generous donors and benefactors who have given money, grants and gifts to museums and galleries down the ages on the understanding that they would remain free for everybody, as was the policy that the last Labour Government brought in?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Absolutely: we will be looking at all those things. Indeed, when I spoke to the national museums directly, these were some of the issues that came up.
For Women Scotland Case
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they intend to implement the Supreme Court judgement in the For Women Scotland case within Government departments to ensure full compliance with the law.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Supreme Court ruling brings clarity for women and service providers. We expect all duty bearers to follow the law and seek legal advice where necessary, and this includes government departments. Departments have been updating policies following the Supreme Court ruling. Internal Civil Service guidance is also currently under review. We will ensure that any guidance is consistent with the code of practice for services, public functions and associations.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. A quarter of all women have experienced male violence at least once in their lives. That is one reason why biological males are excluded from women’s safe spaces—except, that is, in government. For more than a year, the Government have failed women by not restoring their single-sex spaces. The Empire State Building was built in a year and 45 days, but that does not seem to be enough time for the Government to sort out some toilets. Either the Government do not really care about the safety of women and girls or they are just incompetent. Which is it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I have said before that this is a complex issue. It has also been a debate—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Can I just say this? It has been a debate that has been rather toxic. What we need is a bit of understanding and compassion. There has been no delay. We have been looking at this very carefully and we have been clear that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. There is no doubt about that. We have not been delaying anything. We have been clear from the beginning that the Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. If people have any doubt about it, they can seek legal advice. There are complex issues in relation to policies and procedures, not least that we have clear legal obligations to ensure that there is equality and fair treatment for all in every sector of our employment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask my noble friend the Minister a practical question relating to the place that we all work in? The Government have responsibilities not only for the Whitehall department but for the Palace of Westminster, which is, as noble Lords know, a grade 1 listed historic building, presenting a particular architectural challenge. Can my noble friend say whether guidance on implementing the judgment will include practical advice on accommodating third spaces in buildings where structural adaptation is constrained and whether we are going to receive that notice and advice in time to act on it? Indeed, will it be incorporated into the R&R proposals?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend will understand that I must declare an interest: I am on the programme board for R&R. The original legislation made it clear that accessibility and equality are key parts of the R&R programme. That is the most important thing. It is not simply about access to toilets; people cannot even get around this building, and that is an issue that we need to address. I am afraid I cannot be tempted to comment on the code. As my noble friend knows, that is now subject to purdah, but I can say that we have asked the EHRC to provide information on costs so that Ministers can make a fully informed decision. That is part of the process. We have asked the EHRC to provide a de minimis proportionate cost assessment so that Ministers can have sight of the cost implications that the guidance will incur when taking their decision.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, it is becoming a little repetitive for the House to hear for over a year that the Government must comply with the law of the land. We understand that the Minister’s role is to represent the Government, so I wonder why he cannot explain why he is not complying with the law. He has mentioned the pre-election sensitivity period now, which is the latest reason given by the Government for not laying the EHRC code of practice. I have looked it up and more than 60 statutory instruments have been laid during this period. That pre-election guidance, published by his Government on 2 March, applies only to primary legislation. Will the Minister tell the House whether he has consulted the Permanent Secretary of the Cabinet Office and/or the legislative secretariat of the Cabinet Office to find out whether he can lay the code? If he has not done so, why not? Will he also lay that advice in the Library for all to see?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have huge respect for the noble Baroness, but I do not accept for one moment that there has been a deliberate delay in implementing this code. I have been very clear. These are complex issues and they need proper consideration. The purdah arrangements are clear. We have received advice from the Cabinet Secretary. I have been very clear that we cannot comment on the code. The Government have made a commitment that the code will be laid as soon as possible after the election. That means in May—not in spring, not in six months, in May. We are being very clear. Cat Little, the Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary, wrote to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s chair to explain the background to the Minister’s Statement on 14 April. That letter is in the Library of the House of Commons. It clarifies restrictions during pre-election periods as set out in the guidance to civil servants. It is absolutely clear. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are following proper process in relation to this code.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, on 16 April, the one-year anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court judgment confirming that sex in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex, the Conservative Party announced that Conservative-run councils will publish clear, legally compliant policies on single-sex spaces and services. I also confirm that Conservative-run councils will publish their own single-sex policies and ensure that they are operational. Conservative-run councils will also act to ensure that funding and contracts will be withdrawn from third-party providers that do not comply with the law. Will the Government act now to ensure that Labour-run councils—indeed, all councils—understand that they must comply with the law?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not understand why I need to repeat myself so often. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear. The Supreme Court judgment must be complied with. It is the law. Whether or not the Conservative Party needs to explain to the electorate, “We will comply with the law”, there is no doubt about it: we will ensure that the law is complied with. However, there are implications for policies that need to be properly examined, which is why we have the code and why it needs to be considered as a whole. It is disingenuous to constantly say, “Conservative councils will comply with the law” when every council has an obligation to comply with it.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, may I state the obvious? Trans people pose a threat to no one; lawbreakers pose the threat. Having said that, given that trans people represent approximately 0.55% of the population in England according to the 2021 census, can my noble friend the Minister say what assessment the Government have made of the cost to the public purse of adapting facilities across central government departments to comply with the judgment and whether that assessment has been shared with the Treasury?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. There has been constant reference to the Government’s position on the protection of women, and we are absolutely committed to ensure that we can absolutely say that violence against women and girls is a thing of the past. We are absolutely determined to end that. Violence against women and girls is not about toilets. But we have been very clear on single-sex spaces, and the Supreme Court judgment is clear. To answer the specific question from my noble friend, we have asked the EHRC to consider costs so that we can have a full consideration of the implications of those costs before a decision is made. However, I will not be tempted into commenting on the contents of the code because of the purdah arrangements that are in place.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thought it would be useful to update noble Lords on the plan for business today and tomorrow. Today, after the brief business in the name of the Senior Deputy Speaker, the House will consider the messages from the House of Commons on the Crime and Policing Bill and the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Noble Lords will then debate some regulations and an associated Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, before we take questions on a Statement made in the House of Commons on recent antisemitic attacks.
I expect that we will also receive messages today from the Commons on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill. These will also be considered today, after debates on the Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations and the Oral Statement. Once the messages have arrived and are available in the Printed Paper Office, noble Lords will have one hour to table any Motions. The precise deadlines for tabling will be advertised on the annunciator and via the usual channels, once they are known. However, I strongly encourage any noble Lord considering tabling to discuss this in advance with the Public Bill Office.
I expect that when the questions on the Statement conclude, we will be ready to consider the message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by the message on the Pension Schemes Bill. If that needs to change, I will update the House via the annunciator and make further announcements in the Chamber as necessary. This may include adjourning during pleasure while we await debate on the messages.
Tomorrow, noble Lords will have an opportunity to further scrutinise messages from the House of Commons on all Bills left in play after today’s debates. If we send either the Crime and Policing Bill or the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill back to the other place today, I expect that it will consider those Bills and return them to our House later today. The deadlines for tabling Motions on both Bills will therefore be 11 am tomorrow and they will be considered after Oral Questions. If further consideration on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill and the Pension Schemes Bill is needed tomorrow, I will update noble Lords on the plan after Oral Questions tomorrow.
City of London (Markets) Bill
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That this House do agree with the order made by the Commons set out in their message of 23 April; that the promoter of the City of London (Markets) Bill, which was originally introduced in this House in this Session on 22 January 2025, should have leave to suspend proceedings on the bill from the day on which the current Session ends in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 188A (Suspension of bills).
Crime and Policing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2H to Commons Amendment 2F and its Amendment 2J to Commons Amendment 2G, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2K to Commons Amendment 2F and Amendment 2L to Commons Amendment 2G in lieu.
“(d) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1)(a) and (b) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””
“(c) after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must comply with the duty in subsection (A1) within 6 months of the day on which the Crime and Policing Act 2026 is passed.””
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motion B. We have had just over 18 months in both Houses on this Bill. I very much hope that we are now debating the Crime and Policing Bill for the very last time. Your Lordships’ House has quite properly discharged its role as a revising Chamber on a number of occasions. We have now asked the Commons to consider and reconsider the two outstanding issues before us today not once, not twice but on three occasions. The Commons, as is its right, made its views perfectly clear on 14 April, 20 April and 22 April. On each occasion it has rejected the Lords amendments by majorities exceeding 100. I suggest, respectfully, to your Lordships’ House that the time has come to heed the clearly and repeatedly expressed views of the elected House.
I know the issue of fixed penalty notices has been one of importance, and I have listened very carefully to the well-made arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Indeed, we have acknowledged some of the concerns he has raised about the actions of some contractors. We have now enshrined in the Bill a requirement to issue statutory guidance about the use of fixed penalty notices to enforce public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. We are also committed, thanks again to pressure from the noble Lord and others, to issuing such guidance within six months of Royal Assent, and I have already said I will share the guidance with the noble Lord before it is issued.
I know the noble Lord is disappointed we have not gone further, but we have concerns that his amendments would, effectively, terminate the legitimate use of private contractors to enforce anti-social behaviour civil orders, to the detriment of the safety and security of local communities who want to see effective action to tackle anti-social behaviour. I also welcome the fact that, when the Bill was again debated in the Commons last Wednesday, Max Wilkinson, speaking for the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, indicated that he would not press the issue further. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will do today, but I hope he would similarly now agree to be content and agree Motion A.
Turning to proscription of the IRGC, we have had several opportunities to discuss the stall on this matter, and there is little more to be said. I have been very clear that Amendment 439 is not one the Government can accept, but I have also been very clear that this Government have and will continue to take strong action to hold the Iranian regime to account by sanctioning Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC, as well as placing Iran on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Indeed, the Prime Minister reiterated last week that we are also committed to introduce legislation to provide for a proscription-like power to address the threat of hostile activity posed by the state and state-linked bodies. Work on this legislation is well under way and, without pre-empting the King’s Speech, your Lordships can expect to see more soon.
The Commons has now endorsed the Government’s position in voting to reject the Lords amendment on three separate occasions over the past two weeks. There can be no doubt about where the elected House stands on this issue, and I respectfully submit that there is nothing to be gained from sending the amendment back to the Commons. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the whole House will agree to Motion B and, in doing so, I also hope that he will recognise that the Government have a strong view on the situation in Iran and the Iranian regime, which I have outlined. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to respond to the Government’s Motion A regarding the issuing of fixed penalty notices for anti-social behaviour. I thank the Minister for all his efforts. Throughout this process, he has demonstrated good will but, without making any great classical allusions, this has felt very much like pushing a boulder uphill. At each stage of the Bill’s passage, we have had to push the Government incredibly hard to recognise the sheer scale of the problem regarding the cowboy enforcement economy that has been preying on the public. However, I am pleased to say that this persistence has finally paid off, and genuine progress has been made.
By accepting the Government’s latest amendment today, we are securing the necessary safeguards, through statutory guidance which must be delivered within six months of Royal Assent, to make sure that local authorities cannot incentivise private contractors to fine for the breach of public spaces protection orders and community protection notices. For far too long, the system has allowed a revenue collection industry to masquerade as justice, with private companies retaining the vast majority of fine income and aggressively targeting people for anodyne actions. With this amendment now in place, our citizens will be much better protected against the cowboys who have sought to abuse these enforcement powers for their own financial gain.
While the journey to get here has required relentless pressure from these Benches and across the House—and I sincerely thank the Conservative Benches for their solid support throughout—the outcome is a significant victory for fairness and proportionality in our justice system, and I am content, therefore, to accept the Government’s latest amendment.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government will share the draft statutory guidance before it is issued. We know roughly what wording the Home Office has in mind—that of the Defra guidance on litter—but the consultation process on the new guidance will be important. I hope that the Minister can doubly assure us that the Home Office will consult not only with local government but with those who have been instrumental in raising this fining-for-profit issue during the passage of the Bill, such as myself and the Campaign for Freedom in Everyday Life, formerly the Manifesto Club.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, despite everything that the Minister has said on proscription of the IRGC, we are now in something of an Alice in Wonderland world. The Prime Minister has told the media in recent days that the Government propose to introduce further legislation to address state threats. Such legislation has been reported by the BBC, among others, as enabling the Government to ban state-related organisations such as the IRGC. The Prime Minister has said that the King’s Speech next month will commit to such legislation. Yet the Terrorism Act already permits such a ban: Section 1(4) states that terrorist action includes action outside the UK; the public affected includes the public of a country outside the UK; and the Government affected means the Government of another country as well as the Government of the UK. Therefore, terrorism is specifically international. Section 3, as we know, permits the proscription of terrorist organisations without limiting them to UK organisations or UK terrorism.
The Government know this. As we heard last week, the Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, and the present Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper—herself a former Home Secretary—specifically called for proscription of the IRGC while in opposition, just as we on these Benches have consistently called for it. Nobody but nobody has said that there has been no power to proscribe the IRGC because it is state-related.
The EU, led by France and Italy, as well as Australia, the United States, Canada and several of the Gulf states, have all proscribed the IRGC. Yet the Government, despite previous Labour policy, have promised Parliament only an anodyne statement about
“the general policies and procedures of the Secretary of State in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers under Section 3”.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, called that patronising. It is worse than that. Despite their previous policy, the Government rely only on the repeated mantra that they will not give a running commentary on decisions on proscription.
The IRGC is connected, on very substantial evidence, not only to the appalling oppression and murder of protesters in Iran in December and January, but to multiple acts of terrorism in the UK and abroad. There are clear links with antisemitic attacks here and elsewhere in Europe and the world, including on synagogues. The UK Maritime Trade Operations Centre, responsible for monitoring and assisting international shipping, has reported on large numbers of attacks on cargo ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz, which are carried out by the IRGC or connected entities.
We recognise, of course, that the Government have a strong view on the Iranian regime, as the Minister rightly said, yet they have said to Parliament that we are not entitled to an explanation of why the IRGC is not to be proscribed but must wait for further legislation targeted at state-related organisations for such proscription. Yet, if indeed the new legislation is to involve the implementation of the recommendations of Jonathan Hall KC, in his recent report updated in January, that was aimed at improving legislation on state threats under the National Security Act and the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act. For the proscription of the IRGC under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act, such new legislation is unnecessary and a red herring.
We should continue to demand a proper and timely explanation of what the Government intend to do and when, subject, we agree of course, to the provision of confidential information being restricted to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We support the Conservative Motion B1, and if the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will vote for his Motion.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the House should take account of two factors. My understanding of the advice from the much-respected Jonathan Hall, the Government’s adviser on terrorism legislation, is that specific new legislation is required to ensure that malign state actors can be proscribed and dealt with.
Secondly, the House should take account of the fact that, on a visit to Kenton synagogue last Thursday—one of the synagogues that has been subjected to a disgraceful firebomb attack—the Prime Minister gave what I understand to be a very clear commitment:
“We go into a new session in a few weeks’ time, and we’ll bring that legislation forward”.
It is true that the Prime Minister has not specifically committed to proscribe the IRGC, but my understanding is that that is because the Government never give advance notice of who they are going to proscribe. If the Government do not carry out these commitments, do not bring forward legislation and do not implement it very speedily, I would regard that as a very serious breach of faith and this House will no doubt have much to say about it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we return to this highly important matter once again. I know that the Government will not appreciate this, but it is our duty in this House to hold them to account for their promises.
When in opposition, the Labour Party committed to proscribing the IRGC; it has now voted against this six times. On Wednesday, the Minister for Policing and Crime, Sarah Jones, said that
“we are reaching the stage where the issue before the House is no longer the detail of the various Lords’ amendments, but whether the unelected Lords should continue to disregard the clearly and unequivocally expressed views of the House of Commons and delay the enactment of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/26; col. 398.]
I take particular exception to this. It is wrong and entirely incorrect to claim that this House is somehow acting inappropriately. There is nothing out of the ordinary for this House to insist on an issue as important as this. I remind the Minister how many rounds of ping-pong we had on the safety of Rwanda Bill: this House sent the Bill back to the Commons five times. That is not a criticism but a fact: it is this House’s right to do so. It is not acceptable to have Ministers in this Government seeking to delegitimise the important work of this House. I hope the Government will reflect on that.
There has been a consistent thread of criticism of this amendment from the Government, which I would like to address. Last week, the Minister said
“the Government do not provide a running commentary on which organisations are being considered for proscription”,—[Official Report, 22/4/26; col. 692.]
but this completely misunderstands the argument. I am not asking the Minister to give a “running commentary” on proscription nor am I asking the Government to air sensitive information in public. All I am asking is for the Government to get on with it and proscribe the IRGC. The Minister does not need to provide a running commentary; he just needs to agree the amendment.
I note that there has been some progress now. The Prime Minister said on Friday that the Government will move to proscribe the IRGC in the new Session, so it seems that he is now willing to give us a running commentary on organisations being considered for proscription. That is good news—providing he remains in post, of course.
I welcome that the Government have finally remembered the promises they made in opposition. It is testament to the determined campaigning on this matter from organisations around the country and opposition parties in this Parliament. However, why has it taken the Government so long? It is an incomprehensible position. They have had ample opportunity, during the passage of the Bill, simply to say what the Prime Minister said on Friday. This is disappointing. Regardless of that, the Government have said that they will now move to proscribe the IRGC, and all that remains is to press the Minister on timelines. This cannot wait for months and months; we are all united in our support for this.
I have sought assurance on when the Government will bring forward the legislation. Unfortunately, they have refused to tell us when. This is completely unacceptable at a time when we need strong and decisive leadership in the national interest. We have a Government and a Prime Minister who take months to make a decision and, once they have made that decision, then cannot commit to even a basic deadline. We have seen this time and time again with the Government: refusal to give Parliament even the most basic of assurances on when they will do things that they have promised to do. It is time for the Government to put their money where their mouth is and get on with the promises they made. It is with some trepidation that I accept what the Minister said, but he should be sure that we will hold the Government to account.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion or not.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is very gracious. I will keep an eye out for it.
I am pleased that we have made some progress. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his pragmatic approach. I know that he would have liked the Government to go further on the issue of fixed penalty notices. I know he will be holding me to account on the question of statutory guidance and monitoring. But we have achieved some form of settlement and I am grateful to him for agreeing that today.
On the question of proscription, as I said, I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord intends to press his Motion, but I say to him that the elected House has made its views known by significant majorities on a number of occasions now. It has made its views known, supporting the argument that I have deployed in this House: that we do not give a running commentary on proscription. I point to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said: the Prime Minister said last week that the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly, and we will be looking to bring forward this legislation as soon as we can. By “this legislation” he does not mean a running commentary on proscription under the powers in the 2000 Act; he means legislation on the potential for a revised state threats proscription-like regime, as recommended by Jonathan Fisher KC—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I got my Fishers and Halls mixed up. It was recommended by Jonathan Hall KC in his recent report to the Government.
We cannot anticipate what the King’s Speech will say, but I repeat to the noble Lord, for clarity, that the Prime Minister said the Government understand the need for action, the second Session starts very shortly and we are looking to bring legislation forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, made a strong case for proscription. But I put to him that the Government have made their view clear. They will share information on state threats with the ISC in due course, but I will not comment on what the Government will do on proscription according to a random deadline set by a Motion in this House without the full facts being examined in a public way.
In the past, on organisations proposed for proscription, we have tabled Motions in both Houses of Parliament and argued why we wanted to table those Motions. We have done that without giving prior knowledge to the organisations we are seeking to proscribe. We have done that under the 2000 Act.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said what he said on the visit to the synagogue last week. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will give the Government the opportunity to fulfil that, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we will be held to account on an article of faith in relation to what the Prime Minister said. But I cannot today, in this House, give either an agreement to proscribe the IRGC within the timescale that the noble Lord has put in his Motion, nor can I pre-empt the King’s Speech later next month, because that is what the King’s Speech is for. So I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not press his Motion.
Lord Hanson of Flint
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Davies of Gower
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 439E and 439F and do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 439C and 439D.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the opposition parties for their support, particularly the Liberal Democrats for their unswerving support and appreciation of the seriousness of the issue. I would have preferred to have something more positive from the Minister, and we will hold the Government to account, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, as we are still awaiting the Minister for the next business—we moved a little faster than we were expecting—we will adjourn during pleasure for five minutes, until the Minister arrives.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:12 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 165 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, to which the Commons have disagreed, and do propose Amendments 38Z1 to 38Z9 to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of Amendments 38V to 38X—
(a) the different ways in which an internet service of a particular kind is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children, and
(b) the fact that children of different ages may be affected by an internet service, or a functionality or other feature of an internet service, in different ways.”
“(8A) The Secretary of State—
(a) must exercise the power under subsection (1) so as to make such provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate following the conclusion of the consultation entitled “Growing up in the online world: a national consultation” launched on 2 March 2026 (command paper numbered CP 1528), and
(b) must, in exercising that power, have regard to the responses to the consultation.”
“(1A) The timeline must provide for the first regulations to be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the statement is laid under subsection (1).”
“(3) If the first regulations have not been laid before Parliament before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1A)—
(a) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement explaining why, and
(b) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the statement under paragraph (a) is laid, the Secretary of State must lay the first regulations before Parliament.
(4) References in this section to the laying before Parliament of the first regulations are to the laying before Parliament of a draft of a statutory instrument containing the first regulations.”
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions A1, A2, B, C and C1. With this group, we are debating amendments made in this House and the other place relating to a social media ban for under-16s, mobile phones in schools, and school admissions. Before getting into the details of the Motions and amendments before us, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lloyd of Effra and myself, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with us, ministerial colleagues and departmental officials throughout the Bill’s passage, and particularly during this rather fast-paced bit of ping-pong that we are now engaged in.
We are, hopefully, at the very end of this parliamentary Session and today brings us to the third round of ping-pong on this important Bill. That is beyond the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord True, has generally seen as the juncture at which the unelected House should give way to the House of Commons. Noble Lords will be familiar with my history as a Member of and ministerial officeholder in the other place. That House has now spoken clearly on the matters before us on multiple occasions, endorsing the Government’s alternative proposals. I recognise, however, now that I am a Member of this place, that perhaps one advantage of noble Lords is their ability to scrutinise in detail and to push successfully for revision of government proposals. We have seen that throughout the course of consideration of this Bill. For example, for each of the issues that we are debating again this afternoon, the Government have recognised the strength of feeling expressed both here and in the other place, and we have responded on each one.
I will set out the important package of amendments that the Government have tabled to better protect children online. Once again, I am grateful for the constructive debate and committed engagement of noble Lords on this. In light of these discussions, we have strengthened our position, responding directly to your Lordships’ concerns about urgency, scope and parliamentary scrutiny. To put beyond any doubt that this Government will act in a way that responds to the concerns of your Lordships’ House, we have now gone further still. Under my Motion, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. This removes any question of whether action will follow, while rightly allowing the detail of that action to be shaped by the evidence and by those most affected: the parents and children who have already responded to the consultation in their thousands.
The Government have now also committed to a timeline in the Bill. I am aware that there has been some commentary on this proposed timeline over the weekend, and I will therefore set out our position clearly to inform this debate. This Government are committed to moving as quickly as possible on this important issue. The timeline set out in our power is a ceiling, not a target. I recognise that there are particular concerns regarding the inclusion of an option for the Secretary of State to further extend the timeline. To be clear, this extension would be deployed only in exceptional unforeseen circumstances that prevent the Government meeting the original deadline. This is not a means of delaying regulation but a measure of last resort, to be used only if absolutely necessary. Noble Lords should therefore think of the implementation timescale as 24 months at the outside, rather than any longer, and remain mindful of my earlier remarks about this being a ceiling, not a target.
We have also listened carefully to concerns about harmful and potentially addictive design features. As noble Lords will know, the consultation seeks views on restrictions to addictive features and functionalities, and we have therefore tabled a further amendment specifically requiring the Secretary of State to have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power, ensuring that these risks are properly addressed in the legislation.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that, taken together, these changes demonstrate the Government’s determination to proceed with this work and to do so in a manner that meets the concerns raised across both Houses. They provide certainty of action, a clear timetable and stronger recognition of harmful and addictive design. This is a balanced, evidence-led approach that protects children now and remains fit for the digital challenges ahead. I hope noble Lords will recognise this as a credible and responsible landing point, and support the Government’s amendment to deliver strong, effective and decisive action.
Motion A1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, insists on the same amendment that was brought to the House last week and would amend government Amendment 38J. It would require the Secretary of State to restrict under-16s from accessing user-to-user services or to restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. I thank the noble Lord and his supporters again for their sustained focus on these vital issues. Protecting children online is not a point of difference between us; it is a shared priority that this Government are determined to deliver on. I welcome the progress already made and the constructive way in which the noble Lord’s amendment now reflects the Government’s approach. However, the government consultation and the legislative means in the Government’s amendment are the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes for children that will last.
The noble Lord’s amendment also specifies the age of 16 for restrictions. We cannot place an under-16 age limit in the Bill; doing so would require the Government to act before the evidence-gathering process is complete and would pre-empt the consultation. The consultation has already received more than 55,000 responses, demonstrating the public’s desire to shape the Government’s approach—and it is right that we listen to them. We recognise that many restrictions may be appropriate for age 16; there may also be specific interventions better suited for those over 16. Many Members of this House have rightly recognised that children of different ages interact with these services differently, which is why the government power now specifically acknowledges this.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, I must inform the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Motion A2 by reason of pre-emption.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Nash
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J.”
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion A1 and my amendment on social media. Discussions have taken place with the Government and I thank them for their engagement, but we have not yet reached an agreement and I will put this matter to a vote today.
I note the change from “may” to “must”, but it is not a “must” to do anything very specific. However, based on statements that the Prime Minister has made, I believe we are at one on the features of social media that should not be available to children. He said the
“algorithms, clearly to my mind, shouldn’t be permitted”
and that “they must go”. He has said:
“Things can’t go on like this, they must change because right now social media is putting our children at risk”; “I don’t think the next generation would forgive us if we didn’t act now”; “My government will not leave parents to face this battle alone”; “There’s an overwhelming case and that’s why we have to act”; “We’ve taken the powers to make sure we can act within months, not years”.
However, the Government’s new amendment gives them 36 months to lay the first regulations. I understand that Ministers are arguing in the other place that they need three years to lay the first regulations because they fear the possibility of a judicial review, though they have not explained by whom or why. The reality is that a judicial review would not be brought until the Government have announced their plans and published draft regulations. There is always a risk of judicial review when making regulations, but if the Government specify in the Bill in clear terms what they intend to do, there would be a much-reduced risk of JR. If an Act of Parliament requires the Government to act in a particular way, the courts cannot and will not intervene. Parliament is sovereign. Were they to accept my proposals, which would put greater detail in the Bill about matters on which we appear to agree—how and when Ministers must raise the age of access to certain social media features—they would substantially reduce the chance of judicial review. Insisting on their vague discretionary powers would only increase the risk for Ministers.
I will share some evidence that I have come across from recent social media cases. Meta staff discussed how Instagram, a Meta platform, is a drug and said: “We’re basically pushers”. Meta’s own testing found that its algorithms were recommending nearly four times as many children to suspected groomers as to ordinary adults—close to 2 million minors in three months, with 22% of those recommendations resulting in a follow-up request. A Meta safety manager put the number of child victims of inappropriate interactions at 500,000 per day in English-speaking markets alone. One can now buy online an AI agent which enables a male adult to pretend to be a girl, contact a young boy through social media, persuade him to send nude images of himself and then blackmail him. This is sextortion, which has resulted in a number of suicides by young boys. One social media site is particularly well known as the medium for this.
Concerning the Government’s proposals on “must”, not “may”, curfews or time limits cannot be used to tackle harmful, precision-engineered algorithms and addictive features. If they are harmful, they are harmful. As the Prime Minister said, you cannot expect parents to deal with this on their own. If they focus on parental controls, it will only exacerbate the conflicts that we know already take place every night in households across the country.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Motion A2. Before I do, however, I wish to say that if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to divide the House on Motion C1, I will support her. I hope, though, that some other accommodation has been made.
Motion A2 is deliberately drafted so that a successful vote for Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, will automatically pre-empt it. That is intentional, and I wish to be clear at the outset that I will vote for Motion A1 alongside the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Indeed, we can be seen as a bit of a double act, with the noble Lord’s Motion capturing the urgent need for action, and my Motion providing a more comprehensive outline of what action should look like.
We are at something of an endgame this week. I have in front of me a chart that compares Motions A, A1 and A2; I would be very happy to send it to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. It shows clearly that government Motion A fails to address key risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks and does not totally tackle additional risks identified by the companies themselves. It shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the fundamental issue of enforcement, without which none of this really matters, because Ofcom will get more duties without having the power to enforce them.
The chart shows clearly that the government Motion fails to address the need for parents to have somewhere to go when their child is at imminent risk of harm. I was very disappointed to hear the Minister talking in her opening remarks about parents going to the police when I explained at such great length, when the Government overturned the chatbot amendments, that when a family goes to the police, the police say there is no perpetrator and that they cannot deal with chatbots. It also shows clearly and quite astonishingly that the Government have no sense of urgency. The government Motion gives them three years to introduce measures. If that was not so egregious, it would be quite funny: they have given themselves their entire term of office to bring forward duties that we then do not believe are possible to properly enforce, and all with no role for Parliament.
As I said to the House last week, the online world is more dangerous for children than it was two years ago, yet the Government have refused to engage with the substance of my concerns. Motion A2 offers a guide for what they should be doing. It is bound by the scope of the Bill, but it would be a phenomenal start. The Motion builds on the Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, which will rightly pass again today. Every aspect of the noble Lord’s Motion is also covered in Motion A2. Equally, there is nothing in it that precludes the Government using what they learn from their consultation. In effect, Motion A2 offers the Government something meaningful to offer in lieu of what I hope and believe will be the triumph of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, today.
The Government say that they need the timeline to perfect the details and get this right, but this is a double standard. They have no such concerns for the detail when rolling out data centres, AI in classrooms, giving away creators’ copyright, and putting valuable datasets and government services straight into the pockets of US companies. But when it comes to children, they are overwhelmed by caution and deaf to the cries of pain from parents and teachers, and the demand of children themselves for action. The Minister said in her opening statement that these are matters on which the Government’s amendments would make changes now. Which now? Which change? They have given themselves 30 months to make those changes.
Motion A2 is not aspirational; it sets out the provisions we need for children to be safe online. It requires action within eight months; the prevention of sycophantic, manipulative and exploitative features; compliance with Ofcom’s and the ICO’s children’s codes; that all risks identified by Ofcom’s register of risks or additional risks identified by its services are mitigated; that there is no safe harbour; and mandatory data access for researchers and education for under-16s. It would allow 17 year-olds—a particularly vulnerable group as they go out into their adult life—to have some consideration from Parliament, Ofcom and government as to their safety, and it would bring in executive liability for senior individuals within companies, injunctive relief so that parents have somewhere to go when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual redress, and a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers, including its business disruption powers, within six months.
Again, I say to the Minister: if the review is within scope, bring it forward and make it happen. There has been a single fine, of £50,000, paid under the OSA. Please do not tell the House that enforcement is going to work as it does now.
If we are not here to protect children, why are we here? Whose moral compass are we following? Whose interests are we serving? What outcome are we all working towards? I am a Cross-Bench Peer who, on this issue, sadly, does not enjoy the support of the Official Opposition in the other place nor of the Government in power. Both those facts are a source of immense disappointment. But it is not me but children who are going to pay this price.
I said to the House during the debate on chatbots that if we failed to protect children, we would see more children die. We have failed. Today, I put this on the record so that each one of us understands the price of our inaction.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I speak in strong support of Motion A2 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As I said the last time we debated the Bill, we are united in this House in our objective to protect children online, yet we still differ on how to achieve it. The noble Baroness’s amendment represents the precise, workable and robust framework that our children so desperately need.
We on these Benches welcome recent concessions—and I thank the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Lloyd of Effra, for their engagement—such as the “must” rather than “may” duty, but the Government’s core approach remains flawed. The Government continue to cling to sweeping Henry VIII powers that will allow them to amend primary legislation via secondary regulations, bypassing full parliamentary debate. We need a sunset clause to ensure that this power is not abused in the future. The current proposal of up to three years, possibly, to implement regulations is simply unacceptable. We on these Benches believe that the timeline is the critical issue. Our aspiration is a six plus six model—six months for a progress statement and six months for regulations—rather than the protracted window currently offered.
The Government are focusing on regulating user access, rather than addressing the toxic nature of the platforms themselves. We recognise the new references to “features or functionalities” in the Government’s amendments, but they avoid referring to addiction and do not include a list of prohibited features, nor manipulative features such as penalties for non-engagement or interaction with AI companions. Finally, we are concerned about the enforcement of the Online Safety Act and whether these provisions would be robustly enforceable. Will the Government promise a review?
The last time the Bill was in the House, I expressed our considerable respect for the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and his campaign. However, his central mechanism is a near-blanket ban for under-16s. We on these Benches favour a more proportionate approach. A total ban of this sort would risk creating a dangerous cliff edge—where children are suddenly exposed to an unfiltered internet at 16, without having developed digital resilience—and accidentally blocking essential and safe services, such as educational platforms or Wikipedia.
Motion A2 offers the safety by design alternative, which we on these Benches strongly endorse. These amendments would require tech companies to fundamentally rewrite their code to remove harmful features. The key strengths of Amendment 38Z10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, include specific prohibitions, explicitly targeting addictive design features that hijack a child’s attention, including infinite scrolling, autoplay, AI companions, and push notifications during the school day or at night. It moves beyond assessing risks to explicitly identifying and banning the architectural hooks of social media. It introduces a private right of action, as the noble Baroness explained, allowing children who suffer harm to seek court orders against non-compliant providers. It mandates a review of Ofcom’s enforcement powers to ensure that it is fit for purpose in protecting children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment C1, but I will start with Amendments A1 and A2. The House may be relieved to hear that I am pretty much lost for words in responding to the Government’s position. In the face of overwhelming evidence of a need for urgency to act, most recently from court cases in the US, the Government have chosen the following route. First is to act within three years, which in practice could mean never, given the timing of a general election within that timeframe and another Government taking a different view. Secondly is to avoid putting, as my noble friend Lord Nash stressed, a clear age limit in the Bill in relation to accessing harmful social media. This is essential and entirely possible in relation to gambling and pornography, so I am unclear why the Minister says it is impossible in this case. Thirdly and finally is to omit reference to highly effective age assurance, which we know is the key element for effective implementation and is already working in relation to pornography and gambling.
Our confidence is also rattled because, as I said in an earlier round of ping-pong, the Government almost always quote the one notable charity in this area which has not signed up to the joint statement of principles for online safety signed by more than 40 other charities, and they rarely quote the evidence of health professionals, police and law enforcement bodies, and parents—including, sadly, the growing number of bereaved parents. The Minister talked again about the importance of the consultation and the fact that we have divided views on this issue, but we have divided views on just about every important issue and it is crucial that the Government take a lead on this, so I urge the House to follow the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and give my noble friend’s amendment the support that it deserves.
Turning to Motion B, I recognise again that the Government really have moved in relation to this issue. The vital issues of quality of education and parental preference are now clearly set out.
On my Motion C1 on smartphones in schools, I am genuinely sorry that we are still in a position where we felt it was necessary to table another amendment to clarify the Government’s position. We welcome the progress that has been made in putting the guidance on a statutory footing and the refinement of the case studies included alongside the guidance.
As the Minister referred to, I am very grateful for the meeting I had earlier today with the honourable Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, the Minister responsible for this policy area, who met me and my noble friend Lord Agnew earlier. I took away from that her undoubted personal commitment to see an end to the disruption and distraction caused particularly by smartphones in schools. She stated clearly in our meeting that she did not want children distracted by a smartphone vibrating in their pocket or in their book bag, and we agree with her entirely.
We welcome the comments that the Minister made just now on enforcement and the Government’s commitment to improve the guidance if it becomes apparent that the enforcement is not working. Although I would like to see it sooner—and I hope that when the Minister closes she can give us some timeframe in which the Government would commit to review that—I think the timing of the next behaviour survey would be a good moment to review it. Just to be clear, the 2024-25 behaviour survey showed that 17% of school leaders in secondaries believed that their mobile phone policies were rarely or never followed, and 34% of pupils in the same schools thought they were rarely or never followed. Or, putting it the other way around, 82% of school leaders in secondaries thought that their mobile phone policies were followed all or most of the time, compared with 38% of pupils in the same schools. Sadly, we know who is right in that regard.
Based on the Minister’s reassurance, particularly if she can give us some idea on timing, I will not test the opinion of the House today. I think the message from the Government is clear: they do not want to see “not seen, not heard” policies, particularly in relation to smartphones. To take one quote from a teenage witness in the judicial review of Montgomery and others against the Secretary of State for Education: “‘Not seen, not heard’ didn’t stop us using our smartphones at school, it just made us more discreet”. That was at an outstanding school where enforcement was claimed to be strong.
I appreciate that many noble Lords may feel that we are dancing on the head of one of the smallest pins ever manufactured, but we think this is so important because these policies outsource enforcement to chance; if a smartphone is not seen, effectively it does not exist. It creates huge amounts of work for school staff, with constant low-level boundary testing—pockets, toilets, corridors, under the desk and so forth. It is just not where we want our teachers spending their time, and we do not want children being exposed to harmful or upsetting content through the school day. Over a quarter said they were photographed against their wishes, and almost a third said they thought they would have got higher GCSE grades if they had not had smartphones in school. Educational psychologists are absolutely clear that for neurodivergent children the distraction is even more pronounced. Having a smartphone in their bag makes learning harder because it takes extra mental effort to ignore it, which can make it tougher to focus and push through when work becomes challenging.
We owe it to pupils and teachers to close the loophole in the Government’s position. I hope very much and trust that both Ministers involved will continue to push to do so. If it does not work, I hope that in short order we will see one or two sentences added to the guidance to, in the words of the Government, make it crystal-clear.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. I have listened very carefully to my noble friend the Minister but have the greatest difficulty in understanding why you need a consultation period when dealing with those aged 16 and under. The restraint that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, seeks is to prevent them having access to pornography, which I have described in this House as vile pornography. He is proposing that from the moment the Bill comes into force, there will be a ban for under-16s. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can understand that I speak as a matter of conscience. It is why I support the noble Lord’s Motion.
I speak as a departing hereditary Peer. Regrettably, no time has been allocated for hereditary Peers to say farewell to this House. I am very sad about that, but that is the position. Would your Lordships be kind enough to listen to me, a departing hereditary Peer, saying a brief goodbye to this House?
I first entered this House 54 years ago, in 1972. The House then was very different. There were very few Peeresses—fewer than 10%—and those who were in the House nearly all wore hats. I had the very scary experience, when I was giving my maiden speech, of being attacked by the hatted Baroness Summerskill, who wrongfully attacked my maiden speech. It took me a long time to recover from that attack by the hatted Peeress.
The House in those days was much less proactive. I give a comparison. If you wanted to table an Oral Question, you would go to the Table Office and say, “Have you got a space for me on Thursday of next week?” The answer might be “No, but we can give you a space in 10 days’ time”.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
Can my noble friend come to a close? This is not an appropriate moment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I insist on continuing to speak and am very glad to have support from the Benches over there.
I was comparing the House with the less proactive House 54 years ago and saying how you would go to the Table Office and quickly get an opportunity to table your Question. Look at it now. There is a ballot held almost daily. I do not know the number of Questions in the ballot, but it is probably 30 or 40. This is a great difference.
It has been a great honour to serve this House for over 30 years. I will miss the House and your Lordships very much indeed, but I most sincerely wish your Lordships well. In the new constitution for the House, I do hope that there is a large elected element. That is needed to get a proper constitutional balance between us and the other House.
About 40 years ago, Lord Hailsham—Quintin Hailsham—gave a lecture about the “elected dictatorship”. That is prevailing even more seriously now than it was 40 years ago, with incoming Governments with large majorities completely taking over the legislature—not only in the other House but in this House. We are seeing that during the ping-pong period that we are in now. I leave your Lordships to the ping-ponging that has to be done in the next few days and say farewell, as a hereditary Peer.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I am sure many noble Lords will have the same sentiment as I do in thanking him for his extraordinary service to his country.
I would like to associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, and particularly add my support to Motion A2 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will not repeat those arguments, but I want to make two particular points. It is of great sadness to me that, on this topic, we appear no longer to be working as a collaborative group. Those of us who worked on the Online Safety Act, across all sides of this House and the other place, spent quite a lot of time together discussing how to find common ground. That seems to have been absent in the last couple of weeks. Although I really recognise the effort that both Ministers on the Front Bench today have put into this personally, we have really missed out on trying to find that common ground that I think all of us here want to find to protect children.
As a result, I find myself again supporting my noble friend Lord Nash on an amendment that I really do not like in order to try to get to the amendment that I really do like in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I think that is because we have lost the ability to collaborate on this topic, which is a great shame and something that none of us should feel very proud of. I think there is a path; it is about time, as everyone has been saying. I am afraid I do not believe that “a ceiling, not a target” works. That is not what has happened with the Online Safety Act at any stage. Every ceiling has definitely been a target and some of them have been missed. I am afraid the same is true for the DMCC Act; in this digital world, ceilings definitely become targets.
The Minister says that there is the power to review the enforcement of Ofcom. When are the Government going to use that power? A commitment to use it, to shorten the time and to work collaboratively throughout the consultation would move quite a few of us.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, the Government are arguing that they need much more time to consider the evidence because of the given challenges of enforcement. But the bereaved parents who have lost their children through online harms do not agree. They want action now, not some time in the future.
Last week, I met again the bereaved parents who have written a letter to the Prime Minister. They desperately wanted to meet the Prime Minister personally to show their strength of feeling for having a social media ban for under-16s. To hear their harrowing, heartbreaking stories would make any morally minded person weep. The Prime Minister has met the tech companies: why not also with those who have suffered the tragic losses of their children? The bereaved parents felt so hurt by that. They are seeking change so that other families do not have to go through what they had to endure and still do every day since their loss.
Right now, as we debate at this moment, a child is being affected negatively by social media harms. How many more children will be harmed every day by the dangerous, addictive effects of social media before something is done to stop it as soon as possible? I urge the Prime Minister to meet the bereaved parents to give them hope and security; for the Government to accept the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, for the sake of our children’s future happiness and mental well-being; and to give the nation’s thanks to all the bereaved parents who are fighting and campaigning for change. Let us not let them down. Let us act now. Remember, as I keep saying, childhood lasts a lifetime.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that it will be source of huge disappointment to all noble Lords that I do not intend to give a valedictory speech.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Indeed.
I thank the Minister for responding to the points I raised on educational technology at the last round of ping-pong. It has an awful lot of consultation in it, rather than action, which is emblematic of the situation we find ourselves in.
We went through only one round of ping-pong on the Online Safety Act, the reason being, as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, that there was a degree of cross-party accord, which went to the nub of the problems, along with genuine interaction between the key parties and a willingness to listen to one another. I am sorry that we do not seem to be in quite the same place today.
I support Motion A1, from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and particularly Motion A2, in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. I am not sure that a social media ban is the perfect solution—I am not sure there is one—but the intent is to concentrate the Government’s mind.
If noble Lords want to see what leadership in this area looks like, I draw attention to a column in the Financial Times of 17 April by no less a person than the Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sánchez. He is doing two things simultaneously: he is standing up to our occasional friend across the Atlantic, who is currently probably testing His Majesty’s patience somewhat, but I am sure will be fuelling his sense of humour, probably unintentionally. Secondly, what the Prime Minister of Spain wrote was clear and unequivocal: on protecting under-16 year-olds on social media, consultation and talking about it are not enough: what is required is action.
His Majesty’s Government really must do better on this account. They are telling us, at least if we believe the press, that we are thinking about trying to get closer to our erstwhile colleagues in the European Union. Within Europe, France, Norway and Spain have all said quite unequivocally that they will move to protect from social media children under the age of 16 and, in one case, 15. By working together, all of us who might take this as a course of action will come across the same problems. Australia is coming up with ingenious ways to get around it and the ways in which the companies are reacting. Talking to each other to find a joint approach, to find out where the loopholes are and to close them together, is surely an intelligent way to respond to this, rather than trying to go it alone.
On Motion A2, His Majesty’s Government really do not need a consultation. All they need to do is shut themselves in a room with my noble friend Lady Kidron, who would be able to tell them, with her eyes closed, exactly what they need to do to get action and results.
The Minister mentioned that she was very grateful for her interaction with a variety of people across the House on this subject. One person who has largely not been included in those discussions is my noble friend Lady Kidron. If there are any meetings, guess who is usually the last to be met? That is a compliment to the noble Baroness: they know she will ask some extremely awkward questions and will almost certainly know a great deal more than the Ministers, who are not experts, but also than the so-called experts who are advising them. But that is not the intelligent way to go about this.
As a backdrop, the columnist Gideon Rachman has written a piece in the Financial Times entitled, “Are Europe and America headed for divorce?” I suggest to the Government that looking over their shoulder, which they have done since they took office, and worrying about what the United States might or might not do or think, is getting us nowhere. If it comes to a choice between looking after our children and protecting them as quickly as possible, and worrying about what the US might do to react and whether that could hurt us economically, surely that is not a proper choice. Children, obviously, come first, and I implore the Government to follow that route.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, it is a source of great regret to me that I will be following the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and possibly the noble Lord, Lord Nash, into the Lobbies, because I think the Government are making a mistake here. We should have been much more courageous in addressing these problems.
I am mindful of the fact that the United States of America is making life rather difficult for us at the moment, because taking any kind of independent stance seems to be a reason to be roundly scorned by the United States President, but there has to be a moment when we take a stand. We have done it with the war in Iran and it would be right to do it here, for the very reasons that have been expounded by others already, which is that this is about protecting our children. We are making a grievous mistake by not listening to those voices about the need for us to work in coalition on this and not to make it something that we worry about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, just said, we have to be prepared to stand up to the technology oligarchs who basically do not want any regulation at all. We have to be brave and courageous, in this area, in empowering Ofcom to do its job properly and in protecting those whose lives are made so difficult in trying to restrain their children from using these phones in the ways that we have heard about. I really regret it, because I do not want to disagree with the Government at the moment, but we should see that there are principles that must be adhered to here. I hope that other colleagues on these Benches see this as too important for us to put off for three long years.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for all the service that he has given over many years. It was an absolute pleasure to join him at the dining table before this debate to exchange views about his long history here and his guidance to me as one of the younger Members of your Lordships’ House. We will miss him dearly.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I was intending basically to agree with my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. I therefore had not intended to speak on issues around social media. However, I have to say that I agree with not only my noble friend but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. This is a plea to the Government Ministers—both the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Lloyd, have engaged with all of us and we thank them for the time that they have taken to speak to us—that we are not that far apart.
As your Lordships can clearly tell from opinions right across the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, whom I also thank for her contributions, we all want the same thing. Here is a radical plan: why do we not all get together once, in a single room, to see if we can thrash something out, because we know that the clock is ticking. As my noble friend Lady Benjamin said, there are people out there awaiting our actions, so we clearly need to move at pace. I hope that, when the Minister gets up, she reflects on what has been said.
I will concentrate on smartphones in schools and share the comments of Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said:
“School leaders are as concerned as everyone about the impact of social media and phones on children and young people. NAHT has supported calls for a ban on pupils using smartphones during the school day”.
These Benches agree with that important point. He went on to say:
“Statutory guidance will give school leaders the clarity they need to implement a ban, and will remove any ambiguity or differences between how schools approach smartphone policies. Schools will only then need to decide how to implement and enforce a ban across their school community and the government must provide any support they require to do so”.
I hope the Minister will comment on that, when she gets up.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, in starting, I too recognise the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hacking. But I have to say, as a former Chief Whip in the other place, I am not quite of the same view that rebelling against your party is a sign of conscience. Nevertheless, I thank him for his service and comradeship to me since I have been in this House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord will remain busy even if he is not here. I look forward to hearing his views from afar, as I have heard them from behind me over recent years.
I turn now to Lords Amendments 38V and 38X. This Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and acted decisively to directly address them. I understand from today’s debate that there is a view among noble Lords that the Government may not yet have gone far enough. But it is of course important to remember that it is the passing of this Bill that will ensure that the progress that has been made will be on the statute book.
We are absolutely committed to protecting children online and doing it the right way. Throughout the whole Bill, that has involved discussion, consultation and engagement, including, earlier in its passage, with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, whom I had the pleasure of meeting on a range of issues, which we then looked at in detail in Committee.
Noble Lords have told us that the progress we need to make on this cannot be optional. We agree—that is why we have now put in the Bill the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the outcomes of the consultation. Please be reassured that, due to that change, action will follow. It must follow.
Your Lordships’ House also told us that this must happen at pace. That is why we have committed in legislation to a clear timeline. The six-month progress report must set out when regulations will be made. I will come back to that timing point in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Nash, reiterated his demand that the age of 16 is included on the face of the legislation. Again, I know there is not necessarily a consensus on whether this is the right thing to do, even among those who are not satisfied with how far the Government have gone already. I think the reason is that it pre-empts the outcome of our consultation, which seeks views on what restrictions on what features and at what age would be best.
We want to be confident that what we introduce works for all children, including the most vulnerable. That is why we are not waiting; we are testing options now, taking evidence from families, and, as I have said, we are putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes. Our amendment allows for this outcome, but it also allows for a range of other outcomes, including, as I suggested earlier, for example, restricting some of the most harmful functionalities for children older than 16.
We rightly heard noble Lords’ concerns around the harmful and potentially addictive nature of many services. That is exactly why this is explicitly addressed in the consultation. However, in legislation, we have to be a little bit careful about the terms we use. Addiction, for example, is a medical term. A specific diagnosis of social media addiction has not been medically recognised and is a contested concept. If we are not careful, using this term in the legislation is likely to create a high bar for the exercise of the power to tackle the problem of addictive design as it is colloquially understood. Our drafting is intended to specifically capture features which might cause children to overuse services in a risky or harmful way. The Secretary of State must have due regard to these features in exercising the power.
We have gone even further, with a legislative commitment that the Secretary of State must now have regard to how services and features could impact children’s usage of services, and the potential harms excessive use might cause. Collectively, these changes represent a significant strengthening of the Government’s position. They provide certainty of action, urgency and stronger safeguards for children. I urge noble Lords to recognise how far we have gone and to support the government amendments.
We particularly recognise the concerns that have been voiced during this debate and more widely regarding the Government’s intended timescales. I repeat that the power to extend is designed to cover exceptional circumstances only, rather than being a means of delay. Nevertheless, we have heard the arguments this afternoon and I am sure that my colleagues in the Commons will have more to say on timings when the Bill returns to the other place this evening. I am sure everybody will have noted the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Nash, to continue with his constructive engagement with Ministers on that and other issues.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for recognising the progress that we have made on admissions and the published admissions numbers. I hope and believe that we can now be confident that these changes will help to ensure that school admission numbers give all parents a choice of high-quality local school places. That is the objective that we share.
On Amendment 106 in relation to mobile phones, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for recognising the progress that we have made on this, the clarity of the Government’s position that pupils should not have access to their mobile phones during the school day and the recognition of the assurances that my honourable friend Minister Bailey was able to give around the strengthening of the guidance and the enforcement support that we will now put in place.
I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness about the behaviour survey being a good way to measure the impact of the changes the Government have already made. For that reason, I am able to say to the noble Baroness that we can commit to looking at the behaviour survey, seeing the impacts and using that to make any necessary revisions to the guidance by September 2027.
With those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the Government given the considerable movement that I think we have made in a range of areas.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who really does know what she is talking about. I remember that, during the debates on the now Online Safety Act, it was she who first drew the attention of your Lordships’ House to the dangers of the algorithm, and here we are, so many years later. However, it is the algorithm that must go—the Prime Minister has said it—for children. All that I am asking today is that we focus on that and on stranger contact, which has led to so much child abuse and deaths. That is all.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, including the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, whom I wish well in the future, the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed and Lord Russell of Liverpool. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his comments about other countries; I would add Indonesia, the fourth most populous country in the world, Brazil, the seventh most populous, and many others. Frankly, at the rate we are going, 50% of the world population will have acted on social media before we do anything, which will put our children at a massive economic disadvantage.
The Minister said that my proposals pre-empt the outcome of the consultation but, with the way that I have outlined them today, I do not believe that that is the case. They would allow the experts, including the Chief Medical Officer and the medical royal colleges, to consider the outcome of the consultation in relation to the very limited and focused proposals that I have suggested today. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but, on the basis of what she has said here on the Floor of the House today, I do not sense much movement yet. I must therefore ask the House to agree to Motion A1, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, I should remind the House that, if Motion A1 is agreed, it will pre-empt Motion A2.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 102J to 102M.
“(4A) In making a determination under subsection (3) or (4), the adjudicator must take into account the potential impact of the determination on—
(a) the quality of education provided at—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area, and
(b) the ability to give effect to parental preference for—
(i) the school in question, and
(ii) other schools within the relevant area.
(4B) Before determining an admission number under subsection (3) or (4) that is lower than the admission number specified in the admission arrangements to which the objection or reference relates, the adjudicator must consult and have regard to the views of the following persons about alternatives to lowering the admission number—
(a) the local authority for each school within the relevant area,
(b) the admission authority for the school in question, if different from the local authority for the school, and
(c) the Secretary of State.”
“(za) specifying persons whom the adjudicator must consult before making a determination under subsection (3) or (4);”
““relevant area”, in relation to a school, has the same meaning as in section 88F (see subsection (4) of that section).”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106G to 106J.
“Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) In Part 10 of the Education Act 1996, after Chapter 2 insert—
“CHAPTER 2A
GUIDANCE ON MOBILE PHONES ETC: SCHOOLS IN ENGLAND
550C Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England
(1) The appropriate person for a school in England must have regard to guidance described in subsection (2) in exercising functions in relation to the conduct of the school.
(2) The guidance referred to in subsection (1) is guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State about registered pupils at schools having mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices with them, and using them—
(a) during school hours, and
(b) on school premises.
(3) Subsections (4) to (6) apply for the purposes of this section.
(4) “Appropriate person” means—
(a) for the following kinds of school, the head teacher—
(i) a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(ii) a community or foundation special school;
(iii) a maintained nursery school;
(iv) a pupil referral unit;
(v) a school approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 (approval of non-maintained special schools);
(b) for any other kind of school, the proprietor.
(5) “School hours”, in relation to a school, means any time between the start of the first school session on a school day and the end of the last school session on the same day.
(6) References to mobile phones and other personal interactive communication devices do not include references to devices provided by or on behalf of the appropriate person for a school for use by registered pupils.”
(2) In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (6) insert—
“(7) If a notification or guidance given under section 88(2)(b) to the head teacher of a relevant school in England is inconsistent with guidance to which head teachers of relevant schools in England are required to have regard by section 550C of EA 1996 (guidance on use of mobile phones etc), the duty under subsection (2)(b) does not apply to the extent of the inconsistency.””
“(ca) section (Guidance on use of mobile phones etc in schools in England);”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 not moved.
Motion C agreed.
Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February be approved.
Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I will come to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in a moment, but first, let me introduce the regulations. The measures in this instrument form an important part of the Government’s programme to ensure that Great Britain’s post-EU exit chemical supply regime is robust, proportionate and fit for the long term.
The regulations amend three pieces of assimilated EU chemicals legislation, rectifying issues that could not be addressed at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They reflect the Government’s commitment to maintaining high standards of protection for human health and the environment, while ensuring that regulatory systems work efficiently for businesses and support sustainable economic growth.
In combination with the commitment from the Health and Safety Executive—HSE—to remain aligned with EU regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the regulations create a framework by which EU chemical hazard classifications can be adopted more quickly in Great Britain. This supports the objective shared across chemical stakeholder groups to remain as aligned as possible with the EU to facilitate trade and to ensure that we maintain the high standards of protection we inherited from our closest trading partners.
The measures strike an important balance. They will introduce more certainty, flexibility and proportionality for suppliers of chemicals and the regulator while upholding a system that protects our natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution; protect those who use and work with hazardous chemical substances; and ensure that society can continue to benefit from the use of important biocides, such as those used to provide clean drinking water across Great Britain.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
To leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 February, as they grant the Health and Safety Executive powers to selectively adopt hazard classifications from foreign jurisdictions with limited accountability; fail to incorporate new European Union hazard classifications in line with government commitments on Northern Ireland; regress from environmental and public health protections retained in law post Brexit, thus extending the approval of harmful biocides; and make it easier for UK exporters of harmful chemicals to bypass controls.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear introduction; I think at least one piece of new information was presented to us. As the Minister said, this is a fatal amendment because I continue to have very grave concerns about this SI.
I declare my interests to show noble Lords where I am coming from. My Consumer Products (Control of Biocides) Bill, on which a large number of noble Lords contributed positively at Second Reading, will lapse at the end of this Session, but I remain committed to its principles in the interest of protecting our own microbiomes, our existence as halobionts and those of other creatures, the health of the environment and the prevention of even more out of control antimicrobial resistance. Associated to that, I declare my position on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Antimicrobial Resistance and the support I receive from the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, as declared on the register.
I note that this may be the last such debate conducted before the new trial of restrictive rules on the time length of SI debates comes into force, so I hope we can enjoy the chance to debate fully what our own Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee described as being “politically or legally important” and giving rise to
“issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
I was asked by a fellow Member what place this debate has in the midst of multiple bouts of ping-pong; I suggested that maybe it was a gymnasium wall on which a thin coat of paint is being hastily splashed, which cannot mask the uneven and failing surface underneath, while 1970s ceiling panels hang above it—the type to make a builder suck her teeth and worry about asbestos. For, as our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlights, and as the Minister herself mentioned, these draft regulations reflect the fact that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 powers expire in June this year, and they are the only ones available to cover the three assimilated chemical regimes using secondary legislation. The HSE has indicated that it considers that more general powers are required. I am interested that the Minister said she expects new legislation in 2027; I would like a further confirmation of that, because it is new information as far as I am aware.
All this is in the face of fast-changing knowledge of the risk we face from the chemical cocktail to which our bodies and the environment are being subjected. For context, I note the scathing report last week which had a call for urgent restrictions on the use of PFAS in consumer goods, including school uniforms, cookware and food packaging, from the Commons Environmental Audit Committee. I hope the Minister will be having a chat with her education colleague about that issue. At all main stages of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we heard support from around your Lordships’ House for a ban on PFAS in school uniforms. Given the action your Lordships’ House has just taken in ping-pong, the Government have a last-minute chance to take clear and decisive action on a cause of great health concern to many parents whose children are being forced to wear, by official rules, uniforms impregnated with these chemicals.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is making some very serious points. However, in respect of the responsibilities of the HSE, surely she recognises that it is not just restricted to workplace activities? Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act explicitly mandates the HSE to take account of any harm produced by workplace activities to the public.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising what is essentially my next point. Yes, the HSE has these responsibilities included, but its whole raison d’être is workplace safety. There have been many concerns that it does not have the regulatory or conceptual framework to truly consider environmental safety either for humans exposed through consumption, for example, or for the natural world.
This Government have added a growth duty for the HSE. Janet Newsham, a trustee of the Workers Policy Project, has noted how this compromises the independence of the HSE. If it has a duty to economic growth—that great God—it has got to balance that against health and environmental risks. Will the Government reconsider the growth duty, given that it is clearly hampering the HSE’s work?
Returning to the detail of the SI, I note that the environmental charity Fidra concluded that the draft regulations were
“not fit for purpose due to lack of specificity and lack of statutory timelines which could result in inaction or slow progress on critical chemical regulatory controls”.
On other recent concerning official pronouncements, I will start with the CLP elements of the SI. The Minister in the other place supported aligning with the UN’s Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, known as GHS, rather than aligning with the six new hazard classes introduced by the EU.
The Minister in the other place repeated the claim from the HSE that there is a question around what the EU will do if these classes are not adopted globally. That prompted the European Commission to formally put on the record that it had not expressed any such commitment. Can the Minister confirm that the Government understand that the EU’s position on the CLP, as it is so clearly stated, is not to change to the UN model but to keep to its own, reflecting its better understanding of the growing risks?
I turn to the detail of the SI, to which the Minister also referred, and the powers about foreign jurisdictions. I note what she said, that the EU is the only regime that fits within the Government’s classification. I welcome that assurance, but I wonder whether the Minister will consider what might happen if we had in future a different Government who might interpret those regulations in a different way.
I rather suspected we would have some more Northern Ireland people here. I am running out of time, but I raise the issue of what problems this raises for Northern Ireland.
The final element of my concern is around making it easier for UK exporters of some of the most harmful chemicals to bypass controls. These are the products we have decided are too dangerous to use in the UK. Can the Minister assure me that removing the need for a special reference identification number from the HSE is in line with our commitments under the Rotterdam convention on prior informed consent? Is this not just a reflection of an ideological attachment to this idea of cutting red tape, which has done so much damage across so many areas of our safety?
I note that, as campaigners often highlight with UK exports, last year we exported 8,500 tonnes of pesticides that are banned on British farms because of the dangers they pose to human health and nature. Some 98% of these are produced by the Swiss-headquartered, Chinese-owned agrochemical giant, Syngenta, and include huge quantities of diquat, which is reported to have caused symptoms in Brazilian farmers including tremors, temporary paralysis and permanent eye damage.
There has been enough exported of the notorious bee-killing insecticide thiamethoxam, banned here in the UK, to spray an area bigger than England. This is going to countries including Côte d’Ivoire and Morocco. A broader question than this SI is: are the Government planning to act on this clearly morally untenable and environmentally dangerous situation, which is a risk to people around the world? Ultimately, it is about the health of everybody: no one is safe until everyone is safe, and there may well be products coming back to the UK from those countries on which those products have been used.
I have one further specific question that I was asked to put to the Minister, because there is considerable concern about this. We have seen disbanded a regular Defra event, the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, which had offered media, NGOs and other stakeholders some degree of access to chemical updates from the HSE. Are the Government planning to restore or replace that forum so that the public are able to scrutinise our chemical regulations?
I am aware that I have said a lot of very technical stuff and a lot of very large words, but this is stuff to which your Lordships’ House really needs to pay attention. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has a very long report with many expressions of concern in it. I have not yet decided whether to put this to the vote—I am well aware of the situation with fatal amendments—but there is real concern across many different NGOs and people concerned with public health, and it is really important that we have a full debate on these issues. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I do not have sympathy with the amendment, and the Minister is right to set out two main aims for her planned statutory instrument. It is right that we should allow certain products to continue which are necessary for wider health and safety issues while alternatives are found, or while we further research the known risks of these products. It is also right that the United Kingdom can have an independent strong body of health and safety and other chemical regulation which is also a bit more business-friendly and timely than that which the European Union produces.
I note that the Minister tells us that the system she is proposing for England, Wales and Scotland will be a little more flexible, and more helpful to innovation and to the products we currently have than the Northern Ireland system, which will be dynamically aligned with, or entirely dependent upon, the growing volume of regulation coming in Northern Ireland. So I have a lot of sympathy with her high-level aims. It would probably help the House if, when she comes to wind up the debate, we could have a little more information about whether Northern Ireland is going to be badly disadvantaged by losing access to the products that are currently used for important health and safety and chemical industry purposes, in a way that will not apply in England, Wales and Scotland.
That also poses the issue that when the Government get into even more detail in their SPS and other regulatory discussions with the European Union, they should dig in to avoid having to dynamically align with a known system of chemical regulation that the Government are quite rightly saying is less than perfect and which we need to differentiate the English, Welsh and Scottish system from to be more successful. The British chemical industry is in free fall at the moment, mainly because of the high costs of energy and the big retreat from petrochemicals. We have seen massive closures in the last year or so—it is really struggling. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to listen carefully to what it says about regulation.
I, like the Minister—and I am sure every noble Lord present in this place—would regard health and safety as the urgent priority. You do not compromise on safety. But we are talking here about being able to produce, make and sell—and then use—what are often intrinsically dangerous things, for a good purpose. You cannot ban them because they are in and of themselves dangerous, because they are not dangerous when they are used for a good purpose, as with a strong disinfectant killing germs—but, obviously, people must not drink it. We need rules, which the industry imposes, on handling and disposal, because there are obvious risks if people do not handle dangerous chemicals well or if they are not disposed of safely under controlled conditions. That requires a different kind of regulation.
I just hope that when we consider this, we can have a little more information about whether Northern Ireland is being disadvantaged, and whether there will be immediate problems either for its chemical industry or for the users of its chemicals, given that more things will be banned in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether we can have a little more reassurance that we will not sell out to an EU regulatory system that we think is far from perfect, when we could get some greater advantage out of better regulation but rather less of it. It would be good to set this into the broader context, that our chemical industry is in free fall. It is really struggling. We are losing factories and capacity, and it would be very important not to do anything in these regulations which made that more likely to occur.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is worth saying that the chemical industry—under pressure, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, said—is still a very important manufacturing sector in this country. It pays good wages, has high employment and, perhaps more importantly, is particularly centred in the north-east, the north-west and central Scotland, so it adds to regional policy in this country.
It suffers from high energy costs. It has also suffered from regulatory affairs, particularly immediately post Brexit, when the then Government were completely clueless about the cost and timing of setting up UK REACH. The estimates of the industry at the time were that it would cost some £10 billion to change from EU REACH to UK REACH within the timescales that were talked about. Thankfully, some degree of sanity then came along in terms of those dates. I note that the transitional compliance deadlines, which were originally supposed to take place in 2021, will finally take place in 2031, 10 years after originally expected.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations. I thank the Minister for explaining and setting out the statutory instrument with clarity and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling an amendment to ensure that we have a detailed debate here in the Chamber on what is a particularly important issue. My thanks also go to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefings on this issue.
These regulations address matters of real significance: the protection of public health, the integrity of our environmental standards and the effectiveness of chemical regulatory systems, on which both businesses and consumers rely. I think we can all agree that it is not a narrow technical adjustment but a set of changes that have wide-ranging implications.
No one in this House would dispute the need to keep such frameworks under review. Science evolves, risks change and regulation must be fit for purpose. The Government argue that these measures will resolve practical issues arising from the EU exit, streamline processes and reduce burdens on business. In particular, the extension of expiry dates for a substantial number of biocidal active substances is intended to avoid disruption and ensure continuity. These are legitimate objectives.
However, the question is whether the balance between efficiency, scrutiny and scientific rigour has been correctly struck. One concern relates to the increased flexibility given to the Health and Safety Executive, as mentioned by others, alongside the removal of certain statutory timeframes. Time limits are not mere administrative detail; they provide discipline, transparency and accountability. If they are to be relaxed, the Government need to explain how timely and robust scientific decision-making will be maintained.
A more fundamental concern is that these regulations appear to fall behind developments in the European Union system. In particular, the failure to incorporate six new hazard classes—covering, for example, endocrine disruptors and persistent, mobile and toxic substances—raises questions about whether this framework represents progress or, in practice, a step backwards in protections.
That concern is closely linked to the broader issue of alignment, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson. The European system remains highly relevant for trade, regulatory coherence and the operation of supply chains. Evidence to consultation on this suggested strong support for continued alignment. Where the UK chooses to diverge, that should be done deliberately, transparently and with clear rationale, not by omission or delay.
The position of Northern Ireland—I note that colleagues are absent; they have really missed out this evening, and we are all very grateful—adds a further layer of complexity. Because these regulations do not apply under the Windsor Framework, divergence is not theoretical but immediate. For example, it is entirely conceivable that a substance such as bisphenol A could be restricted in products such as toys in Belfast under EU rules, while remaining permissible in Great Britain. That kind of divergence risks confusion for consumers and real challenges for businesses operating throughout the United Kingdom.
It is also important to recognise the context in which these changes are being brought forward. The impending June 2026 sunset of powers under the retained EU law framework appears to be a significant driver of the timetable. That, in turn, raises legitimate questions as to whether this is the product of a fully considered, long-term strategy or a more hurried response to an approaching legislative deadline.
As we have heard in this debate, chemical regulation is not abstract; it affects the safety of products, the protection of workers and the quality of our environment. From these Benches, we support close and constructive co-operation with the European Union—it will not come as a shock to anyone to hear that—especially where it promotes trade and stability. But we will always insist on robust environmental protections, high scientific standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore approach these regulations with caution. I recognise the case for a more workable system but need a bit more convincing that the mechanisms proposed provide sufficient clarity or confidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has taken us on quite a useful tour of the statutory instrument. I am not sure she nailed the rationale for a fatal amendment.
In that spirit, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three specific questions. First, why have the Government chosen not to incorporate the six new EU hazard classes at this stage, and what timetable exists for considering their adoption? Secondly, what criteria will be used to determine when Great Britain aligns with or diverges from EU classifications, and how will those decisions be transparently reported to Parliament? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the real-world impact of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including specific cases such as bisphenol A, as I mentioned earlier, and how do the Government intend to minimise resulting complexity for businesses and consumers? I am conscious of time. I am conscious that we are in ping-pong. I am very happy to be written to on any of those questions.
The answers to these questions will be central to determining whether these regulations deliver an effective and credible framework. Without that clarity, there is a risk that increased flexibility may come at the expense of certainty, coherence and, ultimately, public confidence.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the Opposition do not oppose this instrument. We broadly welcome the intent behind it. The chemicals regulatory framework is one of the more technically demanding legacies of our departure from the European Union, and the Government are right to bring it up to date to make it work for businesses in Great Britain and to reduce unnecessary burdens on those who must navigate it daily. That is a legitimate and sensible aim.
The amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense, and the changes proposed to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make clarification decisions and streamline the process. Equally, the introduction of a fast-track route for classification proposals drawn from the trusted international systems, such as the EU and comparable UN GHS jurisdictions, is a pragmatic reform. Where international consensus already exists, it makes no sense to duplicate the work at domestic level.
However, welcoming the intent is not the same as passing this instrument without scrutiny. The Government are making changes to a framework that exists ultimately to protect human health and the environment. We have a duty to satisfy ourselves that these simplifications do not come at the cost of safety and that the new structures will function in practice as they are designed to in theory. On that basis, I have several questions for the Minister.
First, on safety, the instrument shifts significant decision-making power to domestic institutions, to the HSE and to the Secretary of State, and removes procedural safeguards that, whatever their origins in EU law, provided a degree of independent check. Can the Minister explain what safety assessment of these changes has been carried out? Has the HSE conducted a formal review of its capacity to absorb the new responsibilities placed on it under the revised Article 37 process? Can she confirm that the removal of the notification database has been assessed not simply as an administrative saving but for any downstream impact on the completeness of information available to regulators?
Secondly, on how this has been tested, any significant change to a regulatory process should be road-tested before it is placed on a statutory footing. Can the Minister tell the House whether the new unified classification procedure, in particular the fast-track route, has been piloted or modelled in any way? Has the HSE trialled processing proposals under the new framework and, if so, with what results? Has industry been consulted, not only on the policy design but on the operational workability of the new system? We would be concerned if this instrument is in effect the first real test of whether these procedures function as intended.
Connected with this, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns that removing the six-month deadline for technical reports could slow down decision-making in practice, particularly if the HSE is considering proposals from multiple international jurisdictions. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that the new system delivers genuine efficiencies rather than simply shifting delay to an earlier stage of the process?
Finally, on the transitional provisions, the saving provision in this instrument preserves the old classification procedures for proposals already in train and opinions already issued by relevant bodies before commencement. That is sensible in principle, but in practice the boundary between the old system and the new one will require careful management. Can the Minister set out how that boundary will be communicated to industry, to applicants and to the HSE itself? What guidance will be published and when? What happens in cases where a proposal is at an intermediate stage and some steps have been taken under the old framework but the process is not yet complete? We would be grateful for clarity on how those edge cases will be handled and whether any guidance has already been shared with stakeholders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, if the Minister would find it more helpful to write, we would be happy with that.
We do not seek to obstruct this instrument. The direction of travel is right. A GB-led, streamlined chemicals framework that reduces unnecessary burdens while maintaining robust protections is something we support. But streamlining and safeguarding are not in tension; they should go together. We hope the Minister can give the reassurances we need. We look forward to her response and to any letters she might send.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Although we are having this debate in the Chamber rather than in Grand Committee, it is always good to have the opportunity to scrutinise things. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, made an important point. These things should not go through without any consideration. They are too important for that, and the chance to have the conversation is welcome.
The regulations introduce necessary changes to a highly technical set of regulatory regimes, but the changes preserve the high standards of protection we inherited from our time in the EU and ensure we can continue to recognise decisions made by the European Chemicals Agency, which remains highly respected. I will try to go through the points raised. I will not get to them all and I will have to write, for which I apologise. I will start with the list from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as she tabled the amendment.
First, the noble Baroness asked about adding the EU’s SVHCs to our list. The Government intend to make secondary legislation by June 2027, providing for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP. The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, also asked about that. The work on developing that is already under way, and the HSE is currently engaging with stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of aligning with the EU on CLP measures, including its hazard classes. It has issued a stakeholder impact survey for exactly that purpose.
The work has been progressed separately from the SI, as I explained, due to constraints in the REUL Act that prevent an overall increase in regulatory burdens. The Government have made it clear that reaching a negotiated SPS agreement with the EU is a key priority. Negotiations are ongoing but we are committed to reaching an agreement by the end of this year. Broadly, it is expected that the areas in scope will dynamically align with the relevant EU legislation. I hope that reassures noble Lords on that front.
To be clear, we will continue engaging with the EU and other international partners at the UN GHS to consider the scientific basis for the six EU hazard classes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, knows, discussions at the UN GHS have not yet concluded, so the outcomes of those discussions have not been determined. The UK will take into account the EU’s intended action in response to the outcomes of the UN GHS work when formulating our own position on the conclusions of the UN GHS consideration. I underscore that we intend to make legislation by June 2027 that provides for the incorporation of the six EU hazard classes in GB CLP, and that is being done separately for reasons I have just explained.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Bennett, raised questions about the resourcing of the HSE and its size. The HSE’s funding and its priorities and progress are monitored by the Government. DWP is the sponsor department for the HSE, and a delight it is. It is important work, much of which is at the centre of what we do. To be clear, the fundamental scientific judgments are not changing as part of our changing the regime here. The HSE’s business plan for this year confirms its continued commitment to concentrating on the most serious risks and to targeting industries with the greatest hazards and sectors with the worst risk management record.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, I note that the HSE significantly increased its resources to deal with the extra workload after leaving the EU. For example, on 1 January 2021 there were 262 technical staff in the HSE’s chemicals regulation division, working across the six chemical supply and use regimes. Today that division has approximately 440 staff—so where it is necessary to respond, additional resource is put into those areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the issue of the regulatory approach and the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, pulled it from the opposite direction. The HSE’s regulatory approach is aligned with the requirements of the growth duty, but its job is to achieve the right regulatory balance between supporting safe business practice and protecting workers and the public. Proportionate health and safety regulations facilitate economic growth, but the key is that they have to be proportionate. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, is quite right. This is not about taking risks or cutting corners on safety; it is about making appropriate, proportionate decisions. There is no point in leaving regulatory requirements in place if they serve no purpose and do nothing to make anybody safer but simply make things more difficult for business.
I should make a correction. Apparently, when I was talking about how biocides actually have a useful role in controlling harmful organisms, I said, “harmful organisations”. If I did, I was not dissing anyone’s organisation, just the organisms, so apologies for that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the jurisdiction question. We can already consider a jurisdiction from anywhere—this is about speeding it up—but I reassure the noble Baroness that qualification for the fast-track evaluation process has to be subject to the criteria set out in the SI. The only jurisdiction that meets them now is the EU; no other jurisdiction adopts GHS in the same way as the UK, apart from the EU, and no other jurisdiction apart from the EU has an open and transparent classification system based on public consultation, as we do. Other jurisdictions can submit proposals, but they will be part of the normal-track evaluation process, and any proposals to add jurisdictions which are considered to meet the criteria will be included in the HSE work plan, subject to consultation as part of the work plan, and decisions are taken by Ministers. However, the bottom line is that they have to meet the criteria—that is the safety net.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about removing the special reference identification number. She mentioned cutting red tape. Cutting red tape can sometimes be good. Special reference identification numbers are not a requirement of the Rotterdam convention. They were introduced for use in an EU IT system to which we no longer have any access, so they serve no useful purpose. Therefore, removing the requirement of the companies to obtain a special reference identification number for small quantities of chemicals being exported solely for research or analysis removes a completely unnecessary burden on businesses and on the HSE as the PIC-designated authority. They simply do not have a function.
The noble Baroness asked about the disbanding of the Defra stakeholder event. Regular stakeholder engagement is really important in this area, as in others, but it can take many forms. I am advised that Defra will continue to engage closely with a range of stakeholders to gather their input, harness their expertise and share Defra’s thinking. It does not plan to organise any further CSF meetings but its engagement remains strong through its monthly chemicals NGO forum and the industry chemicals policy communication forum, as well as through relevant events. With regard to any HSE materials that were discussed in that context, I want to say really clearly that the HSE is happy to engage and consult with stakeholders at any time. If there are concerns about the HSE, I encourage the noble Baroness to get in touch with me and we can take that forward from there.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the exceptional circumstances. Just to be clear, these reforms do not allow exceptional circumstances to be used to weaken protections. Divergence will occur only in exceptional circumstances and only on scientific and technical grounds, not on economic grounds. Government priorities explicitly emphasise maintaining high standards of health and environmental protection, and leaning into alignment with EU decisions unless scientifically justified otherwise. That could, for example, be the fact that more information may have come to light after an EU opinion had been issued, but it is scientific.
I am assured that the HSE’s commitment to align with EU discussions has been welcomed across all chemical stakeholder groups—although, I acknowledge, possibly not by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. That reflects a strong commitment across a number of priorities, including reducing trade barriers that arise from divergent standards, which will support trading goods with our biggest trading partner, and protecting the UK internal market by ensuring that different regulatory requirements do not apply in Northern Ireland, significantly reducing the risk of supplies of chemical products no longer supporting the market in Northern Ireland.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that this process is not about banning other products in Northern Ireland. One of the things that closely aligning where possible does is to protect Northern Ireland’s supply chain by making sure that the company will still be able to supply and will want to supply. The extent of agreement or divergence with EU classification proposals or decisions will be identified and reported in the HSE work plan. I hope that answers the question he asked about that.
I think somebody asked whether extending expiry dates would reduce risk protection. Just to be clear, these are substances that have previously been evaluated under the GB BPR, meaning that the risks are understood and they have already been approved for use. Postponing the expiry dates allows the HSE’s regulatory resources to be focused on higher priority evaluations, including first-time approvals where the risk is less well understood, and a limited number of high hazard renewals. I hope that makes a difference. It will mean that critical biocides remain on the GP market that in themselves would cause issues if they were not available. Nothing in the regulations allows new biocidal products which are not already on the market—rather, the purpose is continuity to ensure that essential products, such as those critical for aviation safety and safe drinking water, are not lost.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, raised the GB CLP notification database. In the absence of that, GB CLP suppliers can use other resources, such as the European Chemicals Agency’s analogous database, which may encourage agreement between EU and GB suppliers on hazard classifications of their chemicals, otherwise known as self-classifications. Duty holders also still have a legal obligation to self-classify. Substances that pose higher risks are already regulated under frameworks such as REACH, the GB BPR and the GB Plant Protection Products Regulations, or other downstream legislation such as the UK cosmetics regulation or the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations. This ensures ongoing oversight of relevant hazards and associated risks.
I may be running out of things I can usefully say. I hope I have answered the things that are critical to today’s vote. I can assure the House that I will look carefully at Hansard and write to noble Lords with questions that I have not been able to answer.
Although I am grateful for the scrutiny, I stand by the case I have set out for these regulations. This instrument is practical, proportionate and urgent. It keeps essential biocides available, safeguarding public health and critical infrastructure, while preserving the ability to respond quickly to emerging risks. It speeds up our regulatory decision-making so that it is more transparent and better targeted to GB needs, enabling us to align more quickly with EU classification decisions and prioritise chemical hazard evaluations of greatest importance to the GB market, and it simplifies export requirements under GB PIC while ensuring that we continue to meet our international obligations. These are measured improvements to ensure that the system works for Great Britain as intended, supports our chemicals industry, protects people and the environment, and allows the HSE to regulate where it delivers the greatest value.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has been reassured and will not push her amendment to decline these regulations. If she does, I urge the House not to vote for it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this quite short but important debate—perhaps shorter than we expected due to the absence of our Northern Ireland colleagues.
I particularly thank the Minister for a comprehensive, careful and clear response. I think there will be significant reassurance in what she said to the campaigners with whom I have been working. For all noble Lords who might be thinking about their dinner, I give advance notice that I am not intending to put this to a vote, having heard the debate.
However, I will say a couple of things. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for a very clear explanation of the importance of this debate and for the important point that relaxing time limits is not a mere detail but potentially a matter of great safety and health concerns.
In responding to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, I have to say first that he spoke with some glee about strong disinfectants killing germs. I would love to have a chat with him about antimicrobial resistance and where that interacts with what he said. I also think he suggested that this is some kind of Brexit freedom. I point to the fact that, on substances of very high concern, zero for us and 44 for the EU is not some kind of freedom—I do not think anyone could reasonably call it that.
I was pleased to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—indeed, from the Tory Front Bench—about the concerns about HSE capacity. The Minister pointed out that additional resources were being put into chemical regulation. Of course, unless the overall resources increase, that means that resources are being taken away from other places. I note in passing silicosis, which I have done a lot of work on and which is associated with machine worktops, and the issues around that.
I may have misunderstood the Minister’s introduction, which is undoubtedly my fault. I was pleased to hear about the EU’s six classes and that the Government intend to lay a statutory instrument on that by June 2027. I think I misunderstood that, thinking that that was talking about primary legislation in 2027. I therefore ask the Minister to write to me about what the Government’s framework is for primary legislation, because both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the HSE itself say that primary legislation is absolutely necessary to enable us to keep up to date with the secondary legislation.
I will conclude with one final thought on what kind of chemicals we are talking about here. There is a class of chemicals known as second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Many Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place have been asking the Government questions about this, including my honourable friend Ellie Chowns. She was told that the Government were considering monitoring residues of these very dangerous chemicals in red kites, buzzards, sparrowhawks, peregrine falcons, red foxes, otters and hedgehogs. That gives a sense of the way in which we are contaminating our environment, our natural world, with some very dangerous substances. That is something I urge your Lordships’ House to keep a very close eye on. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I now expect that we will receive the messages from the House of Commons on the Pension Schemes and English devolution Bills later than originally thought. To ensure that the House can make productive use of time, after the Statement we will move straight on to the agricultural regulations and the regret amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. We will then consider the messages on those two Bills after the debate on the regulations.
Antisemitic Attacks
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I know that the Minister takes this matter very seriously and he knows that I have the highest personal regard for him. However, the problem with taking questions on a Commons Statement entitled “Recent Antisemitic Attacks” a week later is that, since the Statement was made, there have been further attacks and further threats. Indeed, we are approaching a position where one of those electronic counters that measured days since the last antisemitic attack in the UK would struggle to register double figures.
On the same day that the Statement was made in the House of Commons—and at almost the same time—a Jewish man working in Slough was subject to appalling antisemitic abuse and threatening behaviour. That incident, unlike most incidents, was caught on video. The perpetrator has now admitted racially aggravated assault and is awaiting sentence, so I will say nothing more about that specific case, except that, according to newspaper reports, the victim of that attack has now decided to stop wearing his kippah, his religious head covering, in public. No further comment is necessary.
As I have said before, while the Jewish community is grateful to this Government and previous Governments—this ought not to be a party-political issue—for increased funding for security, and especially to the Community Security Trust, the response to the current spate of anti-Jewish violence has to move beyond building ever-higher walls and buying more stab vests for yet more security guards and on to the root causes of the problem.
When asked a very specific question by my honourable friend Matt Vickers in the other place about the link between Islamist extremism and these antisemitic attacks, the Security Minister said:
“The honourable Gentleman also made an entirely reasonable and important point about extremism. As I said in my previous remarks, the Government are doing a lot of work led by the Secretary of State … There is also a lot of work co-ordinated across Government to target the threats we face from extremists”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 68.]
I find that reply odd. The Security Minister responded by talking only about general extremism. If the Government cannot bring themselves to use the phrase “Islamist extremism” and to recognise that the problem that we currently have is with Islamism, how can we have faith that they grasp the enormity of the challenge?
You cannot solve a problem if you cannot even identify what the problem is. It is clear what the problem is. It is demonstrated on the near-weekly marches where attendees still praise Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are proscribed organisations. It is the chants of “Globalize the Intifada”. We all now know what “globalising the intifada” looks like in practice. The Metropolitan Police have belatedly said that they will intervene if such chants are made—but why did it take blood on our streets for that change of position, which some of us have been demanding for months?
Last night, I and my daughter were dining at a kosher restaurant on the Golders Green Road. Half way through our dinner, two uniformed police officers popped into the restaurant. They explained that they were “just doing their rounds” and wanted to check that everything was okay. I am sincerely grateful to the rank-and-file police officers for all the work they do. However, I would like to live in a country where I do not have uniformed police officers securing my synagogue, guarding my community’s schools and now, it seems, patrolling kosher restaurants too. I used to live in that country; I would like to live in it again.
The late Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks reminded us that antisemitism is a mutating virus. When I was growing up, most Jew-hatred came from the far right. Today, that has changed. Can the Minister demonstrate that the Government do recognise that Islamist extremism is now the root cause of the majority of rising antisemitism and set out the steps that the Government are taking to address this? We know that a number of groups operating within the United Kingdom are actively stoking antisemitic hatred. I hope that the recent promise to ban the IRGC will be enacted speedily in the next Session, but the Muslim Brotherhood and Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya—the group that has claimed responsibility for the recent attacks—have not been banned and are active.
The United Arab Emirates has warned its citizens not to study at British universities for fear of radicalisation on our campuses. Yesterday, the United States Embassy in London issued an extraordinary security warning instructing American citizens in Britain and elsewhere in Europe to “exercise extreme caution” in the vicinity of Jewish institutions in Britain. Perhaps the most worrying development is the likely influence of the Iranian state in all this. If Iran is found to have co-ordinated these recent attacks, will the Government move to expel Iranian diplomats and step up sanctions against Iran?
There is so much more that needs to be done to stamp out antisemitism in Britain. Walls, guards and stab vests are the equivalent of palliative care. They are not a cure. We need to focus on the cure and, as we all know, the first step to any cure is correctly identifying the disease.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his views. As a member of the Jewish community, I am grateful for all the speeches of sympathy that have been and are being extended to the Jewish community. I am personally grateful that between the First and Second World Wars my late mother was able to move to Britain from Szreńsk in north central Poland. Sadly, her mother and other family members were never heard of again after 1945. Many came to this country to escape antisemitism and were welcomed and made able to make good lives for themselves and their children. This makes it even more horrifying that we have seen recently an upsurge in violence, hate speeches and demonstrations against the Jewish population.
Antisemitism is not new, as explained by the noble Lord, but it is now made more obvious by the attacks on Jewish sites in the UK and elsewhere. I could not previously have imagined a world where many British Jews are feeling very vulnerable and even doubting their long-term security in Britain. As has been mentioned, a pro-Iranian group, Harakat Ashab al-Yamin, has claimed responsibility, although I believe that other groups and individuals are involved.
It should influence this debate to list recent attacks. In March there were attacks in Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands and France. Then, nearer to home, there was the arson attack on Hatzola ambulances in my local Jewish community. On 15 April there was an arson attack at Finchley Reform Synagogue, again local to me. Also in April there was an arson attack in Park Royal, a drone attack on the Israeli embassy, an arson attack on a Jewish charity and an arson attack on Kenton shul—that is just in April. We must not forget the October 2025 attack on Heaton Park shul in Manchester, which killed two people. We must ask ourselves whether this can be tolerated.
We in the UK are grateful for all this country has done to enable the Jewish community to thrive here and are horrified by the increase in antisemitism and attacks on Jewish premises, synagogues and charities. The answer we hear seems to be an increase in security, as noted by the noble Lord about his trip to the restaurant, and the community is grateful for the efforts of the police and the CST, including extra funds for this purpose. However, no other community needs to have its kids’ schools, places of worship and community behind security-guarded walls—a world where our kids and teens are afraid to show their Jewish identity and are not safe to wear a Magen David or a yarmulke head covering, as has been stated.
I spoke to Rabbi Ben Kurzer, my local community rabbi, who said:
“Whilst the Jewish community is strong and resilient and continues to flourish, this situation is unacceptable for us as a nation. As with antisemitism throughout the ages, this is not a Jewish problem, it is a societal one. The hate that begins with the Jews will not end with the Jews. Jewish tradition teaches that Moses, in ancient Egypt, looked round and realised that there was no one to stand up against the aggressors and that was why he took the lead—to paraphrase our Sages, ‘In a place where there is no person stepping forward, try to be that person’’.
I say we need to go to the source of and incitement to this violence. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about what they intend to do about what some call hate marches—I think they are; some people do not—and demonstrations that fuel this antisemitism. I keep waiting for it, but when is that dreadful organisation, the IRGC, actually going to be banned as a terrorist organisation? It has been on the cards for such a long time.
Can the Minister say that the Government will seek to explain what Zionism means? It is a desire for a homeland for the Jews in Israel. Surely the rise in UK antisemitism makes the need for Zionism an absolute must for many in the community. The word “anti-Zionism” is being increasingly used as an acceptable excuse for antisemitic sentiments. There needs to be a line between objecting to events outside the UK and terrorising a section of the UK of which I am part. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their comments, and for their general support for the action the Government are taking.
I begin by condemning antisemitic actions by those who are undertaking them. There is no place for antisemitism in our society. There is no place for individuals not being able to enjoy and share and work with their religion and show that visibly. The Government will take action to ensure that we protect those rights for the Jewish community.
I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that while the Statement was arranged by the usual channels for today, I am happy to do it at any time; I could have done it last week. The Statement made clear that there were 26 arrests following the activities last week; there have been eight charges and one conviction to date. It is important that we, as both noble Lords have said, tackle not just the protective elements of this—I do not want to have a situation whereby individuals have to have that protective security around them in the long term—but those root causes as a whole. I say to both noble Lords that the £28.4 million given to the Community Security Trust is a useful resource to help protect society from antisemitism, and we have recently added £5 million to that.
To go to the heart of the points that have been made about tackling the long-term root causes, the social cohesion strategy called Protecting What Matters that the Government have recently announced has allocated £800 million, but it is also looking at a whole range of what I would call proactive measures that I think the noble Lord will welcome. These include preventing hate preachers entering the United Kingdom; expanding the global visa taskforce; publishing an annual state of extremism report; embedding the 2024 definition of extremism across government; and looking to work with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Dame Penny Mordaunt on the commission with the Board of Deputies of British Jews on the question of antisemitism as a whole.
We also have to—this goes to the long-term issues that the noble Lord mentioned—look at combating antisemitism across all elements of society, including reviewing the public order and hate legislation, which is being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and looking at universities, schools and colleges, where we have committed some £7 million of resource to help clamp down on antisemitic extremism. We also had the review of Prevent in 2023, which made a number of recommendations that we have brought into power.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that we have looked at the issue of hate marches. This very day we have completed the Crime and Policing Bill, which is now going for potential Royal Assent very shortly. In that there are definitive powers to redirect marches, to redirect persistently aggressive marches and to give police additional powers to do that. It is also important that we take on board a point that both noble Lords have mentioned: the question of how we deal with this in the longer term. It is important that the police have intelligence-led policing, looking at where there are organisations and groups that are causing potential antisemitism. We have the arrests that have been made to date. With regard to the organisations that have claimed responsibility for these attacks, I want to take that at face value for the moment. The police have a job to do. The police have a job to see whether those organisations are responsible, or whether they are proxies for potential state actors that are responsible. We will receive reports from the police. I hope that we can allow the police to do their job and to investigate and report back. If action is required, we will consider taking it in due course.
We have had significant discussion around Iran, and I know the sensitivities and concerns surrounding that. As I said, we have placed the entire Iranian Government on the foreign influence registration scheme, which means that individuals who undertake activity in the UK on behalf of the Iranian Government face a choice between registering that activity and having the threat of a criminal offence with a five-year prison sentence. We have introduced that in the last 12 months; we have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety, as well as 550 Iranian individuals and entities. We have put in place a robust package of measures to tackle threats from the Iranian regime. We have already sanctioned the IRGC financier Ali Ansari, freezing over £100 million of his UK property.
We now have powers to proscribe, as discussed earlier. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, has recommended that we take further action against state actors, and state proscription, and has recommended legislation for that. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when visiting a synagogue last week, mentioned that we want to bring that forward as a matter of urgency as soon as practicable.
Noble Lords will know that the King’s Speech is not too far away. I cannot anticipate today what will be in it, but I hope that noble Lords can understand the direction of travel at the earliest opportunity to take that legislation forward.
This is an issue that the Government take seriously. People of the Jewish community have the right to live their lives free from intimidation, free from threat and free from attack. The job of the Government is to ensure that through protective security and legislation and, where possible, by tracking down perpetrators of action and those who seek to perpetrate action, and we will not rest until antisemitism is eradicated. It is a difficult, challenging task. We have a range of potential operators in the UK and beyond; there is hate legislation in place; there is a range of measures we are bringing forward in the Crime and Policing Bill and there are measures we will be considering at the earliest opportunity when legislation is brought forward. It is important that all of us in this Chamber unite in support for the Jewish community, in condemnation of these attacks and in ensuring that extremism has no place in our society in the 21st century.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
My Lords, the thrust of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was specifically with respect to what he described as “Islamist extremism”. However, I notice that the Minister made no reference to that expression, and I would be interested to know, as I am sure the House would, the Government’s view about Islamist extremism sitting at the root of this evil.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I condemn those people who have a perverted view of the faith of Islam and undertake this action against the Jewish community. I grew up in the 1970s, when the National Front and the British National Party, right-wing organisations, had a hatred of the Jewish community and undertook activities against it as well. It is important that we tackle antisemitism from whichever source it comes. There will be people today relishing antisemitism who are not from the Islamic community and are not extremists, while others will take that forward in a way that is unacceptable. Our job is to make sure that we tackle that extremism from wherever it comes, and that is why we will take action against right-wing extremism as well as Islamist extremists. People have a right to follow their religion and live their lives as they wish, free of intimidation, and it is the job of government to offer that protection.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the strong Statement and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wolfson. He made the important point that we must attack and tackle all forms of extremism. As someone who has served in government, in the Foreign Office and at the Home Office as the Minister for countering extremism, I know that there are people who hijack the faith of Islam that I—and millions, indeed billions, around the world—follow. The distinction between Islamists and Islam must be made very clearly. May I suggest dealing with the sources and looking at the philosophy that drives these extremists? The al-Banna philosophy and the Maududi philosophy embed these forms of extremist actions. While I welcome those who are involved and engaged in fighting this, we need a whole-country approach, a whole-faith approach and a whole-community approach to ensure that voices from the British Muslim community are included. In that way, we fight this at source. I am sure that the Government would find support by banning, first and foremost, preachers of hate who come to our shores and use our liberal laws to instil fear and carry out the attacks that we have seen on our streets, particularly against the Jewish community.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I welcome the noble Lord’s comments. The vast majority of people who follow the religion of Islam want to live in a cohesive, co-ordinated society where everybody accepts, understands and tolerates each individual’s religion. That social cohesion is vital and the strategy that the Government are bringing forward, backed by £800 million of taxpayers’ resource, specifically identifies the threat of Islamist extremism but tries to put it into a context of supporting the vast majority of people of the Muslim faith to ensure that they are part of a socially cohesive society.
We will look at the evidence of who has been committing these offences and/or who has been behind them. We have banned some hate preachers and are looking at how we can build a global alliance against them. We will take action when we know who ultimately has organised this once the police have carried out their investigations. That needs to be done more slowly.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, given that we are seeing what appears to be a co-ordinated effort to target Jewish sites, will my noble friend the Minister outline what the Government are doing to prevent further incidents, including disrupting the networks and methods being used to organise these distressing, frightening and dangerous attacks?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, whose point goes to the heart of intelligence-led policing. We need to look, through intelligence and the security services, who do a great job, at who is behind motivating these attacks, the actors who are undertaking them and whether they are being supported or directed by other state organisations, and we need to take action accordingly. The security services, the police and the Home Office are constantly on that ball, trying to ensure that we find out who are the perpetrators and stopping attacks as well as dealing with the consequences.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My noble friend Lord Palmer quoted his local rabbi as saying that this is unacceptable for us as a nation. That is what I would like to emphasise. The Minister has given us an account of a lot of the good work that the Government have done, but I cannot help thinking that we are not really getting down to the roots. Even the title of the Statement is “Antisemitic Attacks”, which is a bit precise. Antisemitism is a virus, as has been said, that ideally we want to cure, but first we have to look at all the root causes and the way in which it is changing and mutating. We need something bigger and bolder to get across to the nation what is happening to the Jewish community, such as the Prime Minister going on television, if that is not a daft idea. We need to sock it to our fellow Brits just what the Jewish community is experiencing at the moment.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The title of the Statement is what it is because my honourable friend the Security Minister wanted to make a Statement to the House of Commons straight after the events just over a week ago. He went to the House of Commons last week and we are discussing that Statement today. He also visited the synagogues, as did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Friday last week.
It is absolutely vital that politicians of all parties stand with the Jewish community and look at the very issues that the noble Baroness mentioned, which are the root causes. We have an antisemitism commissioner, my noble friend Lord Mann, reports coming through about what we need to do in the long term and the social cohesion strategy, which is funded by £800 million of taxpayers’ resource and is trying to bring together actions to make sure that we have the social cohesion that we want. We will also continue using intelligence-led policing to track down those who are undertaking this type of activity.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement by the late Sir Charles Farr and Sir John Jenkins in the last Muslim Brotherhood review undertaken by a UK Government, back in 2015, that the Muslim Brotherhood remains one of the largest drivers of antisemitism in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Self-evidently, at times, the Muslim Brotherhood undertakes activity that directs antisemitism. That is not acceptable. I was not a Minister when the report was received from Sir Charles Farr, whom I knew well when I was previously a Minister in the Home Office. We will look at that judgment and examine again what the noble Lord raised today.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister rightly said that it is vital for politicians of all parties to stand up against antisemitism. Does the Minister share my disgust at the comments of the leader of the Green Party, Mr Zack Polanski, who suggested that the problem was a “perception of unsafety” and antisemitism for the Jewish community? He suggested that antisemitism had been “weaponised” against Jeremy Corbyn as the former leader of the Labour Party. Does the Minister share my concern that the Green Party is now providing a home for antisemites?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Antisemitism is not a perception. People have died in Manchester as a result of antisemitism. It is not a perception; it is something that we have to tackle. The leader of the Green Party and the Greens can speak for themselves. I speak for the Labour Party, the Government and, I hope, the whole House when I say that antisemitism has no place in our society, we have to root it out and those who apologise for it are not fit to hold public office.
Baroness Shah (Lab)
My Lords, I had the privilege of attending Kenton synagogue’s Friday night service last week. It happens to be my local synagogue, no more than two minutes from where I live. I heard huge concern among congregants not only about the recent attack at the synagogue but about their general feeling of insecurity as Jews, which is something that we urgently need to address. It is not acceptable that a community feels and is facing that fear.
The rabbi also spoke of the support and solidarity that they receive from the wider community. Can my noble friend the Minister give us more detail about how the Government, with other agencies, intend to promote positive interaction between communities as part of a long-term and sustainable future solution, so that the Jewish community is safe in this country?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend and I am also grateful for her work in supporting the Jewish community locally. It is vital that all of us in society, from whichever faith or none, support action against antisemitism and show solidarity with the Jewish community.
I refer my noble friend again to the social cohesion strategy that we have put in place. It looks at funding £800 million-worth of activity. Importantly, it has highlighted 40 key neighbourhoods where we need to work on social cohesion much more effectively and it is putting in resources to do that. I know that my noble friend will want to monitor the performance of that strategy, but I think it is a very good start. We continue to look at the challenges and will continue to learn lessons from how social cohesion operates at local level to look at how we can extend that to help support other communities where that social cohesion may not be as strong.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his support of the Jewish community and his keen understanding of what the Jewish community in this country is going through at the moment. There is no possibility of underestimating the complexity of this problem; we are all struggling with it. I offer the Minister one small, practical suggestion. There are venues and institutions—some public and some private—that are refusing Jewish performers and exhibitions. Anything remotely connected to Jewishness is being refused entry or permission to appear at these institutions, some of which are publicly funded and some licensed by local authorities.
They hide behind the issue of security, which is a real concern. Nevertheless, we are very proud in this country that we have always said—and we have been sorely tested—that we do not succumb to terrorism. This is very much an issue of these little institutions around the country succumbing to terrorists’ views and hiding behind the security issue. That is not right. It is something that the Government could address. It is also prevalent in our educational institutions, with speakers being cancelled and so on. That would be a small, practical step, but a signal that the Government are able to take action.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It would be difficult, under the Equality Act, for individuals to undertake the type of potential refusal that the noble Lord mentioned.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hear from a sedentary position the comment, “They are”. I recognise that individuals are, but hope that one of the things we could do is encourage that action not occurring. It is important, as part of this solidarity, that we allow people from various faiths—the Jewish faith and others—to celebrate their activities, actions and performances as part of our multicultural, socially cohesive society. I stand with the noble Lord and will reflect with colleagues and Ministers on how we can give practical action to that objective.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will pick up on the notion that Islamic extremism lies behind this. This means—I hope the Minister agrees—that the Charity Commission should be investigating charities that support extremism and funnel money towards it. But behind that Islamic extremism lies the religion: religious teaching has brought us to this point. Let us not forget that all the Jews in the Middle East were thrown out of countries such as Yemen and Syria before Israel was established. Just as many Jews were expelled from the Middle East as Arab Palestinians left Palestine, on religious grounds. Jews were always second-class citizens in those countries, because that is what the religion prescribes.
That means that the Government must not stop inspecting and registering religious schools. I believe that there has been a movement to exempt them, but that would be absolutely wrong. If there are schools where children spend the whole day studying religion, they must be inspected. We must make sure that children get secular education and that they are not taught to hate. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and Penny Mordaunt pointed that out in their report on antisemitism, and they asked the Church of England to make sure that children were not taught hostility.
I also hope that the Minister will condemn the possible motion of the Green Party, which was not put in the end, that Zionism is racism and that Israel should not exist. To have in this country a party that takes that attitude, presumably to attract the worst in society, is simply unacceptable. I look to this Government to condemn it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the noble Baroness’s first point, the Charity Commission is looking at a number of charities to ensure that they meet charitable objectives and are not fostering unacceptable activity.
The noble Baroness also mentioned inspecting schools. I will take that point away because, although I have responsibility for some issues, I do not have direct responsibility for that. I will report it to my colleague, the Minister responsible in the Department for Education.
On the noble Baroness’s last point, I will allow the Green Party to speak for itself. The Labour Party fought a long battle to try to rid itself of some aspects of antisemitism within its membership, and it succeeded in doing that. Some of those people are now turning up in other political parties. This is not acceptable. It should not be there and I hope that those responsible for political discourse will make sure that they take action within their party, as we did within ours.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend the Minister said. The virulence and violence of these attacks on our Jewish citizens is completely unacceptable, and the Government need to use all their agencies and power to clamp down on them. Does he agree that what is particularly dangerous about this current wave of antisemitic attacks is that it is joined by Islamophobic attacks and attacks on our Black citizens as well? We have had over the centuries antisemitism, pogroms and the persecution of Jewish communities, including in this country—not just in the Middle East but in Europe, Russia and right across the world. In more recent decades, we have also had attacks on our Black citizens. More recently, we have had attacks on our Muslim citizens. What is particularly dangerous is these three forms of attacks on parts of our community all coming together, and the Government need to try to confront them.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is important to remember that. I may be a simple soul, but I want to have a society where people respect each other, are tolerant of each other’s lifestyles, share the same spaces, understand where people are coming from and their different religious perspectives, different colours and everything else, and live tolerant, productive lives in which we help to grow our economy, spend money from our resources and make sure that we have a cohesive, socially inclusive society. That is an objective.
The Government have a social cohesion plan, backed by £800 million, targeting 40 community areas. They want to do more to meet the very objectives that my noble friend mentioned. People from the Islamic faith should be able to celebrate their faith and to worship. People who are Black should be able to walk down the street free from attacks, as should members of our Jewish society. This Statement follows what happened in north London on a particular day last month, but the points made by my noble friend are valid for every section of society.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too am grateful for the funding provided by the Government. I declare my interest as a British Jew.
The Minister says there is no place in British life for antisemitism, but there clearly is. Jews are under attack. Antisemitism has been embedded in British discourse and in some areas of politics, emboldened by propaganda that has twisted perceptions. My family described exactly this happening in Germany in the 1930s as people vilified Jews who lived there, and had previously been their friends, on the basis of false perception. British students and young people now feel pressured to shun Jewish friends or colleagues. If they try to support Jews or do not denounce Israel, they are accused of supporting genocide or being baby killers. What violence or threats are British Jews guilty of? What unrest or anti-social behaviour have British Jews engaged in?
Will the Minister now recognise that the hate marches have led to such dangerous consequences? Will he ban them from now on? Will he also look into the reports of Jewish actors, singers or entertainers being banned from certain venues just because they are Jewish?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On the first point that the noble Baroness mentioned, the question of hate marches, as I said in my earlier contribution, the Government have passed the Crime and Policing Bill, which is now heading for Royal Assent. It includes additional powers for the police to both ban and reroute marches. It is for the police to take those actions, not politicians. Where those actions lead to persistent hate marches, the police now have additional powers under what will be the Crime and Policing Act to take action on that.
As I said in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Grade, I will look at the issue of banning people from activities because of their religion. As the time for this Statement has now finished, I leave the House by saying that the Government strongly condemn antisemitism and will take whatever action they can to root it out and to support the Jewish community. I hope that we can work towards a cohesive society where people’s religion, colour or background does not cause violence against them or intimidation directed towards their behaviour or the way in which they choose to live their life. Everybody is individual and should be allowed to live their life to their full potential.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 March be approved.
Relevant document: 56th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I am in receipt of delinked payments. This instrument sets the reductions that will apply to delinked payments in England for the years 2026 and 2027. In doing so, it delivers our commitment to phase out these subsidies by the end of the seven-year agricultural transition period, as we redirect funding to our other schemes for farmers; 2027 will be the last year of delinked payments.
A regret amendment has been tabled expressing concern about the impact on farmers. The Government are committed to supporting our farmers and the vital role that they play. We will continue to invest in our farmers and land managers to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient for the years ahead. Reducing delinked payments is essential so that we can fund our other schemes which help us to achieve this.
Delinked payments do not address the underlying challenges affecting farm profitability. They do not support the healthy soils, abundant pollinators and clean water that is needed to produce good food. They do not promote innovation and do not provide good value for money.
The reductions to delinked payments will complete the move away from the previous scheme, which rewarded land ownership, with 50% of payments going to the largest 10% of farms. We are applying the reductions fairly, with higher reductions to amounts in the higher payment band. We announced the reductions last June to help farmers to plan.
The money released from delinked payments is being reinvested in the sector. Farmers and land managers will benefit from an average of £2.3 billion a year over the period 2026-27 to 2028-29 through the farming and countryside programme, and up to £400 million from additional nature schemes, including those for tree planting and peatlands. This includes increasing annual funding for the environmental land management schemes, from £1.8 billion in 2025-26 to more than £2 billion by 2028-29. This means that we are backing farmers with the largest nature-friendly budget in history to support them to help restore nature and boost farm productivity. Some 50,000 farm businesses and half of all farmed land are now managed under our environmental land management schemes.
Earlier this year, we announced plans for our new sustainable farming incentive offer, which will ensure that more farmers can access funding. A range of improvements will be introduced to make SFI26 simpler, more streamlined and easier to navigate. The new offer will continue to support sustainable farming by strengthening the environmental foundations of farm profitability and our long-term food security.
Last September, the new Countryside Stewardship higher tier opened for applications to those who have been invited to apply, have received pre-application advice and have completed any preparatory work. Landscape recovery projects that were awarded development funding in rounds 1 and 2 are continuing to progress towards the delivery phase. Plans for a third round will be confirmed in due course.
The latest round of the environmental land management capital grant offer will open in July this year, backed by £225 million in funding. That is 50% more than was available in 2025. We have also announced plans for £120 million in innovation and productivity grants for 2026-27. Such grants can help the sector access cutting-edge technology and techniques, such as robotic weeders, which reduce chemical use in our countryside and help farmers grow more food. This funding forms part of the Government’s commitment to invest at least £200 million in agricultural innovation by 2030 to improve productivity and trial new technology as part of the UK’s modern industrial strategy.
We will be spending up to £30 million over three years on a new approach to farm collaboration and advice. We are working with Dr Hilary Cottam to develop a place-based approach for upland communities. We have also extended the farming and protected landscapes programme for another three years, until March 2029. We want to continue to work in partnership with the sector. We have established a farming and food partnership board, which brings together voices from farming, food, retail and finance to drive profitability, building on the recommendations in the Farming Profitability Review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters.
We have also been engaging with farmers and stakeholders on a 25-year farming road map, which will set up the Government’s long-term vision for farming, giving farmers the clarity they need to plan ahead. This Government want farm businesses that are productive, profitable and resilient, while contributing to food security and nature recovery. The reductions to delinked payments are essential to enable us to make the planned investments in the future of farming and the countryside.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Roborough
At end insert “, but this House regrets that the draft Regulations will likely result in further financial difficulties for farmers, who have not had enough time to plan for them in advance; and that it remains unclear how the savings from the reductions to delinked payments will be reallocated to support farmers.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I first draw the House’s attention to my registered interests as a farmer and landowner who is also in receipt of delinked and other government payments. I am very grateful to the Government Chief Whip for moving this debate to a civilised time this evening; I think that is much appreciated by all noble Lords. I thank the Minister for outlining this SI, although we regret its introduction. Indeed, it is now at the end of this Session that we are about to lose significant agricultural expertise from this House, which keenly understands the impact of legislation such as this on the ground and in our close-knit communities.
When in government, we replaced the basic payment scheme with delinked payments based on historic BPS claims. We intended this to be gradually phased out by 2028 in favour of environmental land management schemes, where farmers and landowners receive payments only for public goods, as outlined by the Minister. The reductions we put in place put these delinked payments on a gradual glide path to zero in 2028. This Government dramatically accelerated that decline last year and have continued at a similar rate this year. This, in effect, ends the seven-year transition well before the 2028 deadline that farmers had been led to expect, undermining their budgeting.
We support the long-term transition, but not at this accelerated pace. Conflict in the Middle East has caused uncertainty over fuel prices and fertiliser and a shortage of industrial CO2. Grain prices remain at low levels, undermining profitability for our arable farmers. However, it is not just external factors that are adding pressure to farmers. Deliberate choices made by this Government have left farmers more vulnerable. The early closure of the SFI application window last year, the family farm and business tax, increased employer national insurance, and the Government’s refusal to consider our cheap power plan to lower energy costs all have a cumulative impact.
I note that the Government are set to spend £100 million to reopen the Ensus bioethanol plant in Teesside to mitigate CO2 disruptions. But this might not have been necessary had the Prime Minister not, in effect, sold out the UK’s bioethanol industry at the last minute in the UK-US trade deal. These plants provided a valuable source of demand for our farmers producing wheat. Closing them down to benefit American ethanol producers means that we are now supporting American maize or corn farmers at the expense of our own farmers. The deal reduced British tariffs on a quota of 1.4 billion litres of US ethanol, when the total market size for bioethanol in the UK was coincidentally 1.4 billion litres. These are not events outside the UK’s control; these are government choices. This SI reduces the direct financial support farmers receive at a time they need it most.
Ultimately, this SI does not help farmers precisely at a time when global events and this Government’s choices threaten their viability—let alone profitability. I beg to move.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend and challenge the Government on how they are going to spend the money they are going to allocate. While I can understand the wish to have a transition, it is right that it has to be done at a sensible pace. The really big disappointment of the farming community is that the alternative schemes the Government are bringing in are not the kind of schemes that are particularly attractive to many farmers or that promote the production of more domestic food.
I would hope that the Government will have a rethink now. Do the Government not understand there is currently a crisis in world trade and the supply of food in the months ahead because of the difficulties of getting fertiliser out of the Gulf area, the damage being done to chemical and fertiliser plants by more than one war and by the very acute trade disruption with no immediate signs of being resolved? Those I have heard from in the farming industry tell me that not only are fertiliser prices extremely high but there is no visibility as to when they will be able to buy serious quantities of fertiliser again at sensible prices. As we know, without proper fertiliser applications, yields will plunge and there will be a further shortage in food provision.
It is a tragedy that this century there has been a big decline in the amount of home-produced food that farms have been able to make because of the grant choices of the EU and successive United Kingdom Governments. I would have thought that now is a wonderful opportunity for a rethink to place at the very centre of agricultural subsidy policy, in line with many other countries around the world, the need for more domestic, reliable supply and production.
The Minister reminded us that some small pots are available for those important topics of innovation and new technology. I agree that there can be a new agrarian revolution; it was this country that launched the original one. There is now huge scope for mechanisation with robotics and drones and all the other things that can come in. However, the amount of money being offered in these small grant schemes is very small and unambitious. We have some great farms and some great farmers. Many of them would like to have access to serious money for that big investment and that pioneering technology that could start to make the difference.
I urge the Government to think again: put food production as the central issue that we need to deal with; understand the urgency of the collapse both in British farming and in the wider world market because of the interruptions to fertiliser and other chemicals; and do something to make available the money they are saving by the rundown of the existing ground system in a more intelligent and purposeful way, so that farmers can get decent money to rebuild their ability to feed us.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, my maiden speech in 2019 was on the impact of Brexit on food and agricultural produce, with a focus consistent with my interests as a Devon farmer on the Devon cream tea. It is fitting that my final words are on matters agricultural and the delinked payments regulations—the final decoupling of our agricultural subsidy regime from the common agricultural policy.
When I joined the House, one of the silver linings of the Brexit storm clouds was the promise of autonomy over agricultural policy, which we sought to deliver through the Agriculture Act—scrutinised largely online during those dark days of the pandemic. The birth of environmental land management and the sustainable farming incentive promised a brave new world of public money for public goods, under which the blunt instrument of CAP area payments would be replaced by the agile deployment of Defra’s budget to allow British farming to increase productivity and sustainability in equal measure.
During the passage of that Bill, this House reiterated multiple times the long-term nature of agricultural business and the need for certainty and continuity in government policy to enable farmers to adjust their business models at an appropriate pace, consistent with the annual harvest cycle, their very narrow margins and their necessarily long-term investment strategies. Despite the hard work of many at Defra and the Rural Payments Agency, that continuity has not materialised. Farm and food businesses have been battered not only by the pandemic and by wars in Ukraine and Iran, but by extreme climatic events, drought, flooding and government policy that has become even less clement than the weather.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who lives in Devon, I look forward to a long period of the cream teas of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for which he will regrettably have more time to produce as a result of the delinking of the hereditary peerage and the legislative process of this country.
I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement, and several things strike me. The first is that this assault on the rural community and the farming community is not a perception but a reality. We have seen farm incomes shrinking year on year, rapid increases in costs—not least, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Redwood, the problems we now confront with fertiliser, which are very serious indeed—as well as the tremendous growth in bureaucracy, the chopping and changing of government policies, and the bringing forward of this latest government policy, which creates huge amounts of paperwork for farmers who should be out there farming.
The missed opportunity presented by this rethink on farming in this country concerns me. At a time when we should be looking long term at food security and food production, we seem to be thinking in the short term. Can the Minister say what the Government are doing to encourage younger people to come into the industry just at a time when we are seeing it getting older, with more and more people giving up—or wanting to give up—their farms? What hope can she hold out to a younger generation that there is a career and a life in farming for them as well? What more can she do to encourage the land-based colleges up and down the country, which have often suffered from very poor financial support, to get younger people into the industry? Only in that way will we preserve the landscape in the way that she envisages.
We can divert every kind of subsidy into all these initiatives—I have no problem with some of those at all—but, at the end of the day, it is a manmade landscape that we enjoy. It is made and preserved by the land managers and the farmers. Without them, it will not continue to exist, and nor will the food on which we have come to depend.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Devon, this is my final speech in the Chamber, so it is a rather poignant moment. It feels rather odd speaking on this topic today—as if, after 24 years, I have come full circle. I found this rather interesting report when I cleared my desk last week, which was written by a chap called Curry in 2002. Let me read a sentence from page 23:
“The guiding principle must be that public money should be used to pay for public goods that the public wants and needs: remaining price supports and associated production controls must go; direct payments should be phased out as quickly as possible”.
Here we are, 24 years later, completing that process.
The journey to this point has been anything but straightforward. I must say that, 10 years after leaving the European Union and 10 Secretaries of State in Defra later, successive Governments have failed to provide the leadership that the farming industry deserves. We had a unique opportunity, whether or not one agreed with Brexit, to write a new script and to design a plan to deliver all the public goods that
“the public wants and needs”,
to use the phrase in the report. What we have had is 10 years of dithering, indecision and procrastination. Of course we had Covid to disrupt the process, but here we are, still with no plan, vision or clarity on our future ambitions for this crucial industry of ours. To give the current Government some credit, we now have a land-use framework after five years of gestation, and the promise of a farming road map, which the Minister mentioned. Meanwhile, farmers are left in limbo, unclear of what is expected of them. The transition journey is ending with this debate, but the train does not have a destination.
What, therefore, are the public goods that the public need and want, which farmers and land managers can deliver? We have wrestled with this definition of public goods, and with which public goods require government intervention because there is no functioning market for them. Carbon markets are still immature, and natural capital is still a great idea, but most environmental outcomes still require government intervention: restoring and maintaining habitats, cleaning up and managing water, carbon sequestration and so on. We need clean air, clean water and healthy soils. One outcome that farmers can deliver, and are delivering, successfully is renewable energy. We certainly do not need any further financial inducements to deliver that, particularly solar. I hope that the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has read the land-use framework document and begins to think about it before completely ignoring local opinion when he blindly signs off every large solar application to cross his desk.
The $64,000 question is about food, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, has stated. If, as the Government have recognised, food security is national security, what does this mean? Food is the outcome from the management of the countryside that most farmers want to deliver; it is why they came into farming. So if it is a public good—I think the Government now accept that it is—is there a functioning market that supports the production of food at a price that provides farmers with an adequate return without government intervention? This, it seems to me, is the fundamental question, and it was of course the challenge given to the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. We wait with keen interest for the Government’s response to her important report.
Two factors are important. For the market to function well, it requires fair competition, so there is a need for an adjudicator to oversee a market dominated by powerful players. I welcome the move of the GSCOP adjudicator to Defra. I hope this will lead to much stronger links to the sectoral adjudicators and a more forensic monitoring of market behaviour. The wider scheme also ought to include the processing sector, which it does not at present.
The second factor is that a well-functioning market requires a level playing field, with imports being produced to the same or equivalent standards as we have here. Despite regular reassurances that the new trade deals are robust, I am still concerned about this. The only way to be satisfied is to carry out a thorough and regular audit of supply chains in countries of origin, which requires resources and audit not only of food safety standards but of environmental measures and animal welfare standards so that trade can compete fairly.
Having satisfied ourselves on supply chain relationships and achieved a level playing field on imports, is it possible to produce food profitably without subsidisation? The most efficient farmers can—at least some of the time. Skills, training and technical knowledge are important. TIAH has been established to help with skills. Access to scientific knowledge is important, as are benchmarking, having excellent business skills, adding value wherever possible, applying risk management tools, and so on. Producing what the market wants is critical, particularly having access to local markets and the public sector. All these need to be in place, and the Government need to help.
Do we need to reconsider our attitude to subsidies? I do not think we should go back to direct subsidisation of food production. It distorts markets, distorts behaviour and puts developing countries at a serious disadvantage. However, there is much more we could do to assist farmers in their commitment to produce food, which is also in the nation’s interest. I have been struck recently, when rummaging through old documents, by how influential the development grant schemes were that I and most farmers took advantage of in the 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s to improve our facilities and build fences, buildings, equipment, et cetera.
To extend the SFI application process to embrace and include productivity support, rather than a separate productivity grant scheme—to help improve business efficiency, alongside environmental management and environmental protection measures—would deliver multiple outcomes from a multifunctional landscape through a combined scheme. With today’s online technology, it would not cost much more to administer than the current complex mix of schemes we have. Every farm business should have the opportunity to participate, either individually or through a combined collaborative scheme. This should include tax allowances appropriate for investments. The Treasury should recognise the critical importance of this industry of ours and the importance of producing food.
After introducing the entry-level scheme following this report, we achieved over 70% participation in stewardship schemes. We have regressed since then. The current uncertainty and stop-start processes with the SFI will not deliver the landscape improvements in environmental management, including the species improvement and restoration that we need. Whole catchments need to be included and every farm needs to engage. All the agencies need to work together—all of them—to agree plans for the Wye Valley, the Tees Valley, the chalk streams and, importantly, the Tyne Valley. The list goes on.
We need to be bold in developing a new vision for farming and the management of the countryside that is agreed in partnership with the sector—I hope the Minister will confirm that the new partnership board will be given the authority it needs to develop that—not imposed upon it by government, so that it has ownership and buy-in: a vision that gives every farmer the opportunity to deliver the vital outcomes that the countryside is capable of, including wholesome and healthy food. In fact, most of it is in this report.
I add my thanks, as the noble Earl, Lord Devon, did, to the whole team here in the House of Lords: the doorkeepers, the clerks, the staff and the restaurant staff—everybody who has made my life very easy. It has been a pleasure to work with them and to have their support, and a great honour to be a Member of this House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I would like to pay a personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. Along with my sponsor, the late Lord Plumb, of Coleshill, he has long stood out as being so knowledgeable about farming and the countryside. He has given immense and dedicated service to this House over so many years, and he is a local lad who has done his county proud. We shall all miss him greatly, and we thank him for his great service.
I also pay tribute to the outgoing hereditary Peers and their knowledge, which passes through generations, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I am probably the first and last member of my family who will enter Parliament or politics, so I am in awe of those who have served with such longevity. They have all made a massive contribution and will be greatly missed.
I echo the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, on the impact that the clean energy proposals will have on farming and the countryside, taking probably about 10% of land each year out of food production. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Redwood, farming is essential. We are only 60% self-sufficient in this country, and in certain fruit and vegetable cases we are only 55% self-sufficient, so it is a diminishing asset if we lose the land to clean energy proposals.
Last week the Minister responded to a Question from me on the SFI and whether farmers would benefit. I am not entirely convinced that she grasped the point—just made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle—about recognising this as a public good and rewarding farmers for temporarily storing floodwater on farmland. We cannot expect them to do it; they are not operating as a charity. They are trying to make money in very difficult circumstances—we are potentially facing another drought this year, given the rainfall this month—so we need to have a defined understanding of how their contribution will be recognised through the SFI.
I have particular concerns about these regulations, and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Roborough brought the amendment for debate. I am concerned about two aspects in particular. First, before 1 January 2025, approximately 83,000 farm holdings were receiving the basic payment scheme before the change to delinked payments in England came into effect. After 1 January 2025, there were 32,200 active SFI agreements, with a growing number of businesses having more than one agreement due to how the scheme is administered by the RPA. That immediately demonstrates that there are probably fewer farmers with SFI agreements than even that number suggests. My second concern is about the lack of clarity we can expect when SFI 2027 comes into effect. The Minister is very aware of rural issues, given her previous constituency representation. There will be real hardship, as my noble friend Lord Roborough indicated, and I will address that.
I represented quite a large upland area for the last five years I was in the other place, and I am currently patron of Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services. I make a plea to the Minister to be as absolutely clear as the Government can be as to how the schemes will apply for common land, to upland farmers and to tenant farmers. In north Yorkshire in particular, about 48% of the farms are tenanted and, when a solar panel scheme takes a big chunk of the tenanted farm out of production, that leaves them with very little area on which they can claim. I hope that the Minister, in summing up, will look carefully at the gap between the existing schemes remaining in force, and the fact that if you are in an existing scheme, you are probably unable to apply: you are locked out of an environmental scheme until early 2028 at the earliest.
The pace at which basic farm payments are declining and the rate at which the new schemes are coming into effect will pose very real issues of hardship for farmers. I hope that that is an aspect that the Minister will address when she sums up the debate on these regulations.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I cannot compete with the noble Earl, Lord Devon. First of all, I declare my farming interests in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and my receipt of delinked payments.
The first Lord Carrington, the third Lord Carrington and the sixth Lord Carrington were all Ministers of agriculture. The most famous of them was the third Lord Carrington, a Liberal, who introduced a policy of smallholdings for farmers during the Boer War and the First World War. That policy seems to be the guiding light for what the Government are currently doing on the SFI payments—concentrating on the small farmers with 50 hectares or less, rather than the larger farmers, who will be capped, if they get money at all, at £100,000.
I am speaking very much as a working, hands-on farmer, and I must say that I have never seen anything quite like it in all the 50 or more years that I have been involved in farming. I want to just bring to the attention of the House some of the real horror stories that are going on, even as we speak. They are based on what we are doing on our farm. We have decided for the first time ever not to plant spring crops, because we cannot risk the weather remaining as dry as it is, and therefore the crops not germinating. We are having tremendous trouble not so much in getting fertiliser, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, mentioned, but in getting red diesel. The price of red diesel is the real crucifier of most farmers in this country at the moment. Then, of course, we have the prices for the commodities that we are producing, all of which make leaving the land fallow the best option for us.
In East Anglia, in Norfolk, I gather, crops of wheat are currently being irrigated. That is a very expensive exercise for a crop that is not going to produce a great deal of money. We grow potatoes, and we have reduced our potato acreage considerably due to prices. We had a very good harvest last year, but prices worldwide are terrible. Now we have the potential problem of the SPS agreement. Under the SPS agreement, certain chemicals are going to be banned. If you buy a packet of crisps, that crisp will actually have been taken from a potato three years ago, and the chemicals that will have been used will be banned under the new SPS agreement, unless the Government get a waiver. That means, of course, that those potatoes will go straight into an anaerobic digester, if they cannot be sold.
A similar problem exists for sugar beet. Sugar beet is very susceptible, as everyone knows, to virus yellows; it is estimated that 60% of all sugar beet grown in this country is affected by virus yellows. There are very few other profitable break crops, which means that the following year you will not be able to get the yields you want out of wheats, and so on and so forth. So it is a pretty drastic situation out there.
I am a very lucky farmer, as we are fortunate to live in the murder capital of England. We have filming for “Midsomer Murders” going on even as we speak, and that is much more profitable than a crop of wheat. I am also in a part of the country where we can grow houses. I am lucky, but others are not so fortunately placed in the farming world.
All this, of course, makes the Government’s byline, “Food security is national security”, almost worthless. I am therefore going to ask just one question of the Minister. It is driven by the fact that farmers need to plan, and what we are getting at the moment is not nearly sufficient to enable us to plan for the future. Can the Minister reassure the House on how Ministers and the department are supporting farmers to business plan now by providing forward plans of the SFI and countryside stewardship higher-tier schemes, as they are offered in both 2027 and 2028? Only with that information can we make sense of our farming.
Like everybody else, I thank noble Lords very much for all the support they have given us hereditaries. I will still be here, but sitting on the steps of the Throne rather than in the Chamber.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise to declare my interest as a member of a farming company and also involved in the fertiliser industry, which was mentioned a little earlier. Fertilisers and fuel are farmers’ most expensive costs, and we see unprecedented increases ahead of them, on top of three bad harvests in a row.
I want to dwell for a moment on the SFI and the capped payments. What capped payments do is reward inefficiency; they militate against investment, efficiency, productivity, progress and scale. All the things that farming over many generations has contributed to this nation are at risk of being thrown away carelessly by the capped payments that these regulations will impose.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, mentioned the land use framework. It is going to be a disaster for farming and terrible for food security. It contemplates in table 1 that fully 1.7 million hectares of productive land will be removed from agriculture, out of a total of 9.6 million hectares. That is about a fifth—and, at £2,000 per hectare gross income, which is what, on average, a mixed farm would hope to gain, it represents a £3.4 billion hit to the rural economy. We cannot afford this in terms of food security and we cannot afford it economically. That £3.4 billion loss is out of a £13.9 billion total gross value added from agriculture. It is between one-fifth and one-quarter of the entire economic output of agriculture in our islands, in all its forms: arable, livestock, fruit, veg, grains and so forth. It is a fantasy to think that somehow, magically—it is magical thinking—we are going to have a 20% efficiency improvement. This adds to further insults with the APR/BPR issue, and the fact that farmers can have their land compulsorily purchased from under them, under the NSIP regime for solar, destroying the credibility and capacity of farms already under pressure: pressures aggravated by the cash flow problems from SFI.
It is hard to get fertiliser as it is in this nation—it is my trade; I know how difficult it is to secure the cargoes, fighting off the rest of the world—yet this Government, by choice, are going to make it even harder to get fertiliser delivered to this nation to support our farmers and underpin our food security with the introduction of insane carbon taxes that will add rocket boosters to the food price inflation that is already barrelling down the tracks.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, listening to this debate, it becomes apparent just how diverse our nation’s agriculture is. For every remark by one speaker, there is probably someone who knows about agriculture in a different part of the country, in a different sector, where it is not directly relevant. But the message that comes across—and I declare my interests in agriculture in Cumbria, which the Minister knows about—has the same effect: what ought to be a profitable activity, providing public goods, which is not merely food but a whole range of other things, becomes unsustainable quite simply because it does not pay. It does not matter how you look at this; at the end of the year, if income and expenditure do not balance, then that enterprise cannot survive for all that long.
I think that government has an important role to play in every advanced western society. The Government provide a framework around which farming, agriculture and land use functions, not least because the consequences of what is done are so important in widely varying ways to other parts of the economy. What worries me about the debates on agriculture in this country is that, if agriculture is not sustainable and if the businesses, be they big or small, become unsustainable and cannot survive on their own commercial terms, either because they cannot generate enough revenue from husbandry or other land use activities that they carry out, or, equally important, because of the incidence of tax that they will have to pay—it is no good thinking that an inheritance tax is a kind of one-off thing; the reality is that you have to put aside money year on year in order to build up a reserve or, alternatively, borrow money which then has to be paid off over a long period to pay off the debt that is owed to the state—we will continue in a world where many of those who are operating in a smaller way in the agricultural sector are on standards of living below those promised to the employed sector by the minimum wage.
That is not the basis for a long-term, sustainable, rural, agricultural food sector. I believe that we will end up, if we are not careful, in those kinds of circumstances, because the analysis that is necessary behind working out what the policy needs to be is not the kind of thing that is simply learned in an economics course or an agricultural economics course at a university. It depends on an understanding of the realities of what carrying out this business entails. My concern about the context of the debate this evening is that policy is not being made with sufficient understanding and recognition of the realities of what is underlying this whole part of the economy. If you do that, it will not work. Already in agriculture, the rate of return that people expect is probably 2% or 3%. Who in the commercial world—I have chaired some commercial companies—will invest getting the rates of return that you get from agriculture?
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It was fine; they are good words. But good words are not enough here. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who normally sits across the Chamber, said on a number of occasions, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. The litmus test for agricultural policy, like every other policy, is: is it engendering a sector of the economy that is working in the public interest? I am deeply concerned that the way in which it is being approached by the present Administration is not going to bring that about.
Finally, as somebody who is also about to leave, I would like to add my sentiments to what a number of others have said about the way in which the whole infrastructure of the House has supported my work here. I make a particular reference to the nurse, whose name I never knew, who identified that I got sepsis and sent me straightaway to hospital.
Baroness Grender (LD)
Sorry, I was so fascinated—I was pondering the thought.
I thank the Minister for setting out with such clarity this statutory instrument and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, for bringing forward his regret amendment, which has created an opportunity for a much broader-ranging and, I think we can agree, interesting debate. It has been an absolute privilege to be here for the last speeches by, for instance, the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Inglewood. I had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on various issues—sometimes we did not agree on one or two of them, it must be said—and with my colleague on the Conduct Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which is a fairly typical in-the-background public service to protect the reputation of this place, for which he should be thanked and we should be enormously grateful. It is fitting that we have heard from so many experts, particularly on this area.
On the regulations before us, the Liberal Democrats have long accepted the case for moving away from the basic payment scheme, a system based largely on land ownership, which was never the right long-term foundation in our view for supporting agriculture. We support the principle of transition towards a system that rewards farmers for the delivery of public goods, restoring nature, improving soil health and strengthening resilience in the face of the climate emergency. However, support for reform cannot mean a blank cheque for the way that it is implemented. In a way, the question before us tonight is not whether the change is needed but whether this stage of the transition is being managed in a way that is fair, predictable and sustainable for those most affected; we have heard evidence that it is not.
The first concern is the pace and scale of the reductions. Delinked payments were intended to provide a degree of stability during a period of significant change, yet many farmers, as we have heard from this debate, now face a position in which support is being reduced more quickly than they are able to plan for and than viable alternatives are becoming available. For businesses operating on tight margins, that creates enormous pressure on cash flow and on long-term planning. A transition, as we know, that is too abrupt, risks undermining the very resilience it is expected and hoped to build.
Secondly, there is the question of where the money is going. I appreciate that the Minister set out some of this in her opening remarks, but the NFU—I thank it for its briefing—has made clear that there are some concerns about where the money is being allocated from these changes. It says that there remains a lack of clarity, and in some cases confidence, about whether funding is reaching farmers in practice at the scale and pace required.
Thirdly, there is the impact on different types of farm. Smaller and family-run farms are often less able to absorb sudden changes in income or navigate complex new schemes. If this transition is not carefully managed, there is a risk that support will become unevenly distributed, with some farms better placed than others to adapt. We have heard already about the economic consequences of that.
There is the wider point about the link between agricultural support and environmental outcomes. We believe the shift away from direct payment is justified in part by the promise of a more sustainable and environmentally focused system, but that promise depends on delivery. If funding gaps, uncertainty or administrative complexity prevent farmers participating fully in new schemes, we risk weakening farm viability and environmental progress at the same time. The position of these Benches is therefore balanced; we support the direction of travel towards a more sustainable and environmentally grounded system of agricultural support, but we share the concerns of this Chamber that the current approach risks getting the transition wrong.
I have three brief questions but, as we are nearly at the end of the Session, if the Minister wishes to answer in writing, I would be more than happy to receive that. First, what assessment have the Government made of the cumulative impact of these reductions on farm incomes over the next two years? What safeguards are in place to prevent otherwise viable farms being pushed into financial difficulty? Secondly, can the Minister provide a clear and transparent account of how savings from reduced delinked payments are being reallocated, including how much has reached farmers through environmental schemes to date? Thirdly, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that smaller farmers are not disproportionately disadvantaged in this transition? I particularly refer the Minister to paragraph 78 of the 56th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which suggests that we ask her
“about the financial impact of the transition to the new support schemes, especially on small farmers”.
These are very practical questions.
In closing, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough. It has been an absolute honour working with him on opposite Benches. We had a bit of a reminisce about a mean old fatal Motion that I chucked his way about a year ago on exactly this issue—I reminisced more fondly than he did. Having these kinds of amendments and ensuring that this kind of discussion takes place is critical for the issues we have heard about this evening, so I thank him for raising this.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone for their valuable contributions to this debate. A number of broad concerns have been raised that I will do my best to address now. For any outstanding specific questions, we will look at Hansard and ensure that we write to noble Lords with more detailed responses.
The Government remain convinced that delinked payments are not an effective way to support our farmers, protect food security or restore nature. We should continue to invest in the environmental land management schemes and the range of grants and other support for farmers which deliver public goods, reward sustainable farming and boost productivity.
Concerns were raised about farm profitability and the impacts on farmers of the phasing out of direct payments. I will go over some of this. We recently published our 2025 farming and countryside programme evaluation report, which sets out an assessment of the impacts of the first three years of phasing out direct payments. It includes a detailed look at the key transition channels for the sector, which include rents, diversification income, income from agri-environment schemes and productivity improvements.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to hear the final contributions of departing noble Lords who have been such stalwart supporters of the rural economy. It is a huge loss both to the House and to the rural economy, which will have a much-diminished voice in debates in this place, when there is limited representation in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, has had a most distinguished record in this House since 2011 and outside it. The Curry commission report in 2002 was remarkable in that the Government accepted 101 of the 105 recommendations, and it marked the beginning of the shift towards environmental stewardship and sustainable farming. I am also personally grateful to the noble Lord for following my maiden speech and making kind comments without any preparation or indeed ever having met me before, after my listed follower failed to make it to the Chamber in time.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will also be much missed for his contributions to rural economy debates in this House. Within my own brief tenure, among many other things, he won an important amendment to the Renters’ Rights Act, ensuring that farm businesses are able to continue offering accommodation. It is also a great shame that we are losing the Lord Great Chamberlain from full membership of this House.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, took his place only shortly before I took mine. I have enjoyed his erudite contributions to debate, displaying not just his keen interest in the rural economy but his formidable legal brain, which was on display again today. The noble Earl’s family is one of the longest serving in Parliament and has been a consistent and powerful voice for my native Devon.
It has been evident to me in my brief tenure that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has been a similar voice for Cumbria. Of course, the Minister remains a stalwart Cumbrian resident and spokesperson.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. It has been a wide-ranging debate about the rural economy. Her reply demonstrated her sympathy and empathy with the issues in the rural economy, and I think that we are all much heartened by the fact that she is in her place, within a Government who perhaps do not have all those sympathies themselves.
I make just one point in closing. The long-term road maps are all very well, but the farming industry, and particularly the arable sector, is in crisis at the moment. The figures that were quoted for the two fiscal years ending 2023 and 2024 were generally quite good years for the industry, and 2025 and 2026, particularly for the arable sector, will look very different.
I am grateful to all who have contributed to this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, next we are due to consider the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which has come from the other place. The window for tabling amendments will be open until 9.10 pm. We will adjourn during pleasure until a point announced on the annunciator.
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:22 - Division on Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 145 - Motion B1 agreed.
22:34 - Division on Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 145 - Motion C1 agreed.
22:46 - Division on Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E) - Ayes: 58 / Noes: 138 - Motion E1 disagreed.
22:57 - Division on Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F) - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 144 - Motion F1 agreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D, E, E1, F and F1. It is a pleasure to bring the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill back to the House of Lords to consider the amendments and reasons from the other place. I again thank my colleague in the other place, the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities, for setting out the Government’s position on the amendments that remain in scope for ping-pong.
On Motion A, relating to Amendment 2, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke so clearly on the importance of rural affairs during our last debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her contributions. As your Lordships will know, the Government’s position has been that these matters are already captured within the existing areas of competence. Nevertheless, we have heard the concerns put forward by noble Lords that rural affairs may be marginalised or ignored. We recognise that, as devolution is extended beyond the predominantly urban areas of England, it will be necessary for strategic authorities to use the powers and funding at their disposal to support communities across a wider range of geographies, including rural and coastal areas. The Government have therefore accepted the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I hope that, on this basis, your Lordships will feel that their concerns have been addressed and that we can proceed in a spirit of consensus on this matter.
On Motions F and F1, relating to the amendments regarding the ministerial powers of direction, the Government have been clear that we will work with local leaders to develop devolution proposals that command broad support from local areas. To that end, we have already committed not to commence powers to direct the establishment of a combined authority or a combined county authority for a period of two years following Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time for areas that do not currently have devolution agreements to develop workable proposals based on sensible geographies.
At the same time, we have listened and responded to concerns from noble Lords in this House about the scope of backstop powers set out in Schedule 1. We recognise that it will be important that non-mayoral authorities will have the opportunity to build capacity, capability and effective partnership working before taking on the deepest powers and funding at mayoral level. For this reason, the Government are removing the power for the Secretary of State to provide directly for a mayor in an area without local consent. I hope that noble Lords can see that the Government have listened to concerns.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion E1, as an amendment to Motion E. I have listened very carefully to what the Minister, who I hold in the highest regard, has said this evening. But I am disappointed that the other place continues to disagree with our amendment—in its view, because it is not necessary to make provision in primary legislation about the agent of change principle.
It would be helpful at the outset to understand what the agent of change principle is. For example, say the Minister operates a successful business, possibly a nightclub or a music venue, then I come along, as a developer of a block of flats or a housing project. I am then the agent of change. At the time that I seek planning permission, I should ensure at that point that any mitigation measures required are considered at that stage and that the costs be absorbed into the cost of the development.
Most mitigation measures relate to noise, but there could be other forms of nuisance too. The previous amendment reflected the situation that currently exists in that regard in England and broadened the concept of nuisance. Amendments 94F and 94G narrow this down to noise. In each case, this represents the position in Scotland, where a statutory provision came into force seven years ago and is seen to be working well. It gives a clear legal basis in statute for planning authorities and businesses to follow. All we seek to do is to put English law on the agent of change on the same statutory footing as exists successfully in Scotland.
The current situation is policy based on the National Policy Planning Framework, and guidance has no legal effect, delays planning decisions on houses and flats, which are so dear to the Government’s agenda, and causes a barrier to the Government’s growth strategy. The Government propose to review the NPPF and guidance and add a letter for local authorities to refer to—how nice. This will lead to a downward trajectory of business closures, predominantly but not exclusively music venues, to continue unabated.
Unless the Minister is able to give us a clear undertaking for a review of the current position in one year, with a commitment to introducing a statutory provision, I am minded to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support the more focused amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on the agent of change that deal only with the noise issue, primarily as it might and does affect grass-roots music venues.
A number of amendments to Bills that have been going through ping-pong recently have had guidance as their theme and the concern that guidance is or will not be enough. The amendment is perhaps a little unusual in that there are two sets of evidence: one that shows that, over a period of years, the existing guidance has not worked; and the other that shows that, over a period of seven years, a statutory solution—the Scottish solution—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, set out, does work. Taken together, that is a powerful body of evidence as a whole.
I want to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, who is in his place, said last week. He said that
“putting the agent of change principle around music venues in the Bill and making it a statutory provision will ultimately need to happen”.—[Official Report, 23/4/26; col. 792.]
Of course, the noble Lord led the fan-led review of live and electronic music for the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. This amendment is so important for our music venues and the music industry, which in turn is such an important part of the industrial growth strategy. I will certainly support this amendment if the noble Baroness takes it to a vote.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support Motion E1. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has explained the agent of change principle with characteristic clarity. I would have preferred the broader amendment that we passed on Report, which reflected the full range of ways in which new development can harm existing businesses, but I accept that the narrow amendment before us, focused on noise and closely modelled on Scotland’s statutory provision, is, as has been argued, the right next step.
As we have heard, the Government’s answer is a strengthened NPPF, updated guidance and a letter to local authorities. A letter has no legal effect, nor does guidance, and the result of years of policy without statute is plain to see: hundreds of Music Venue Trust interventions every year and a continuing downward trajectory of venue closures that show no signs of abating.
Scotland legislated seven years ago. In her previous speech the Minister pointed to a handful of ministerial call-ins as evidence that disputes persist. But a small number of orderly, legally grounded call-ins over seven years is not a system failing; it is a system working. Compare that with England, where hundreds of interventions are needed annually, simply to make guidance bite. The Music Venue Trust, the fan-led review, and people such as my colleague have reached the same conclusion. Scotland’s statute has brought clarity, compliance and fewer disputes. That is not a cautionary tale, it is a model.
Whatever the outcome today, I urge the Minister not to let this issue fade. If the interventions and the closures continue, please will she review this? When she does, will she take the statutory route seriously? In the meantime, should the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, wish to test the opinion of the House, I will support her.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I respect the views that have already been expressed. I also respect the views of the elected House on this matter, which have been expressed to us quite clearly on a number of occasions. This is an improved amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has put before us this evening.
I will simply say this. At some point it will become necessary to put this on a statutory basis, even if the Government do not seem ready to do so at this point. As part of the fan-led review, which I was commissioned to lead by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons, I visited every corner of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. One of the places where we held a round table was the Sub Club in Glasgow, which has benefited from the statutory provision of the agent of change principle in that residential flats have been built nearby in recent years and without any question the developers had to provide the mitigating measures that were necessary if they were going to be opening up residential properties next to an existing music venue with the existing noise—not noise nuisance but existing noise that was already generated by that valuable cultural institution in Glasgow.
As I have expressed clearly before, I think the right way forward would be to put this on a statutory basis. If the Government are not ready to do that and if this amendment is not successful—I appreciate that my report was published only last week and the Government will have to respond to it when the committee submits it to them for response—at the very least I hope that they will undertake a review of how these systems operate in Scotland, look at the recommendations in my report, and report back in due course to Parliament on their conclusions as to how the system is working in England in comparison with Scotland. It is my view that any dispassionate examination of that will find that putting these provisions on a statutory basis would be a better way forward.
However, I appreciate that the Government have accepted that the current system under guidance has not worked in an ideal way and want the opportunity to strengthen it and to prove that it can work in that way. If they undertake to review that and report back in due course, that would be an important step forward. On that basis, I very much welcome the comments from noble Lords and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, there have been four very powerful speeches on the agent of change principle. I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she decides to test the opinion of the House, she will have the support of these Benches.
Not a lot has changed as a result of the votes that we made last week; there has been some amelioration, but our views have not changed on brownfield land priority or on strengthening parish governance. I welcome any improvement to those that the Government are able to come up with and have come up with, but I think we have some movement yet to achieve.
I say thank you to the Minister on the question of rural affairs being a competence. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and to her colleagues in the other place for agreeing to our amendment on rural areas to be added as a competence of the Bill, and I am sure that those who live, work and enjoy rural areas for their recreation will find that this amendment will make a difference to the way in which the Bill affects their service delivery and environment.
I place on record too our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for her support and that of her team on this particular issue. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron of Dillington, from the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, in particular has been a vociferous advocate for the consideration of rural areas over many years. I hope that he, like us, will feel a sense of achievement in at last getting rural affairs to be fully part of the Bill.
I have Motion C1, which relates to the governance structures of local authorities and in particular who decides what the governance structure should be. It is a disappointment to me that the House of Commons has not agreed with the amendment that I moved and which was agreed by your Lordships’ House last week. The central issue remains. The Bill is about devolution and community empowerment, so I ask the Government again: why cannot a community decide for themselves their own model of local governance for their local council?
The Minister in the other place said that the Government wanted to create
“strong local authorities that can deliver for their people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/4/26; col. 265.]
It is the case that councils with committee systems do deliver for their people, and surely it is for local people to decide their governance structures. A committee system is more transparent and democratically accountable than a cabinet system, and it will involve more people—more elected councillors.
Since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, the committee system has shown its effectiveness in bringing councillors of different parties together, because a committee structure engages all councillors with the decision-making processes of a local authority. The scrutiny system has not been that effective in local government because it tends to take place after a decision has been made. A committee will assess policy proposals before and as they are agreed.
In conclusion, this is a very simple issue. Who decides a local authority governance structure? Is it Ministers in Whitehall or local people? I submit that it is for local people to decide what they feel is best for their area. When we get to Motion C1, I will beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. I agree with all the House’s alternative amendments, but I am going to speak just on Motion C1. I have spoken at every stage of the Bill on this issue.
Rather than repeat what I have said before, I will reflect on what the Minister said to us in putting the Government’s argument. She said that the Government retain a strong preference for the cabinet executive model and want a consistent model of governance all around the country. Well, I do not mind what the Government prefer. I do not mind what the Government’s view is. I just do not want the Government imposing that on communities up and down the land. Democracy, not dictatorship, is what this amendment is about. I urge everyone to back Motion C1.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to see that the Government have conceded, first, to add rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of competences for mayors. I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for pressing ahead with this issue and for getting what she quite rightly argued for. It is crucial that our rural and coastal communities are not left behind or treated as merely secondary. They should be just as empowered as other communities throughout the Bill.
Turning to Motion B1 on brownfield land, our amendment in lieu sought to address the Government’s concerns about placing a clear prioritisation of brownfield development in legislation. I say it again: prioritising brownfield land is not simply a matter of preference. It is essential. We are a small island with finite land. The choices that we make about development are therefore not abstract. They go directly to how we protect our countryside, our agricultural capacity and, ultimately, our food security. Every acre of greenfield land lost to development is an acre no longer available for food production. In an increasingly uncertain world, where supply chains are fragile and global pressures on food are growing, it is short-sighted not to recognise the strategic importance of safeguarding that land.
This is not only about protection. It is also about opportunity. A “brownfield first” approach supports the renewal of our towns and cities, encourages sustainable city living and makes better use of the infrastructure that we already have. It is about bringing life back into urban areas rather than continually expanding outwards. It is therefore disappointing that the Government have not been willing to match their stated ambitions with action. Last week, the Minister said that spatial development strategies were only high-level documents. But let us be clear: they are the strategies that will inform local plans.
Furthermore, the Minister said that we should not judge the effectiveness of the brownfield policy prematurely by enshrining this principle into law. However, we believe that we should entrench the “brownfield first” approach from the start rather than look back, potentially years from now—years when more developments on greenfield land have taken place—to conclude that the Government should have done more to protect our greenfield land. For those reasons, I remain firmly of the view that a “brownfield first” approach should be embedded from the outset. Therefore, I intend to insist on our amendment and test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for tabling Motion C1 on governance models again. It invites the House to consider the balance between consistency and local choice in local governance. We believe the Bill, as its title suggests, should tip the balance in favour of local choice. We support Motion C1 to leave out Clause 59. Removing the requirement for a leader and cabinet model would allow local authorities to adopt arrangements that reflect their communities and their circumstances. Local government is most effective when it can respond to the needs of its communities, and a single, prescribed model risks overlooking that diversity. Allowing councils to determine their own structures respects both their mandate and their judgment.
The same principle of local discretion brings me to town and parish council governance. I am very grateful to the Minister for her amendments and for the commitments made from the Dispatch Box. The requirement to engage with parish councils is a welcome and constructive step forward and we recognise the progress that has been made on this issue. However, engagement now must be meaningful and timely. Parish councils are a vital part of our local democratic fabric, and it is important that this duty translates into genuine involvement in practice. In that spirit, can the Minister outline how the Government intend to take this forward? Specifically, what plans are in place to begin engagement with sector bodies representing town and parish councils, and how will that engagement help shape implementation? If we get those assurances, we will support the Government’s way forward.
I move on to Motion E1 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I have spoken before on the merits of her original amendments, and I am grateful for her dedication to this issue. That said, we have listened carefully to the reasons outlined by the Minister. We hope that more work can be done on this issue to ensure that new developments integrate well with existing communities and with businesses, but by narrowing this amendment to just noise, and particularly to music, we have great concern that the other issues—such as smell, light from existing businesses, et cetera—that were originally in the amendments will be negatively impacted, because the agent of change would relate only to noise. We have concerns around that and think that more work should be done on this issue. Therefore, as the Motion stands, we cannot support it.
Finally, I move on to Motion F1. I also note that the Government have tabled amendments in lieu to remove the powers in Schedule 1 for the Secretary of State to directly provide for a mayor for an existing authority without local consent. This is welcome, and I thank the Minister that we are making progress on this issue. However, we will insist on our amendments to challenge the further powers of the Secretary of State that are in Schedule 1. This is fundamental to protecting successful devolution and ensuring that local consent is at the heart of the Bill. We believe that the Secretary of State should not have the power to override the will of local people. The Government are not moving fast enough on this. We are minded, therefore, to test the opinion of the House on Motion F1 when it comes to a vote.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard and addressed concerns over the role and importance of rural affairs within our devolution framework for England. I already thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, but I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Cameron, for their thoughtful interventions on this subject.
As my colleague the Minister for Devolution, Faith and Communities set out in the other place, mayors of strategic authorities should be in no doubt that they have the ability to convene meetings with local partners and to collaborate with neighbouring mayors on matters relating to rural affairs and coastal communities. Nor should there be any doubt that the Government have the power to provide additional functions for strategic authorities in relation to these matters where doing so will support them to deliver against their areas of competence. That is why the Government are proposing the addition of rural affairs and coastal communities to the list of subjects included within the areas of competence. I thank noble Lords for their support for that change.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 89B and 89C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 89D and 89E.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 155A to 155F and 155H to the words restored to the Bill by that non-insistence on Amendment 155.
“(2A) Before moving to a leader and cabinet executive in accordance with subsection (2), the local authority must—
(a) secure that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at its principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(b) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in its area a notice which—
(i) states that the authority will be moving to a leader and cabinet executive,
(ii) states the date on which the change is to have effect,
(iii) describes the main features of the change,
(iv) states that copies of a document setting out the provisions of the arrangements for its leader and cabinet executive are available at the authority's principal office for inspection by members of the public, and
(v) specifies the address of the authority's principal office.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C and I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Shipley
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 36, 90 and 155, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 155A to 155F and 155H.”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 91 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 91C to 91E in lieu.
“(1A) In making appropriate arrangements in relation to a neighbourhood area in which there are one or more parish councils, the local authority must engage with the parish council or councils about parish representation under those arrangements.”
“(3A) Regulations under this section about the membership of specified organisational structures may, in particular, make provision for the membership to include parish representation.”
““parish representation” means representation of any parish council or councils within a neighbourhood area;”
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D, and I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 94B and 94C to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 94D and 94E.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, and I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 94F and 94G in lieu—
“Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments
After Section 70D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert the following new section—
“70E Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments
(1) A development that is the subject of an application for planning permission is an “noise-sensitive development” if residents or occupiers of the development are likely to be affected by significant impact from existing noise in the vicinity of the development.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 70(1), a planning authority—
(a) must, when considering under section 70 whether to grant planning permission for a noise-sensitive development subject to conditions, take particular account of whether the development includes sufficient measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effect of the anticipated noise of existing activities on the development from any existing cultural venues or facilities (including in particular, but not limited to, live music venues), or dwellings or businesses in the vicinity of the development, and
(b) may not, as a condition of granting planning permission for a noise-sensitive development, impose on existing cultural venues or facilities additional costs relating to design measures to mitigate, minimise or manage the effects of that noise.””
“(z1) section (Protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments) (protection for existing businesses and facilities from unreasonable restrictions on noise emissions resulting from new developments);””
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have listened very attentively to what the Minister had to say, but I would like to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 and do agree with the Commons in their amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Leave out from “House” to the end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 85 and 86, 97 to 116, 120, 121 and 123 and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 123C to 123H and 123J to 123K in lieu.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Pension Schemes Bill
Pension Schemes Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:23 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 197 / Noes: 129 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Sherlock
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 88A, 88C, 88E to 88P and 88R to 88W to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.
“(ba) must require—
(i) an application to include a statement explaining why the applicant considers that meeting the asset allocation requirement would be likely to cause material financial detriment to members of the scheme;
(ii) the Authority to have due regard to such a statement in determining an application;”
“(ca) must require the Authority to provide reasons for any determination not to approve an application;”
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the other place has once again considered this House’s amendments and has once again disagreed with them, tabling further amendments in lieu. I will set out in a moment what those amendments contain, but I want first to say something about where we now find ourselves.
The elected House has now voted on the reserve power three times. On each occasion it has supported the Government’s position, by large majorities. This House has every right to scrutinise what is before it, and the quality of that scrutiny has improved the Bill. But we need to be clear about the context in which we are operating: these exchanges have gone on for some time, and the Government have moved a considerable distance.
Let me trace that distance briefly. In the first round, the Government wrote the Mansion House Accord targets into primary legislation—the 10% and 5% caps—and introduced the asset class neutrality requirement. In the second round, we went further: the sunset was brought forward to 2032; the power was restricted to a single use; the application was limited to main default funds; and we provided for the full repeal of the entire asset allocation framework at the end of 2035. This was not just the enabling power, but every associated provision—the approval requirements, the penalty regime, the review obligation, and any requirements that had been brought into force—removed from the statute book entirely.
Today, the other place agreed a third set of amendments. These address the savers’ interest test—the mechanism at Section 28G by which schemes can apply for an exemption from any asset allocation requirement. I know that the operation of this test has been a source of concern in this House, touching as it does on issues around trustees’ fiduciary responsibilities to savers. The Government have listened carefully to what has been said, while explaining the reason for their own position, which is, in essence, that these fiduciary duties have not to date been sufficient to overcome the distortion of asset allocation decisions by commercial pressures.
When we debated things last Wednesday, the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, described our position as believing a market failure to exist, and that is a fair characterisation. The Opposition argue that decisive government action to correct this market failure is not justified. We simply disagree. We believe that it is the Government’s duty to take the steps needed to further savers’ interests.
Our first new amendment, Amendment 88U, lowers the threshold for an exemption. The Bill, as drafted, would have allowed regulations to require a scheme to demonstrate that compliance would cause material financial detriment. That language attracted close scrutiny in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, among others, questioned whether it set the bar too high, requiring proof of certainty. The threshold is now would “be likely to” cause. A scheme will need to show that detriment is the probable consequence of compliance, not that it is certain.
The second amendment, Amendment 88T, confirms in the Bill that where the threshold is met, the regulator must grant the exemption. The Government always intended the test to work that way. The Bill now states it clearly.
The third amendment, Amendment 88V, expressly requires the regulator to have due regard to the scheme’s own assessment of why compliance will be likely to cause material financial detriment. Schemes applying for an exemption must set out their reasoning, and the regulator will be under a statutory obligation to engage with it properly.
Noble Lords have argued that trustees and scheme managers are best placed to understand the circumstances of their members and that the regulator should give proper weight to their analysis. “Due regard” is established statutory language. It carries real legal weight, and it means the regulator cannot receive a scheme’s assessment and pass over it without proper consideration. I am aware that this type of language finds favour in a number of places in the House. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government have engaged with the substance of what has been asked for.
The fourth amendment, Amendment 88W, requires the regulator to provide reasons for any decision to refuse an application. The Bill already provides for a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. This ensures that schemes have what they need to exercise that right—a right that is meaningful only if applicants know why they were turned down.
Let me set out what the reserve power now looks like, taken as a whole. It is capped at the accord targets. Regulations cannot concentrate requirements in a single asset class. The power applies only to main default funds. The percentage can be set only once. The power lapses if not used by the end of 2032. Even if used, the whole framework is repealed at the end of 2035. It remains subject to the affirmative procedure and to statutory reporting requirements before and after any use. The savers’ interest test now provides a lower threshold, certainty that an exemption will be granted where it is met, a statutory requirement for the regulator to give due regard to the scheme’s own reasoning and transparency about decisions if the application fails.
I understand the position of noble Lords who believe that this power should not exist at all. I have listened to those arguments with care throughout the passage of the Bill, but the Government’s view remains that the risk of inaction, of allowing the collective action problem to persist while pension savers bear the cost, is the greater risk. The Government have now brought forward three successive rounds of concessions, each responding to arguments made in this House, each written into primary legislation. The power that is now before noble Lords bears the imprint of this House’s scrutiny at every turn. Given all that, I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and to agree the amendments proposed by the other place in lieu. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, do insist on its disagreement to Commons Amendments 88A, 88C and 88E to 88P and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 88R to 88W to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, including for our meeting on Friday. For the record, we suggested a “have regard” framework, requiring trustees to consider private market investment in alignment with the Mansion House Accord and to report to the regulator. That approach would meet the Government’s stated policy aims without overriding fiduciary duty or distorting the market. It was rejected, apparently because it lacked a sufficiently heavy sanction threat. So we continue and, unfortunately, mandation remains.
At the second round of ping-pong, I dealt with the technical and market concerns, and all those concerns remain. Today, I turn to the constitutional issues. First, fiduciary duty is a foundational principle in our common law. Trustees must act solely in the beneficiary’s interests, yet this clause directs them towards particular asset classes without any statutory defence or immunity. Trustees are left in a double bind: comply and risk personal liability or refuse and face deauthorisation.
Secondly, the process has been procedurally defective. There was no consultation on mandation, discrimination between investment vehicles or the sanction. The Commons amendments this time merely add procedural language around the savers’ interest test, due regard and reasons, which public law already requires. Further, there is the coercive effect of the so-called reserve power, which is already being deployed to pressure schemes and trustees into compliance without the consultation, assessment or regulatory discipline that regulations would require. That is constitutionally improper. Policy is being pursued by threat, not by law.
Thirdly, the savers’ interest test itself is unchanged in substance. The insertion of “likely to” is trivial. The test still reverses the logic of fiduciary duty, savers have not consented to the additional risks, and the penalty of deauthorisation remains draconian and disproportionate.
Fourthly, pension savings are members’ property. A coercive statutory scheme backed by deauthorisation is an interference with property rights that requires clear justification and careful design. Neither is present.
For these constitutional, procedural, proportionality and rights-based reasons, the clause remains defective and the Government’s amendments do not cure it. This is legislation that relies on threat rather than clarity and coercion rather than properly framed substance. I therefore will ask the House to insist on our deletion and to disagree with the Government’s amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I point out to the Minister that the Mansion House Accord had two parts. The second part had government obligations, on the basis of which the industry voluntarily agreed to invest in the private assets that the Government favour. None of the Government’s obligations is enshrined in the Bill; they are hoped for. The Minister assumes that private assets will definitely outperform and that if savers do not invest in them they will be losing out somehow. There is no underpin for the losses and even if the investment experts decide that they disagree and would not normally want to buy them, they will still be forced to. This is not the way to get pension funds to invest successfully or to trust the Government in the future. I hope that the Government will think again.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, whose sister company Mercer is a pension consultancy, master trust provider and, importantly, a signatory to the Mansion House Accord. Firms that signed the Mansion House Accord last year in good faith, believing that fiduciary duty and trustee oversight would be preserved in order to ensure value for money for the individual pensioners whose funds they are responsible for investing, now face the prospect—or, dare I say, the threat—of mandation. This simply cannot be right, and we certainly do not think so.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have little to add to the compelling case set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and indeed by us all throughout the passage of the Bill. Our position remains unchanged: mandation has no place in the Bill and, if the Government are serious about securing its passage, they should remove it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my speech says, “I would like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate”—but that will not take long.
I will not hold us here for a long time, tempting though it is to go over the arguments in considerable detail, but I will say a couple of things. We need to remember that the whole purpose of the Pension Schemes Bill is to improve outcomes for savers. Where are savers in all of this? It is their interests that are there. The reason the Government are doing this is that the evidence is clear internationally that pension funds which have a small holding in private assets as part of a diversified portfolio bring better returns.
If there were a situation where that would not be in the interests of a particular scheme, that is the point of the savers’ interest test. This does not cut across fiduciary duty because, in fact, nothing in the Bill overrides that core principle of fiduciary duty. If trustees believe it not to be in their interests, not only can they make an application for an exemption under the savers’ interest test but we would expect their fiduciary duty to guide them to make that application. That really is the beginning and end of it.
I will simply say this. The whole point of the Bill is to make pensions better. This whole Bill will transform our pensions landscape. Pensions are the promise we make to millions of people that years of hard work will be rewarded with security and dignity in retirement. Bigger, better pension schemes will drive better returns, as well as tackling inefficiencies. We need to find a way to get the Bill agreed. Industry wants to get on with implementing the reforms and our pensioners want to start benefiting. The other place has expressed its view clearly, repeatedly and by substantial margins. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on whether it is right to ask the elected House to vote for a fourth time on a question to which it has given the same answer on every occasion. I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and to agree the amendments proposed in lieu in the other place.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the arguments have been well rehearsed. I am not convinced that this coercion is as innocent as has been made out and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.