Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Oral questions: Communications with the government of Canada and Mexico about the decision of the president of the United States to impose tariffs on certain of their exports Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

15:01

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, we have noted President Trump's announcement of tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and the subsequent 30 day suspension agreement. That is a matter for the US administration and it is not for me to comment on another countries bilateral trade relationships. We respect other countries dialogue with the US, and we will not intervene. However the UK government is prepared to take actions to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and consumers. We will continue to monitor developments across the Atlantic.

15:02

Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)

- -

May I thank the Minister for that reply. May I also welcome the fact that the prime minister managed in his talks with president of the United States to obtain a grudging hint that the UK might be exempt from proposed tariffs. Will she not agree that if there is a fully fledged trade war, and that affects our trading partners, that is going to have an impact on the world economy, on our economy, and will make it more difficult to do what we want to do on defence spending.

Secondly, if, as that newly appointed ambassador of the United States says, there is a prospect of UK-US technology deal, is it not extremely important that we take advantage of the extra flexibility that we have outside the EU to have a regulatory regime that is not hostile to the industries of the future but actually sees them as an opportunity for innovation? opportunity for innovation?

15:03

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord has raised several questions there. Firstly on the question of the UK and US, we have a strong economic relationship which is fair, balanced, and reciprocal. As you know, the Prime Minister and President Trump discuss this on 27 February. They agreed we would deepen our relationship and have task teams to work together on a trade deal focused on tech. This is absolutely fundamental to us. Prime Minister has been clear that when it comes to our national interest, he is not going to make any false choices between our allies stop it is about the national interest.

As the noble Lord quite rightly says, the Prime Minister asset we are going further and we will work on an economic deal with advanced technology at its core. But these are early days, to comment any further on this. We will obviously set out more details as the discussions carry on.

15:04

Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour)

- -

Can I commend the ministers first reply which, as I understood it, was that while we will confer with colleagues and allies across the world, that we will not be intervening. It is a matter for them to deal with the United States. And secondly can I very much commend also the second comment of the noble Lord, who recommended that we use, to offset some of the damaging effects of Brexit, the opportunities of Brexit. The opportunities of Brexit when it comes to manifesting an acceptance of our own point of view on the high-tech industries because those are the industries of the future.

15:05

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My noble friend makes an important point. And it is true that advanced technology is one of the key industries in our industrial strategy, and certainly one of the important areas for our future prosperity. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority is the growth of the UK economy, and free and open trade with our most economically important partners will be key to delivering that.

15:06

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Outrage is so integrated with that, and our trade policies based on the WTO rules. And the Trump Administration, by putting in tariffs not based on trade policy but other policy areas means that we will have to be a party to any of the disputes with the WTO if we are to protect our interests. One of the consequences of Brexit is that we have not followed suit having an antique coercion instrument which allows us to respond quickly if tariffs are put in place on non- trade areas.

The Minister not agree that for the British economy and outrage it would be better to coordinate the European trading allies to have common anti-coercion trading policy? trading policy?

15:06

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, as I say, we are committed to working with both the US and the EU to remove trade barriers to trade and to help UK businesses grow. It is obviously very early days with these issues. We will continue to take a coolheaded approach to any possible tariffs, and we will remain prepared to defend the U.K.'s national interest where it is right to do so.

15:07

Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)

- -

It is welcome to hear the noble Lady and the Minister talk about the national interest because obviously the importance of trade deal with US cannot be understated. Indeed the British Chamber of Commerce estimated that if a deal could be reached it would provide business with a stable basis for up to £1.5 trillion of bilateral investment between the countries. The prime minister has said wisely that he is neither with the EU or the USA. But the EU would seem to be taking a different view, their spokesman said we need to make up our mind.

Given that regulatory differences between the two met entities, what steps I His Majesty's government taking to ensure that closer alignment with the EU does not hinder progress towards contents of trade agreement with the US?

15:08

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, as I have said, we are committed to working with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and help UK businesses grow. The noble Lord is quite right to draw attention to the fact that the US is one of our largest trading partners, with trade worth around £300 million in September 2024 which represents 18% of total UK trade. Obviously we have a long and deep relationship with the US and we will obviously want to enhance that as that trade discussions continue.

15:08

Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)

- -

If President Trump imposes tariffs on the EU and not on the United Kingdom, what plans has the government got to protect parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, that has been left in the European Union in some hundreds of trading areas? How will we be affected and what will his Majesty's government do to protect citizens of Northern Ireland?

15:09

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, we will always consider businesses across the country, and of particular interest. However, it is difficult to comment on specific tariffs when there are few facts and it is more conversations and speculation to happen. Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market and goods moving into Northern Ireland do not subsequently enter the EU. We are considering what action would be the best interests of all UK businesses and we will make sure the implications for Northern Ireland are considered in those discussions.

15:09

Lord Mendoza (Conservative)

- -

The imposition of tariffs can have effects beyond trade effects. For example, this morning the 'New York Times' reported that the Chinese Foreign Ministry is considering relaxing their cooperation with America on the import of the product necessary to make fentanyl. Fentanyl and other opioids is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in America. So is the government ready for the reduction in the cooperation of China in this area and what might happen as a result even in this country? country?

15:10

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

Of course we are aware the US has imposed a tariff on all Chinese goods. I would reiterate it is not for me to comment on another country's bilateral trade relationships, that is a matter for the US. But we are aware of course a Chinese retaliatory response to the US tariffs. We respect China's dialogue with the US, as we will not intervene. However, the government is prepared to take any necessary action to mitigate the potential economic impact on our businesses and we will continue to monitor the situation.

15:10

Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)

- -

Returning to the Minister's first answer, of course it is sensible that there are things you don't say in public, but I do hope that in private his Majesty's government is making clear that we have an interest in free trade within North America. We are the largest investor in the US. We are affected by US tariffs in every component part that will be hit by them in that country. And we have an enduring interest in the prosperity of Canada. How can anyone in this country think of Canada without thinking of many battlefields where they have stood alongside us? I do hope that we will be making very clear that free trade between the United States and Canada is a British national interest.

is a British national interest.

15:11

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

My Lords, Canada is a valued part of the UK including as a Commonwealth member state, and our shared ties are deep and historic. As noted by our respective prime ministers when they spoke on 4 February, our trade relationship with Canada worth more than £26 billion to the end of quarter three in 2024 supports jobs and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. This is underpinned by our Trade Continuity Agreement. These relationships are important and ongoing. And we will continue these discussions and further deepen our ties with Canada in due course.

15:12

Oral questions: Addressing the theft of mobile telephones

Third Oral Question Lord Harris of Haringey.

15:12

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. Tackling mobile phone theft is a priority for this government. The priority for this government. The Home Secretary has brought together law enforcement agencies in the mobile phone industry to see what can be done to break the business can be done to break the business model of mobile phone thieves. The government is also included measures in the forthcoming release and crime in the forthcoming release and crime bill. The Home Office will ensure

15:12

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all parties work together technical innovations policing and government efforts to reduce crime. I'm grateful for the answer. It would appear that the resale value of stolen mobile phones is of the order of £400 to pending on the point that is stolen. There's clearly something not working if that is so great. Could my noble friend give an indication as to whether arrangements can be made with mobile phone operators to ensure that once a mobile phone is identified as stolen, it is not just the accounts that can be locked but also the phone itself using the number? And what comments does he have what does he think the lessons of other local authorities in terms of the initiative taken by Labour in of the initiative taken by Labour in Westminster reversing the policy of the Conservative predecessors of increasing the number of CCTV cameras monitoring central London by 100 which they have just announced?

15:13

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I congratulate Westminster City Council on its initiative on CCTV funding. And on the additional cameras in place. CCTV provides both a deterrent but also critical evidence in the event of criminal acts such as mobile phones taking place. On his first point with regard to mobile phone companies, when the Home Secretary met with mobile phone companies recently, she charged them was reporting back on what measures can be taken. Phone companies such as Apple, Google, and others looking at what they can do to ensure mobile phones are not used again and can be either blocked or their parts not compatible for the future.

The key issue is to determine this is what we are doing and working with mobile phone companies, is to determine whether phones are broken up and used for parts, but they are resold in the United Kingdom, or, as increasing his case, they are sold to a number of foreign countries, where they are used with impunity. That is the task we have set mobile phone companies, to ensure that we tackle those three issues. issues.

15:14

Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)

- -

A few Saturdays ago I took Lady Evans to the Theatreland. Between Shastri Avenue and Leicester Square she had her mobile phone stolen. We very quickly saw that she did not have a phone and managed to track it on an app called Find My Phone. So I tractor phone as it disappeared down Whitehall, through the back then, over Westminster Bridge, and ended up in a premise in Brixton. We notified the police. We were given a police incident report number, and when we inquired about getting the phone back they said, pretty much as the Minister said, it will probably be broken up and exported, and that the organised crime that takes these mobile phones are very difficult to prosecute.

Can the minister, notwithstanding Labour run Westminster Council, track these vehicles that go down over Westminster Bridge? It would be very easy to ascertain, but would it also be possible to look into what the police are sentiments of the public, that is very difficult to stop? that is very difficult to stop?

15:16

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)

- -

First of all can I say I'm sorry for the incident. It is an awful crime. It worries people and is threatening crime and you can access personal data that needs to be reduced and stop whenever possible. One of the measures we have in the

15:16

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Police and Crime Bill is to ensure Police and Crime Bill is to ensure the police can take action speedily on the point you mentioned. The moment if iPhone is tractor property let's say in south London, a warrant let's say in south London, a warrant has been issued in all of for the police to enter the property. The proposals in the bill will ensure that the police can enter the premise immediately. So the case that he mentions of his family, if that he mentions of his family, if that were reported, and the phone tracked to a property in Lambeth, the inspector in Lambeth Ltd authorise a police visit and potentially a recovery or arrest.

Hope the opposition will support

15:17

Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)

- -

It is almost out of control and taking up a huge amount of police resources. These can be dramatically reduced if smartphones were fitted with advanced locking technology. This technology, unlike kill switch technology, which is used by some of the companies that the Minister has mentioned, it is integrated at the operating level, it is resistant to factory resets and crucially, is activated automatically without user setup, which is a major breakthrough. Will the government consider mandating its implementation in all new smartphones?

15:17

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

It is a very interesting suggestion from the noble Lady. One of the things I have already said is that we are working with the mobile phone companies to look at what is in the interests of preventing crime, while at the same time ensuring that users and consumers can use their phone in and appropriate way. I will look at that suggestion. We have further meeting with the phone companies in around three months, to report back on what action they have taken to date in relation to those issues.

And we will certainly examine that for her.

15:18

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

I think the noble Baronesses write, design is the way to prevent the thing one stolen been valuable, therefore there is no point in stealing it. This morning I was out with their excellent cycling enforcement team in the city of London. Who were enforcing cycling legislation but more importantly they told me about having recently arrested and mobile phone thief, who had 24 phones with him. Given that they are getting rid of them very quickly, either abroad or because they don't want to be caught with them, I do wonder whether the statistics that show how many phones are getting stolen is accurate.

In the city they are properly having to phone stolen per day, according to the crime stats. I think this is one indication but there are many that the crimes that are not representative those people are not reporting it, perhaps they are not sure they are going to get a reaction from the cops but sometimes because they just don't need to. But it is a worry, how much of this crimes out there and we are not able to stop it? to stop it?

15:19

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Again, I would say to the noble Lord that one of the first things anyone who is a victim of crime should do is report that crime. Because we cannot act unless we know the level of crime and the impact of that crime in the first place. That is important. He is also right that designing out the use of potential activity in the building of phones that are resilient and cannot be used post crime is the best way forward. And there have been innovations by a number of phone companies on that.

But certainly there is more that can be done. What we want to try and do is two things, help support the CCTV, help support through measures like the instant warrant, help support measures are neighbourhood policing, but also long-term, work with companies to ensure we design out crime and look at what the market is for either broken up phones, exported phones or resold phones in the United Kingdom. That intelligence led policing will help, I believe, had a great impact on what is currently 146,000 deaths from a person last year, up 22 %, of which mobile phones are approximately half that figure.

-- 146,000 thefts.

15:20

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)

- -

Isn't there a lesson to be learned from what the Israeli intelligence service did with pages? I am not suggesting we should do that but the principal... The principal is most appropriate. I cannot understand why the company is producing the mobiles are not prepared to move quickly, so that the owners of them, when they lose them, can disable them and that will stop the stealing.

15:21

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I know the Israeli example, it might be that half of South London does not have access to a phone in any particular day if that would happen. The key thing is I welcome, the government welcomes innovation in mobile phone protection. The mobile phone companies are looking at that, we have to work with them in tandem. And the idea of a kill switch or the idea of a stop in anyway shape or form is sadly welcome. But in technology that is developed.

It is in everyone's interest, including the mobile phone companies, to develop that technology speedily.

15:21

Baroness Bull (Crossbench)

- -

My son recently had his... solutions and issues after the theft, is there not a more analogue issue about prevention of death? Of course it can happen to any of us. But what focus is government putting on messaging and communications, perhaps even in schools, about some simple tips to avoid where possible mobile phone theft by being more careful about when and where did you? -- Prevention of theft. you? -- Prevention of theft.

15:22

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

It is a very salient point. I have heard this from my own family who have said do not walk around the streets of London with your phone out, dad. To be honest, I never thought about it. Because I did not. But I do now. And that level of public awareness is extremely important. But actually, the citizen should be able to walk down the street on their phone. And therefore, what we need to do is tackle the perpetrators, people who are riding fast on a bike, which CCTV can help, it means tracking the phone when it has been stolen, the measures that the noble Lord Evans has mentioned are important.

And also, it means giving people proper penalties when they are caught. And actually, the Metropolitan Police, in the first part of this you, had made 200 arrests. And have recovered 1,000 phones. -- This year. By focusing on street level policing, of which the extra 13,000 neighbourhood police officers that we are funding over the next three or four years will certainly assist.

15:23

Oral questions: Change to aid priorities following reduction of the Official Development Assistance budget to 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) and restoring commitment of spending 0.7 per cent GNI Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

Fourth Oral Question. standing in my name on the Order Paper.

15:23

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

As the Prime Minister made clear, increasing our security and defence spending has demanded the difficult but necessary decision to temporarily reduce our ODA budget from 0.5 % to 0.3 % of GNI 2027. This government remains fully committed to the UK playing globally significant role on development. It is both in our national interest and in the interest of our partners. We remain committed to returning to spending 0.7 % of GNI and ODA went for school circumstances allow.

-- for school circumstances allow. -- On ODA when for school circumstances allow.

15:24

Lord Bruce of Bennachie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I congratulate the noble Lady in the difficult circumstances and I commit to working with her... Nevertheless, I believe the Two ODA is a strategic error. Not only gives a terrible signal but I believe it is a mistake that threatens our security. Anneliese Dodds in her resignation letter said the scale of the cuts would make it virtually impossible for the government to deliver its continuing commitment. Can I ask in particular how the UK will maintain engagement in conflict prevention, reducing migration pressures and building resilience? And on top of the cuts inflicted by the previous government, how can we prevent Russia and China supercharging their presence within the vacuum left by the US and UK and pulling most of Africa and South Asia into their sphere of influence, undermining moxie, what is left of the rule of law and seriously compromising security? I'm glad you said it is temporary but how temporary is it and when will get back to 0.7 %?

15:25

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

Will get back to 0.7 % when we are no longer spending, using debt that day-to-day spending and our overall debt starts to decline. The reason we have done this... With values or wish to turn away from development, we believe in international development and we are proud of the record of the United Kingdom on international development. I should not have to remind anybody in government or indeed Parliament that the first responsibility of any government is the safety and security of our citizens.

And we had to spend... We have committed and we are going to be spending 2.5 % on defence. That is a decision the Prime Minister took, that decision is not going to change. It was taken for reasons that I think we can all understand. We do not wish to turn away from our commitments globally to development. I am glad he has reached out and made an offer to work with me on this and I would like to accept that offer. There are undoubtably going to have to be some traces to be made and re-prioritisation of our spending.

Make some choices. That is a process I am embarking on as of today. And I'm looking forward to working alongside the noble Lord in that process.

15:26

Lord Callanan (Conservative)

- -

Let me also congratulate the noble Baroness the Minister on her promotion to the Cabinet. She has inherited her very own personal black hole in the finances, along with the job, but we wish her well nonetheless. I'm sure Lord Livermore will be on hand to advise. We support the government's decision, given the overwhelming importance of increasing the defence budget but it will obviously require very difficult exercise in prioritisation of ODA programs. Which ones should will she be cutting? -- Which ones will she be cutting? will she be cutting?

15:27

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

The Prime Minister has told me very clearly he wants a line by line analysis of our spend, most of which we inherited from the previous government. We will be looking very closely at that and making sure that on behalf of the British taxpayer, every single pound that we spend is spent as well as we possibly can. But I would just emphasise again that it is our intention, because we are the Labour Party and we believe in international development, that when we can, we do increase the spending backup to 0.7.

We are committed to our international obligations multilaterally and bilaterally. And this is a task that I don't think any of us in government enter into lightheartedly or glibly we take it incredibly seriously and as soon as we have made decisions we will of course make announcements in their usual way.

15:28

Baroness Amos (Labour)

- -

This is a particularly challenging and difficult time for fragile countries, countries court in conflict and some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In congratulating my noble friend the Minister on her new role, can I ask one, how are we going to protect the gains we have already made in terms of poverty reduction across the world? How are we going to protect what we have been able to do in terms of the sustainability of some of the most fragile countries? And how can we increase the impact of the money we spend through working through multilateral organisations? through multilateral organisations?

15:28

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I thank my noble friend for that because I think, while this is undoubtably going to be a difficult process and there will be choices that will be need to be made, there is also an opportunity here to rethink how we approach international development and how we work more in partnership with other nations. And we get away from some of the maternally some and some of the ways that may have been cutting-edge in the 90s but probably we do need to have a fresh look now.

So there is an opportunity. But she is right also to point to the successes and the gains that have been made through the work that the United Kingdom has done over the years. And I think that we need to have a fresh conversation with the British public about why we do international development, what the point of it is, what the benefits are to be United Kingdom. That is something I will perhaps have not put sufficient focus on in the recent past.

15:29

Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)

- -

I wonder whether I could press the noble Lady the Minister on what criteria are being employed in order to reduce development assistance, which projects are going to be targeted? And secondly, can I also ask whether existing commitments, especially to those smaller NGOs, will in fact be honoured? Because otherwise, so many of the smaller NGOs will simply cease working and indeed, may not be revived.

15:30

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

That is an important point. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been very clear with me that they wish to avoid cliff edges. Which is why we will be maintaining the 0.5 % that we currently have for the next financial year. Because we need to work closely with our partner countries but also partner organisations. And make sure this is done in a responsible way, that avoids some of the dramatic changes that have such devastating impact that we know can happen in the circumstances.

15:30

Baroness Sugg (Conservative)

- -

Whilst I fully support the increase in defence spending, I'm afraid I deeply regret whether money had been found and I genuinely wish the noble Lady well in what will be incredibly difficult decisions on where to spend the remainder of the money. Historically women and girls have been disproportionately impacted by cuts. Will she use her best endeavours to ensure that is not the case this time and will she also commit to carrying out and publishing and impact assessment in relation to women and girls?

15:31

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

To commend the noble Lady on her own work and her own track record and be a champion women and girls globally and the work she did as part of government as well, I think we should all thank her for that. On impact assessments, yes, we would ordinarily conduct an impact assessment and I would be very happy to look into... As part of making sure we make sensible decisions and we understand the impact of the choices we make.

I think she made that point very well.

15:31

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

In congratulating the Minister, wish you agree with me that the key part of our national security defence is working with allies, especially those smaller vulnerable nations, through ODA commitments, for technical resilience against interference from state and nonstate actors? This is a large part of ODA funding which the Government has now signalled to Buy more than three quarters. What security assessment was carried out before the government has indicated it was going to remove almost entirely on technical and security support for the very nations we rely on our

15:32

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

This is nonsense and we won't do that. We talk about prioritisation it is about making choices. The idea that a government that has reallocated money into defence is going to be blase or relaxed about reducing spend that contribute towards our security is frankly ridiculous.

15:32

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)

- -

Further to the question raised by my noble friend, in order to make sure that every pound spent is as effective as possible, particularly on poverty reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa, would my noble friend consider setting up an advisory group consisting of non-governmental organisations involved in this, and experts like Lord Bruce and others, to advise on where the priority of spending should be?

15:33

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)

- -

I can assure my noble friend I have not been short of advice in the last few days. I think he makes a good point. We don't want to make these important decisions that have such far-reaching consequences in an office in Whitehall. That would be the wrong way to go about it. I don't know whether an advisory group is the right way or the wrong way to do that. But I think it is important that we think about how we make sure that people with expertise and experience and knowledge of how these decisions will impact operations on the ground that they are included, and we make sure they are part of the decision-making process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

today. We will have a few minutes break

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will have a few minutes break

15:34

Business of the House

15:37

Urgent Question Repeat: Gaza: BBC Coverage

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is an incredibly serious matter. Public money may have ended up in the hands of supporters of a

15:37

Urgent Question Repeat: Gaza: BBC Coverage Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

Proscribed Terrorist Organisations. With the police and off, both saying they are willing to investigate this matter, and reports today that other broadcasters have used the same boy without making clear his parentage, with the Minister agree that a properly independent inquiry is needed? And the signatories of the letter urging the reinstatement of this contested program, some of whom have been very well remunerated by the licence fee payer in the past, should not be heeded? should not be heeded?

15:37

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

My Lords, it is right that the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what when. I won't prejudge the outcome of the BBC's investigation. As the noble Lords is Is independent of government but we expect them to follow robust procedures, protects taxpayers money and uphold the high standards the public and the government rightly expects. The noble Lord will be aware of the letter that Ofcom has sent the BBC and the Secretary of State has spoken to both the chair and that Director-General of the BBC last week.

And expects clear responses. responses.

15:38

Lord Fowler (Crossbench)

- -

I fully share the noble Lords criticism of the particular program but I think we should recognise that that does not in anyway describe the BBC's general coverage of Gaza. Speaking as a former journalist who covered Middle East wars, what struck me was the way that BBC journalists strive for impartiality in all their reporting. As far as I can see, that is the same today.

15:38

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

There are two points. One is this particular incident is clearly very serious, and the other is clearly we do expect to have a high standard of journalism which is why the BBC have traditionally been a trusted source of news both in this country and overseas. It is one of the reasons why this incident is so serious. While we are talking about journalism in the context of Gaza, I think we should also be aware within this house that a considerable number of media journalists have been killed since the war began.

I think there is a wider context as well. In the specifics it is actually right that the city was investigated. investigated.

15:39

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I was a journalist but I worked for an independent production company and made documentaries for the BBC. One was about a summer Bin Laden. I was almost driven to a nervous breakdown by the scrutiny the program was put under by the BBC. So I'm surprised as well as saddened about what occurred. But because the reputation of the BBC so central. But picking up on what Lord Fowler said, my question is, does the Minister not agree that, regardless of today's discussion, it is vital to sign an ongoing credible and sustained spotlight on the plight particularly of children in Gaza, and it is essential that BBC coverage continues? coverage continues?

15:40

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

I think the really unfortunate issue at stake here is that the whole issue of shining a light has been muddied by what are really unacceptable failures in this instance. Quite clearly BBC has a duty to provide accurate and impartial news and information. The voices of people affected in war zones are particularly powerful, but the public really has a right to be able to trust that the BBC content is accurate. Clearly in this instance it has been a question over governance and whether the guidelines are strong enough in the first place and whether the oversight has been submitted.

15:41

Lord Birt (Crossbench)

- -

Every major organisation, people working for the BBC make mistakes. And mistakes must be exposed and they happen, and the lessons learnt. But would the Minister agree that the reason why the BBC, and she mentioned it already, is the most respected, the single most respected news organisation in the whole world, from Scunthorpe to the Sudan, is that almost everyone who works for the BBC is wholly committed, is doing their best to be fair, accurate, and impartial?

15:41

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

It is a really important point noble Lords makes that when we get these incidents it can be hugely demoralising for people who are working really hard to get that accurate and partial information. So we have to make sure that we understand exactly what went wrong and the BBC's undertaking a thorough investigation of that. As I mentioned previously, Ofcom and the Secretary of State are very cognisant of the issues and also wanting answers, as I know your Lordships House will want.

I think that should not detract and we need to make sure that we find out the answers and move on because that voice of the BBC and that accuracy and impartial voice in relation to news is critical not least in this very uncertain time.

15:42

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)

- -

Given that very serious allegations of systematic anti- Semitism, and bias, does the Minister agree with me that there is a need to look at the complaints process in the BBC? I have found that when I have had to use it in the Northern Ireland context it is opaque, vague, and overly complicated. The chic set that there is a need to look at that? is a need to look at that?

15:43

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

The BBC's complaints process, in the sense that it is BBC First, is intended to make sure that there is an element of independence from the parts of the organisation that are being investigated. Clearly where, if Ofcom has concerns after that happens, then that would be looked at. But I think that the process was set out at the point of that last charter review, we don't have immediate plans to change that.

15:43

The Lord Bishop of St Albans (Bishops)

- -

I understand one of the particular worries was to do with the way that certain phrases were translated, and therefore may have unwittingly biased people or been misleading. With the BBC publish the principles and the guidelines that they use for translation in these difficult situations?

15:44

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

The right reverend Prelate highlights a point that the Secretary of State herself has asked for clarity on, in relation to the BBC policy on translations and how a decision over translation of a particular word or phrase might be made. It is one of many questions we do, and the public in this house needs to hear answers on. We are clear that no stone should be left unturned either by the BBC or in their response to those being scrutinised, no stone should be left unturned.

15:44

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I am a long-term supporter of the BBC and the impartiality of its news output. And while it pains me to agree with the BBC chair, who just this morning in a select committee and the other place have called the latest controversy over this documentary a dagger to the heart of BBC impartiality. Sadly, noble Lords will understand this isn't the BBC's first misstep in this area, as far as the Jewish community perceives it. Especially since the October 7, 2023.

Would she agree with Mr Shah and me that a proper independent review of the corporation's Middle East conflict coverage, just this documentary but wider coverage is essential if it is to retain confidence and the confidence of the Jewish community?

15:45

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

My noble friend makes a very important point. I would go back to the point around needing clarity around whether the issues that have happened in this instance and wider issues are a failure of governance, over whether the guidelines are strong enough or whether they are rigorously enforced. Or whether the rigorously enforced. Or whether the

15:46

Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)

- -

I listened very carefully to the Select Committee with the BBC on a showing of the appalling documentary on Gaza. According to Tim Davie the board are now very exercise, it seems to have taken 18 months to be exercised about anything. In August 2024, over 200 members of the film and television industry signed a letter calling for an investigation into systematic problems of anti- Semitism and bias of the BBC. This follows a series of editorial failures and the employment of individuals who have openly glorified terrorism, particularly since 7 October tax.

Given these deeply troubling happenings, will the Minister support an independent inquiry, as my noble friend on the Front Benches say, into anti- Front Benches say, into anti- Semitism and bias of the BBC? -- Seven October attacks.

15:47

Baroness Twycross (Labour)

- -

I like to be clear there is absolutely no place or should be no tolerance for anti-Semitism, whether in the BBC or elsewhere in society, it is a stain on our country. I it is a stain on our country. I think it is right that in the first instance, in relation to the documentary, the BBC is conducting a thorough investigation into what happened and who knew what when. I'm not attracting from previous incidents that the noble Lady referred to and I do think that when the Secretary of State and when I stand here saying no stone should be left unturned, no stone should be left unturned in addressing this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue. That is the end of that question. We now come to third reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions)

15:48

Legislation: National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill – third reading

Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this Bill be now read 1/3 time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read 1/3 time. The question is that this Bill now be read 1/3 time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of

15:48

Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat)

- -

of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 1, amendment one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and in the names of the noble Lady Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble and learned Lord Hope of Craighead. In my speech at report stage on an amendment moved by my noble friend amendment moved by my noble friend Baroness Barker, I expressed support for the amendment and flagged up that I had only recently been that I had only recently been alerted to the possible glitch in the amendment as it related to Scotland.

Specifically the difficulty stems from the fact that difficulty stems from the fact that the term domiciliary support service is not defined in Scottish legislation and therefore the provisions of the amendment would not apply to parallel services in Scotland. I flagged that out and I may seek to address this amendment at third reading, it was not easy to find the wording stipulating for the third reading amendment and some possible wedding could have extended the services in Scotland beyond those in the other parts of the United Kingdom.

-- Possible wording. I am very grateful to Rachel for the coalition for caring support providers in Scotland for their help in trying to address this issue and to the Public Bill Office, especially Donna Davidson, for assistance in framing an amendment which satisfied the tidying up rule. It is a modest amendment, it is intended to achieve consistency of treatment for certain care providers right across the United Kingdom. I hope the comments will commend itself to my noble friend, Ernest Kramer, who many of us on the First Amendment...

I had the Minister can accept this hiding up provision, I acknowledge it would be without prejudice to how the government intends to proceed in the other place with this particular clause as amended but at least it could mean it went to the other place with a degree of consistency across these islands. Before I sit down, may also apologise that in my contribution report, I inadvertently said that cross reach, the social care arm employed 60,000 people, where is it employed 60,000 people, where is it is 1,600.

-- 16,000, whereas it is 1,600. When I got my notes back from Hansard I realised I had written down the correct figure so that error was due to my handwriting or my eyesight, I have corrected it with the official report. I too move.

15:50

Lord Eatwell (Labour)

- -

Question is the amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid that I regard this amendment, although obviously achieving consistency with treatment in Scotland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as just of the United Kingdom, as just another of the irresponsible measures we have seen from measures we have seen from opposition benches, which was noticed very clearly that there are no proposals whatsoever as to how the expenditure should be funded. the expenditure should be funded. And as a way of managing public expenditure, this is not a way to do it.

Public expenditure should be taken seriously as a means of deciding the structure of expenditure and composition and scale of expenditure. Simply scattering money by proposing an amendment such as this to the National Insurance Bill is not a responsible way for going about this fiscal process. fiscal process.

15:51

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Conservative)

- -

It seems to be, falling to me again to follow the noble Lord Eatwell in it. To me again to disagree with his comments. I was delighted to support that noble Lord Wallace with this amendment, which I see as just being a fair and very administrative tidying up, to ensure that whatever state this Bill ends up, as it goes through our house and the other place, that it treats all services across the United Kingdom as fairly as possible.

I cannot believe that noble Lords opposite would wish there to be a gaping hole in what applies to Scotland, compared to what might apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. Given that the noble Baroness Kramer and Baroness Barker's amendment was passed by your Lordships' House with a majority of 130, I think the sentiment of this place is clear. The noble Lord Wallace has done a lot of background work to try and get the wording within the specifics of 1/3 reading amendment.

The public service reform act 2010 is not a simple and clear definition but we are trying to ensure that support services are included in Scotland as well as England. -- Third reading. Therefore it is my great pleasure to support this amendment and I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Government will ensure there is parity across the UK for this Bill. I have added my name to this

15:53

Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)

- -

amendment for the reasons the noble Lord Wallace has made, it is honestly quite important to bring the Scottish position into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. But it also gives me an opportunity to make two points, which I asked the Minister to bear in mind. The first is the extent to which the public services in Scotland are dependent on the third sector. It is a major dependent they are reliant and work with charities and other third sector organisations. There is a balance in the Bill and the third sector is left with very little support at the moment to allow them support at the moment to allow them to do that.

Perhaps the noble Lord might bear in mind, as time goes on, that it is necessary to keep and I on the extent to which the Bill has that effect. There are other ways, I know the Minister understands, there are other ways in which these bodies can be assisted. It may be that in some way the government may find a way, if the position is as the Speaker saying, there will be so disadvantage, the Minister will support and be able to provide that support.

Because in the end, the people who suffer are not those who provide the services, it is the people for whom the services are provided to which the public services in Scotland are not fully equipped.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me say to Lord eating, I will take absolutely full responsibility for the missed rafting of the

15:55

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

for the missed rafting of the original amendment. -- Lord Eatwell. Having not been sensitive to the legal differences perhaps between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. And my thanks to my noble friend, Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the others who have supported him. And those in Scotland who were so concerned about what might happen to the care services there that they wanted to make sure that the language was reasonably perfected. I am absolutely delighted to accept that amendment by am I am also very grateful that people came forward because it is good to know we are sending something to the other place that is not cold beneath the waterline and I appreciate that.

I also appreciate that it came in this House, which I think is not disrupted at all by this amendment, as people were very clear that they intended it to apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom. And I hope I will be in a position to thank the Government or accepting this tidying up amendment, understanding the spirit in which it was both offered and in which the debate previously took place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Objection to the earlier remarks of Lord Eatwell if he was

15:56

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)

- -

remarks of Lord Eatwell if he was making about the... About the public company. He made a number of suggestions in which government could raise revenue in other ways. I don't notice... Government does flex itself, as we have seen in its increase in defence expenditure, reduction in overseas aid, which is perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of the Budget. When the Chief Executive of a hospice says publicly that as a result of this legislation, people will die in greater pain and agony then would otherwise be the case, I think it is personally reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships attention and for amendments to be discussed.

-- Perfectly reasonable. -- Perfectly reasonable.

15:57

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

Do I move something? My Lords, I think I'm concluding for the opposition? Yes. On this amendment or in general? On this amendment, we will contained with this amendment which we see as a technical tidying up amendment.

15:57

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I rise to address the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Wallace, which seeks to make a minor adjustment to the Bill to more accurately define care workers in Scotland. While the amendment does not change the fundamental principles or objectives of the Bill it enhances the clarity and precision of the projections, I'm therefore happy to accept this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lords and Baronesses who have participated in this debate, in particular thank noble friend Baroness Kramer for noble friend Baroness Kramer for accepting the spirit of the amendment, to what was originally amendment, to what was originally has a Baroness Barker's amendment, also to the Minister for the spirit in which he accepts this amendment. Can I perhaps also reflect that Lord Eatwell's, he has very consistently Eatwell's, he has very consistently said much the same last week, but think the point that was made by Lord Lee and also by the noble and learned Lord Hope of Craighead is learned Lord Hope of Craighead is that if cuts...

The increase, rather, in the National Insurance Contributions Act from bodies in the charitable sector needs -- leads to elimination of services, it is the people in receipt of the services that will suffer and that in turn could put a burden on government, possibly greater than the cost of being consistent with this amendment. So with that and thanks amendment. So with that and thanks to the Baroness Fraser, I am pleased to move this amendment. Question is this amendment be agreed to post as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. contents have it.

15:59

Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Liberal Democrat)

- -

We now moved to the report of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terrorism... Sorry, Lord Livermore. I beg to move that this Bill do

15:59

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

now past. It was this government's duty in October last year to repair the public finances and rebuild the public services. We did so in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance VAT or income tax. The government did need to take some very difficult decisions, including some of the measures contained in this Bill. As a result of those decisions we have now wiped the slate clean, creating a platform of stability and enabling us to make significant additional investment in the NHS.

I thank all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinise this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House. Specifically like to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their constructive engagement and scrutiny. While I acknowledge the commitment of your Lordships' House to the scrutiny of this Bill of the government has not found itself in agreement with the amendments proposed. We believe that the Bill in its original form provides the right way in difficult circumstances of raising the revenue needed to repair the public finances and rebuild public services.

I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Eatwell and Viscount Chandos for their support and contributions and I would like to thank my officials who worked hard to bring this Bill before your Lordships' House. Including Joe Oaks, Isabel early on,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Alex... Henry, Anna and Will Smith. I beg to move. The question now is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question now is that this Bill do now past. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The I am so sorry to disrupt the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am so sorry to disrupt the house but perhaps it is common parlance to say thank you. A thank parlance to say thank you. A thank you to this house were passing a number of amendments which will substantially reduce the damage and harm been done by this bill. Lord Londesborough took the lead on small businesses, the Conservative benches on transport and special needs children. And my own party that took the lead on community health and the lead on community health and social care.

I think those are all exceedingly important. I hope the government will take the issues very seriously. I don't think we have ever heard better debate than those in this house that talked about real life experience and the impact of the original bill. Let me also use this to say thank you to the Minister that he and his team were unable to give us any concessions but they said no in the nicest of ways. I very much want to thank all of the other benches who worked closely together, crossbenchers, Conservatives, our party.

Because we all felt in an almost nonpolitical way that it was really necessary to try and come to the rescue of the damage that we could see that was going to occur. There is one amendment which I did not mention which I think it's important because it may survive some of this process and that is from the Conservatives on an impact assessment. Which is becoming I think a recognised vehicle for important assessment for bills like this and which historically has not been adequate perhaps we can now change that for the future.

Lastly, a thank you to my own benches, to Baroness Barker, and others who led in various areas in this but also to Elizabeth Plummer of the whips office who did so much of the heavy lifting for top she will have my internal thanks and it is so good to have someone like this in trying to deal with complex issues. And to the house in general for taking this issue so seriously and recognising its significance to so many people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also would like to briefly make a number of thanks. And particularly

16:03

Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)

- -

a number of thanks. And particularly to thank all noble Lords from across the house who voted for my amendment, my exemption clause on the 4% to 5% reduction. Particularly I thank my supporters, Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness Kramer, I was delighted to have the support of both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and indeed the majority of crossbenchers who were able to vote at that late hour of evening. I would also like to thank the Bills office helping draft an amendment that turned out to require five consequential amendments.

The staff at the whips office, and the noble Lord the Minister for at least listening and his patient approach. I do hope that he and the Treasury appreciate that my amendment sits right behind their number one priority which is to generate sustainable economic growth. That is why I tabled the amendment, and I trust it will be given full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration and scrutiny merits. In concluding for the opposition,

16:04

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In concluding for the opposition, I wish to thank the many peers on my I wish to thank the many peers on my benches who have made valuable contributions over the course of the bill's passage. I can't thank them all today the list is too long. But I would like to particularly thank Lord Altrincham, my comrade in arms, in our research team. And I also want to thank noble Lords from across the house because this has been a cross-party effort, reflecting the widespread damage this bill will cause.

I would particularly like to thank Lord Londesborough for his amendments to protect small business, Lady Barker for her amendments on health and social care, and Lady Kramer for her support across the board including on the amendment calling for an overview of the impact of the bill. I will say a couple of things, we have consistently heard that this is a job tax, plain and simple. It is the most important economic measures the government has introduced so far and it will have wide reaching damaging impacts across the whole of the economy.

It has been brought in on a tight timescale creating a cliff edge on 6 April, with no staggering for those who might require it and it has not been accompanied by an adequate impact of note. It has led to businesses losing confidence in the government, and that I believe is very bad for growth which I'm very supportive. Despite the ministers protests, peers from all benches have agreed that the short documents they call impact notice, that the government has failed to provide sufficient sectoral information to allow for the effective scrutiny we try to bring.

That is where we must have the review of the impact on affected sectors. Despite the importance of these measures, the government made no effort to engage constructively. In this house we have therefore voted to accept, small charities, transport providers for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and early years providers. And as I have already said, small business and health and social care. To provide public services in the private sector. Of course we understand that tax should be simple.

But when the government failed to recognise the egregious impact that this bill will have on real people, we believe that some rethink as necessary. Some of the changes would be modest in cost terms, I know they would earn the thanks of many right across society. I end therefore encouraging my noble Lord Mac to use all his charms to persuade the Chancellor to think again.

16:07

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I would like to thank you once again all noble Lords their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

efforts on this bill. I beg to move. The question is that this bill do now pass. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Consideration of

16:07

Legislation: Crown Estate Bill - consideration of Commons amendments

contents have it. Consideration of Commons amendments on the Crown Estate Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments be now considered. The question is that the Commons amendments we now considered. As many are of that opinion say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In

16:08

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. In I beg to move that the house to agree with the Commons in the agree with the Commons in the amendment one, with the leave of the house also speak to amendment two, 2A and three. It is the privilege to have the amended bill following its passage in the other place. It is focused on removing existing limitations that hamper the ability of the Crown Estate to compete and invest as a commercial business, ensuring it has a sustainable financial future for years to come.

In doing so, the bill supports the Crown Estate to build on its strong track record of greater long-term Shared Prosperity Fund the nation. Two means changes were made to this bill in the other place. The first was the addition of a clause on the territorial seabed. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this important issue to the attention of the government. As noble Lords may remember, this issue relates to the ability of the Crown Estate to dispose of the seabed given it is a unique national asset.

As I noted in report stage, the law on the seabed is complex, and if required to forward a legislative provision to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to permanently sell the seabed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and Lord Russell for their support in this way. Clause 5 is inserted in the other place livers on this commitment and seeks to address legitimate concerns raised by the noble Baroness. And it put special protections in place for the seabed requiring the Crown Estate Commissioners to obtain consent from the Treasury before the privately dispose of any part of, or the Crown Estate interests in, or rights and privileges in relation to, the territorial seabed.

To be clear this does not mean that the Crown Estate would never be permitted to dispose of the seabed. Maybe if national or local interests would be best served by such a sale including sold to another part of the public sector to enable local infrastructure development. Any such sale would only happen with the agreement of ministers and it is right that they are the decision-makers of such sale. The clause will not affect the existing right of the Crown Estate to agree licensing and leases of the existing seabed by definition do not represent the permanent disposal of it.

The ability to agree long-term licenses for use of the seabed will continue to be an important feature in the Crown Estate attracting significant investment needed for offshore green energy development. I believe this fulfils my commitment to your Lordships House and addresses the important points raised. The second change made to build the other place was I'm afraid removal of clause 5 introduced by Lord Forsyth during report stage. It would require the Crown Estate Commissioners to assess the environmental impact, and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate on an ongoing basis.

I thank Lord Forsyth for raising this important issue during the passage of the bill and for a constructive engagement on this. As I said at report stage, I wholeheartedly support the objectives behind the amendment but I regret that the government is unable to support it. It remains the government's position that the amendment would duplicate intentions that already exist in legislation or required by regulators as part of the licensing process for agriculture. As I also noted at report stage the responsibility of the devolved governments in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.

Fish farming in England is regulated to ensure it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protect consumer health and animal welfare. At present virtually all of salmon agriculture in the UK takes place in Scotland where the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter. However, as this house has previously heard from Baroness Hayman of Ullock, according to the international union, Atlantic salmon are now endangered in Great Britain and near threatening globally.

So to provide further reassurance, I have spoken to the Crown Estate and the government is now prepared to go further. I make two commitments to Lord Forsyth should he choose not to pushes amendment to a vote. First on auditing standards, at report stage the amendment provided for Crown Estate Commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate. I therefore today say to the noble Lord that the Crown Estate will undertake an audit to ensure that all salmon farms leasing land on the estate of England Wales and Northern Ireland comply with all relevant regulations in salmon farms in England Wales and Northern Ireland.

Part of this audit will be set out in the 2024/25 annual report which will be published in June. If this audit were to find that salmon farms are not implying that the legal obligations and regulatory requirements, the Crown Estate Bill ensure these practices are corrected. In extreme cases this may involve exercising forfeiture rights in the event of non-compliance of covenants. Secondly, the relationship between the Crown Estate and the Treasury is governed by the framework document. The government would amend this document to ensure the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms is considered at all times.

The updated framework document would be there. And the Crown Estate would continue to keep under review the arrival impact of animal welfare standards of salmon farms on its estate. The amended framework document will be published on Royal assent. I trust the two commitments go some way to dealing with his concerns on this matter and I hope you feels he will not pushes amendment. In addition to the substantive amendments of a procedural amendment was also laid on the other place. Along with existing convention every Bill which begins in your Lordships House which requires a Money resolution in the other place has an additional clause added to it which indicates nothing in the bill shall impose any charge on public funds.

Once the bill has been considered by the other place, and authorised by resolution, this clause is then removed. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the removal of the privilege amendment does not alter the position previously set out in respect of controls. The Crown Estate will only be able to borrow in line with the parameters set out in the memorandum of understanding which I previously made available in draft. This includes borrowing not to exceed more than 25% of the net debt asset to value ratio.

Scrutiny was another important thing raised during the passage of the bill. The Committee stage of this bill omitted to work with the Cabinet Office to ensure pre-appointment scrutiny applied to the role of chair of the Crown Estate. I'd like to take the opportunity to confirm the role of chair has now been formally designated as a public appointment to which parliamentary scrutiny now plies. The government announced on 23rd of December its preferred candidate would face pre-appointment scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee and the other place.

This hearing is set to take place on 19 March and the Treasury Committee report is expected to follow shortly after. I'm grateful for the opportunity to update your Lordships House all of these issues and I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. The question is that the house to agree with the comments there

16:15

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with the comments there I rise to speak to motion 2A. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to motion 2A. I must say how important it was that this House back to normal and this House back to normal and listened to debates and responded in a constructive way. And I would like to thank the Minister, Lord to thank the Minister, Lord Livermore, for the generous way in which he has responded to the which he has responded to the amendment and I certainly would not amendment and I certainly would not wish to press the amendment, having had the assurances which he has given, which are very much appreciated.

This is not the occasion to make a long speech on the dangers of fish farming. But I do want to draw attention to a report which has been produced in recent weeks by a charity called wild fish. Which is entitled the uncomfortable reality of farmed salmon. Rather than going through the content of it, I will, if I may, email it to a number of colleagues who may be interested to read it. It really is quite shocking, the damage which is being done to...

Fish and which is been done to the food which we eat in the form of smoked salmon and other salmon products. And I was grateful to the Minister for underlining the fact that with wild salmon, we are dealing with an endangered species. The species which is essential to the life of the river as a whole, which is an indicator of the quality of our rivers. And for example, freshwater... Are able to breathe because there carried in the gills of wild salmon.

It is an important part of the ecology of our rivers. This was not given much consideration in the other place. It was about two paragraphs. On something which is utterly vital to the health and well-being of our people, as well as of the Atlantic salmon, that wonderful fish. But I do very much welcome what the Minister has said. I hope the Crown Estate Commissioner in England will be able to lean on their colleagues north of the border and suggest to them that they might follow the excellent advice that has been given today by the Minister.

I have been puzzling actually why the Minister has been so helpful and so accommodating but enable -- unable to accept this amendment. I have a feeling that someone got on the phone from Edinburgh and talk to someone in the Government. But I have no evidence to support that. But I do hope that somebody in the Crown Estate Commissioners south of the border get on the phone to someone in Edinburgh. Some people have said, surely this is just about... Because most of the fish farms in Scotland.

I would just like to point out that the salmon from English rivers have to make their way up north, past the salmon farms, which infect those fish with disease and with lice as a result of the way in which they are managed, which is killing and removing that beautiful wild Atlantic salmon that used to be plentiful in English rivers as well as Scottish rivers. So without taking further time of the House, I am most grateful to the Minister and I hope that the initiatives which he has taken will help to prolong that wild Atlantic salmon for years to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come. May I welcome also the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I welcome also the amendment with regard to the salmon and with regard to the salmon and congratulate the noble Lord Forsyth on the standard he has made an excellent contribution he made excellent contribution he made earlier stages on this Bill. Can I ask the Minister, I to welcome the steps he is making, to explain how steps he is making, to explain how the mechanics would in relation to Scotland, where the Crown Estate is devolved, but also in Wales, where devolved, but also in Wales, where we do still have salmon, mercifully, though in small quantities, in rivers, and there is also a danger,

16:20

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

not as great a danger as there is in relation to the fish farms in Scotland, but there is a danger in Wales as well of the salmon

16:20

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

Wales as well of the salmon suffering. How will the mechanics work with regard to the devolved responsibilities for wildlife, the

16:20

Lord Bellingham (Conservative)

- -

responsibilities for wildlife, the devolved responsibilities or our devolved responsibilities or our waterways, but the non-devolved responsibilities for the Crown Estate, perhaps the Minister could Estate, perhaps the Minister could clarify the? Otherwise, I certainly do welcome this as step in the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

direction. If I can ask a question on this, I certainly would very much agree with what the noble Lords five has said. Read Lord Forsyth has said. He pursued this amendment with great vigour and I think we do have some form of concession from the government. Can I just asking, is it going to be reporting back mechanism in place and how do we review this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in, say, two or three years time? I rise very, very briefly to respond to the amendments in this Bill have come back to us from the other place. On the amendment on the other place. On the amendment on the territorial seabed, we always supported this amendment when it was brought by Lady Vere before. We did brought by Lady Vere before. We did not particularly feel this was something that was likely to happen but in a belt and braces type approach, as the Crown Estate gets more powers to invest in offshore wind and develops, we always felt it was sensible to have this clause in the Bill.

So the Minister was clear in this place that the amendment would probably need more time and consideration because particularly in the complexities are in the laws surrounding these matters. I want to thank the Minister that this more time has resulted in another amendment that has come in the other place. We do welcome this amendment, we do think it is useful, we do think it provides security to our undersea assets. Can I briefly just ask the Minister though, we now have a situation where the Crown Estate is not able to sell land without ministerial approval, can the Minister just confirmed to me that does not mean we have a situation where the Crown Estate could for instance, do an indefinite lease and that would need -- not need ministerial approval? These are important matters, I do not think that is the situation but I would be pleased if I could clarify that with the Minister.

Turning to amendments two and 2A, I do thank Lord Forsyth for raising these issues, we do support him wholeheartedly on the issue of the need to protect wild salmon. These are important issues to raise. Our issue with your amendment was not what you sought to do, it was the vehicle of using this Bill, which was the inappropriate method for doing it. Because these are devolved matters and there is only one salmon farm that is under the control of the Crown Estates.

I do wish you luck with this going forward, in terms of the continuing to fight for wild salmon. I do think it is good that the government has listened and has responded. We do welcome that response. And the two elements of it in particular, adding standards and making sure that they are upheld and reported on is important. And it is also important those standards are written into the Framework Agreement. So we do welcome that and we do think that is a useful and constructive result of the dialogue that has taken place in this House.

Turning to amendment three, I do thank the Minister for his explanation on that amendment, maybe it is just because I'm the new boy here, but I was very confused by it. And I'm pleased for the explanation. Before I sit down finally I do also want to thank the Minister for having listened to the House on the importance of the House on the importance of the appointment scrutiny. The fact that the Minister has taken that away and that is being enacted is welcomed on this ventures and I'm sure across this ventures and I'm sure across the House, I thank the Minister and his Bill team for the way they have conducted business, thank you.

-- These benches. These benches.

16:24

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

I rise first the bank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for his work on friend Lord Forsyth for his work on salmon. -- First to thank. In amendments two and 2A. And the Minister for the response he set out at the beginning of these proceedings. As we know, genetically modified escapees infect wild migratory fish with sea lice and disease and interbreed with wild populations. And worldwide salmon farms have led to significant environmental damage and pose a real risk to other species.

And we are increasingly seeing recognition of this. Various standards for fish farming have been introduced in countries such as Australia and Denmark have actually banned the practice. We support the sustainable farming of wild Atlantic's and or other fish species, however, that must come at the expense -- must not come at the expense of other wildlife populations. We recognise this Bill is only relevant one existing salmon farm and their main problem is in Scotland, which is devolved. Picking up on what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said and the comments of the noble Lord weekly, we hope the Minister enclosing will make clear whether the audit envisaged by the Government will also be relevant to improving things in Scotland which have been highlighted in our discussions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me, but the point has really been made, this idea that this is only about Scottish salmon, it is crucial that people understand it is crucial that people understand that all the salmon go to my great -- migrate to the Arctic waters in -- migrate to the Arctic waters in the far North Sea. And therefore, English salmon I having to go past English salmon I having to go past this environmental disaster in Scotland, so it is very much pertinent to England.

To suggest there is only one salmon farm in these territorial waters is to miss the point about the most threatening example of the Atlantic salmon, which is those that come from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

English and Welsh rivers. I very much take my noble friend point. I was seeking actually clarification problems in Scotland would be addressed by the measures would be addressed by the measures that he has very helpfully brought forward today. So that the thing is looked at in the round, wherever the looked at in the round, wherever the salmon may be. So I think we are at one, myself, with the noble Lord one, myself, with the noble Lord Forsyth. Moving on to Government amendment one.

That seeks to restrict the permanent removal of... In the seabed. It ensures the commissioners may not dispose of the seabed without the consent of the Treasury and in committee and at report stage, noble Lords across the House, including as has been said, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and Baroness Vere of Norbiton, raise concerns about the disposal of the Crown estate assets and emphasise the duty of commissioners to protect the seabed. And as stewards of our seabed, the Kronos eight and its commissioners bear a profound and unique responsibility to ensure its protection.

It is not merely an asset, it is actually the foundation of our oceans and a vital national resource that supports marine life and holds cultural and ecological significance. In a spirit of compromise, we can accept the Government's amendment and reformulation. That leads me to my conclusion, can I warmly thanked the noble Lord the Minister for his efforts to meet our concerns on this Bill. And that includes what has not been mentioned, the important 25 % cap on borrowing that will be the framework document and the agreement on pre-appointment scrutiny.

Can I thank all noble Lords right across the House, it has been a cross-party efforts in taking part in this grouping of this Bill. They are physically thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth again for his persistence in this matter. And success. And above all, my predecessor and noble friend, Baroness Vere of Norbiton will stop and my noble friend... For their work on this Bill.

16:28

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I am very grateful to the noble Lord Forsyth for what he said and for his agreement on the way forward. As Baroness Neville- Rolfe knows, the Crown Estate is double to Scotland, so measures that I set out will not apply to Scotland and I'm not able to ensure that they do. -- Devolved to Scotland. In answer to global Lord Wigley, the Crown Estate is not devolved to Wales and the audit I set out, Crown Estate will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but I do not believe there is a salmon farm currently in Wales, so I do not know if the audit will reply to that that clearly they want to cover all salmon farms on the Crown Estate land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In answer to Lord Bellingham, the act of the audit will be set out in the Crown Estate's annual report, which will be published in June and that will therefore be an opportunity to scrutinise that report. In answer to the noble Earl Lord Russell, in terms of the seabed, the Crown Estate is limited to 150 year leases. I'm glad we have been able to agree to the changes made by the other place to this Bill. Once again I thank all noble Lords for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

efforts on the Bill since July last year and I beg to move. The question is that the House to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House to agree with the Commons in their amendment one. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment two. contents have it. Amendment two. Mood formally? The question is that the House do agree with the Commons the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment two. Motion 2A. in their Amendment two. Motion 2A. Not moved. The question is that the House agree with the Commons in their Amendment two.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment three. Moved formally? The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment three. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I will leave a minute or two for people to leave if they want to before the next Part Part of Part of the Part of the terrorism Part of the terrorism protection premises bill, Lord Hanson of Flint.

16:31

Legislation: Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill – report stage

Loads, I picked a move that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report be now received. The question is that this report been received. As many as are of been received. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In clause 2,

16:32

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

Amendment one, Lord Sandhurst. Amendment one, Lord Sandhurst.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to open this first group of amendments to the terrorism protection of premises bill. Arise on behalf of my Noble Friend Lord Sandhurst who, unfortunately, is not in a position to be here today. Although we do not wish to divide on amendments one and four we have amendments one and four we have tabled these to seek further clarity and precision from the Government on this crucial area of that legislation. Amendment one and four proposed by Lord Sandhurst replace proposed by Lord Sandhurst replace the vague phrase from time to time of the more precise not less than one month.

This change is more specific and tidies up some of the language in the bill. If, say, the venue has 200 people once per year for a Christmas party but has fewer than 200 at every other point in the air, then this amendment would mean the venue would not be covered. The logic of this amendment is to ensure that the SIA has given a clear benchmark by which it can show venue capacity. This avoids ambiguity and I hope the Noble Lord the Minister would agree this improves the quality of the legislation.

I eagerly await his response and hope to see some movement from the Government on this issue and I looking forward to hearing from my Noble Friend Lord Morley and Lister. I sure this will be a constructive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and positive debate. Amendment proposed, page 2, line 11, leave out from time to time and

16:33

Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)

- -

11, leave out from time to time and I rise to speak in support of my amendment which seeks to raise the qualifying premises threshold in the premises of Bill to 200 to 500. This is a necessary and precocious amendment to ensure the legislation is both effective and enforceable. At its core, this bill is about ensuring the public venues take reasonable steps to protect the public from the ever present threat of terrorism. This is a goal that we all share.

However, it is also our duty as legislatures to ensure that any obligations we impose our realistic, achievable, and properly targeted. The current threshold of 200 is, in my view, to law. It captures far too many small businesses, community venues, and organisations. And simply they do not have the resources to comply effectively with the security measures required under this legislation stop we must therefore ask ourselves what we are truly trying to achieve. If this bill is about protecting life in all venues then their most likely to be targeted than the threshold of 500 is much more appropriate.

If venue that regularly accommodates 500 people is significantly different proposition from one with just over 200. The former will have the infrastructure resources and operational capacity to manage the enhanced security obligations that this bill does require. Whereas the latter will often struggle under the weight of compliance, detracting from the effectiveness of the legislation as a whole. Moreover, this is a question of enforcement. By setting the threshold to law, we risk burning enforcement agency tasked with insurance plans. We should be concentrating our efforts where we will make the most difference on larger, more high-risk venues, where the potential impact of an attack would be greatest.

A threshold of 500 strikes that threshold of 500 strikes that balance. I also want to address the issue of favours. Many small and medium-sized businesses are still recovering from the financial strain of recent years. The hospitality entertainment and cultural sectors in particular are finding it hard. If we impose overly stringent requirements on smaller venues we risk pushing them into further difficulties, leading to unintended consequences such as the venue closures for reduced community engagement. This is not therefore about the security measures.

From it. It is about ensuring that these measures are appropriate were the size and nature of the premises that they apply to. I do not bring this amendment forward lightly. I support the principle of the bill and recognise the importance of making public racist Seva. However, legislation must be both practical. The covenant has not in my view provided sufficient justification for the 200 person threshold. Nor has it demonstrated raising it to 500 would compromise security in anyway. On the contrary, I believe this amendment enhances the bill by making it much more targeted and therefore effective.

For these reasons, and are psychiatrically a commitment from the Government today that we will consider the position I will be urging the noble Lords to join me in supporting the mission portion of a practical approach.

16:37

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

I rise to speak to amendment three in my name on the Marshall list which seeks to raise the threshold for qualifying premises threshold for qualifying premises from 200 to 300. With an exception to allow the Secretary of State to set out a lower threshold if any particular premises or at a heightened risk of terrorist threat. But I agree with many of the arguments advanced by my Noble Friend in relation to 500. It is important that the House has the option to consider other variable thresholds and this amendment inserting the threshold of 300 with flexibility to include other venues between 200 and 300 is, I suggest, a pragmatic measured and proportionate adjustment.

That balances the need for public safety with the realities of implementation of this expensive and burdensome set of regulations on small businesses and community venues. Whilst we should do as much as possible to reduce the impact of an attack, should one occur, we must ensure that pubs village halls, community spaces and other similar venues are not subject to undue regulatory burdens where the risk does not justify them. By raising the threshold to 300 we are ensuring that those venues most at risk are prioritised.

Almost all venues under 300 will now be excluded by reason from this amendment. While providing a degree of flexibility for exceptional cases where a lower threshold may be warranted. The logic behind this adjustment is clear. The threshold of 200 captures too wide a range of premises including many small businesses and community venues that may not have the capacity or resources to implement complex security measures required by the bill. Many of these venues operate on tight budgets and rely on volunteer part-time staff.

I worry greatly that one of the unintended consequences of this bill would be to drive such small businesses in community facilities which are presently just about managing and just about balancing the books. Out of business. The consequent massive impact on our communities and our high streets. If this happens, the terrorists will have won. I do not need to remind the House that the Home Office's own impact assessment is at the cost to business of the measures in this bill at present values.

The Home Office's own impact assessment estimates that these are likely to be between 4.871 billion and 563.4 million. With the government's own best estimate at 1.785 billion. And this additional burden will land just time when small businesses and community ventures are reeling from additional regulatory burdens and rising taxes. Increasing the threshold to 300 ensures that the primary focus remains on just larger venues with therefore greater potential risk. I observed in the committee when debating his amendments will only need look at the Home Office's own impact assessment to see the considerable level of concern about viability of small businesses and community ventures.

An page 9 of the impact assessment, the authors note that among the respondents to the survey of the premises with capacity to 100 and 299, the respondents being the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres, only four in 10 agreed that those responsible for the premises within the standard TA should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack. And around half reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forward.

Six in 10 were at least somewhat concerned at the cost of meeting their comments would affect their organisations financial ability to continue operating. However, in this amendment I recognise security concerns are not always dictated by capacity alone. This is why my amendment relies on the Secretary of State to ensure the premises have the risk of terrorist attack. This provides flexible. Commendably, prior to the introduction of the bill the Government raised the proposed threshold from 100 to 200 following the outcome of the consultation.

I share with the Lord my Noble Friend that there is nothing in the debates on the bill that really justifies the figure of 200. When set against the potential impact of a large number of premises by the present threshold. The proposal in this amendment is cautious but I propose a sensible step and I invite noble Lords to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clarification, the Minister has

16:43

Lord Hardie (Crossbench)

- -

said that he proposes to divide the House, otherwise he gets a satisfactory response from the novel of the Minister, but what is the combined effect of the first amendment in the name of Lord Sandhurst and the amendment name of Sandhurst and the amendment name of Lord Lister. Is it that if the premises have 500 people on them at least once a month then they do not need to have any security assessment.

Or does the Lord Lister accept that if it is 500, which is the limit, would 500 at any one time during the year, not least once a provisions.

16:44

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

I grateful that we debated the amendments in this group. I wish to declare my interest. I have got lots of chances in Manchester under the terms of this bill. I am drawn to the important reminder that we must not change the way that we live our lives. I think I have said that myself on occasions in the past. So, this is all about marginality. I do find that I and drawn two is kind of more subtle balance between 200 and 300.

But I do feel that if we raised a threshold as high as some of the amendments in this group are proposing that would take so many premises out. Another terrorist do not only go for really large events. They do go for medium-sized events and buildings and we see it sadly with mosques and churches not particularly in this country but around the world, so I do feel that on the whole of the bill as it has arrived in the right sort of shape but I do think there is some considerable merit on the proposal to have some flexibility to the 200 to 300 range.

I would be grateful to hear the Minister's comments on that matter.

16:45

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

I think it is extremely welcome that the House is now in a mood of trying to build consensus on this It's clear that in spite of the occasionally scratchy conversations we've had at committee stage, that people are accepting the main principles of this bill. We are now talking about the content and the number of visitors who will trigger the threshold. And I am very conscious that this bill is not just about the legal requirements being placed on premises.

It's about setting the tone of which all premises will respond and consider the threats which they face. I'm also conscious that despite the numbers that are being bandied about, on the first tier of premises to consider, most of what is being recommended are simply good practice, sensible things to do. Indeed, in an earlier debate, we heard accounts of people who did this and so on. Those people don't need to fear this bill because they are doing it already.

It is those that don't do it who need to take the measure on board. I'm also aware that the bill is drafted under the previous administration would have set the threshold at 100 rather than 200. But this government, having engaged in a very full consultation process, a process that some of us thought was going on for far too long, has come up with a figure of 200. Of course, there is no absolute, magic rationale to pick a number out of the air.

200, 251, 188, it doesn't really matter. It is the fact that the basis was reached following consulting a full range of organisations, including religious premises, including small businesses, including a more substantial venue owners. And I think, therefore, we have to accept that this is about an element of judgement and that judgement has been reached following that I have absolutely no questions about the motivations of those who put these amendments forward, I hope that we can stick to what is in the bill, rather than making the changes that they propose.

I would say that because I would hope that most venues in the band between 200 and 300 our 200 and 500, whichever of the preferred Conservative amendment you choose, would be doing this anyway or recognise the sense of doing it. And this bill is about proportionality. It recognises that more intense measures will be necessary for some premises or for some events rather than others. So I hope that when we consider this, when the whole remark when the house is called upon to vote, we recognise this is about just asking those people responsible for premises who are not being responsible to take a fairly simple set of measures that are expected in the lower tier.

As for the higher tier, I'm not sure whether we will be debating the amendment which would move the higher threshold from 800 to 1000, but again, it is a question of what is the appetite for risk. Again, we want those people who organise events to be responsible. At committee stage, the noble talked about all the measures taken to ensure that events are say. Those are the sort of considerations we want to make sure happens. This bill is about both sending a signal to all people who organise public events to carry out these sensible measures but it's also about providing a degree of compulsion and expectation on those who do not do that and therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

16:50

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

My Lords, I wanted to at least query slightly the noble Lord Lord query slightly the noble Lord Lord Harris's idea that we've had a change of tone and consensus has broken out. We are at a point where there is no point fighting until the last man standing. But I do think there are fundamental disagreements about what it is that we are doing here in relation to this bill. So, I just wanted to raise those because they relate to the amendments we've heard about.

I agree with the noble Lord Lord Harris about for smaller venues, that the point is we are setting a notion that everybody should be sensible, take precaution and so on. And I agree. My argument is simply that we don't need a piece of legislation at any level to encourage that. That this could have been done through present legislation. For example, we have oodles of health and safety legislation. Councils are forever issuing guidance on how we should be organised.

It might have unintended consequences, and that is what all of us have argued. And constantly thinking when I'm explaining to people what I'm doing in the House of Lords at the moment, what bills I'm following and I explain this one. I can honestly tell you that people are totally bemused that in relation to tackling terrorism, we are having a conversation about premises and that we are talking about regulators. They are more than wary of the fact that we need to tackle the problem and the threat of terrorism.

This doesn't feel like it is the most important way of dealing with that, and so, when it comes to, for example, the Reverend Bishop made a good point about it's not as though terrorist go, that is a 500 seater. As we know, whether it is a dance class in Southport, whether it's an MP having a surgery in the case of Sir David Amis, there might be small places, it might be using a vehicle at the Christmas market. We've been through these different examples.

The question before us is whether this bill will keep the public safe and the contention that I've been making is I'm not convinced it will but it will do a lot of damage to the public realm and could undermine civil society. So I do think in a way that some of these amendments at least help to remove where there are smaller venues that are likely to be at the heart of community and civil society kind of events, that if they can be removed from the threat of legislative intervention, because there is a difference between a law that even if you're a smaller venue, you might think, we do take precautions, it's not as though we wander around being oblivious to the protection of anyone who comes into our premises.

Once you've got the threat of the regulator and the law and it is coercive and there are threats and there are things that you need to do, and I don't mean to report that have to be written. You are answerable then as we have seen in every aspect of the evidence. It has been given in consultation. People are put off. They say it is not worth running the venue, it's not worth running the events and volunteers are standing down. A number of amendments will later on indicate this.

We might have to make do with making the best of a necessary distracting law. I want to fight terrorism but not this way. We fight terrorism but not this way. We should make the best of a bad job.

16:54

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, this has been a useful, very short debate and many of the issues that have been raised at report stage have been repeated. Most of these amendments would have the effect of greatly increasing the number of premises or events that will be exempt from the provisions of this bill. In particular, I would like to speak against amendments number two, three and five from the Conservative benches. These amendments have been described as increasing the threshold to 500 -- increasing the threshold to 500 -- 300 or 500 for standard premises.

Or 500 to 1000 for enhanced premises. I would like to make a couple of points which are very much in line with Lord Harris said. The first is that it is worth recalling that this bill is to reduce the vulnerability of the premises or event and the risk of physical harm to individuals arising from the acts of terrorism. It's not a bill that will prevent terrorism per se. It's about protecting individuals. Is about having a plan in place for what to do in the horrific eventuality of an effect.

-- In attack. -- An attack. In place to ensure that people can be evacuated as safely as possible. Having such a plan is surely just common sense and good practice for any event or practices no matter what size. Increasing the threshold to such degree as these amendments would propose would, in our view, risk negating the very purpose and value of this bill as it would exempt so many additional premises or events. We cannot and should not necessarily make assumptions about the size of venue or event that a terrorist or terrorist organisation would choose to attack.

Being prepared, having thought through and expect -- escape plan and what to do in the case of an attack gives reassurance to the public and has to be good practice and makes good business sense if people feel, customers feel reassured. My second point is that the figure of 200, as has been said by Lord Harris, is already a compromise. The previous draft will produced by the Conservative government had a threshold of 100. My party and others, including the home of her six -- home affairs select committee expressed concerns so the figure was raised to 200.

I personally would have preferred 100 but I understand the reasons for the compromise. For both of these reasons, from these benches, we will not support any of these amendments this afternoon if they are pushed to a vote.

16:57

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to the noble Lords for moving the amendments and I do hope that, I look forward to seeing Lord Santos back in his place to continue the debate at a future date. There are several different sets of amendments. There is the first group which look at the stability of the threshold. There are the set of amendments in the names of Lord Lister and Lord Murray relating to the threshold. And at the end of it, there are small technical amendments that are due -- that will be addressed in due course.

First, may I address the amendment which was put by Baroness amendment which was put by Baroness Couttie. This bill is not about policing activity. There are a whole range of measures to preventing terrorism. This bill is about looking at the vulnerability of premises and making sure that we do all we can to put public protection measures in place. I did this at committee stage but it's important to refer to it again to noble Lords. The measures in clause 5 of the bill on public protection for the areas we are looking at include evacuating individuals from premises, moving individuals to a place on the premises where there is less risk of physical harm, preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event and providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event, all of which I think are good practice and which are potentially issues which have no cost or limited cost within them.

Now, amendments 134 in the name of Lord centres -- Lord Santos seeks to change how attendance is measured at premises by stimulating that the threshold must be met monthly, not from time to time. The case was made that there is a need for a revised basis to assess the number of individuals in attendance at premises within effects regular time period. As was set out at the committee stage, the government disagrees with that principle although I understand why it has been brought forward.

We want to make sure that if we do that, that the benchmark that we are examining for the premises is a consistent one. The benchmark in terms of changing time to time to a standard of number of individuals accepted or any other form of benchmark would alter the scope of the bill. It would exclude many premises from qualifying, whether seasonal or regular attendance. My benchmark is the figure of 200 or the figure for Proposals would create a consistent level of preparedness and protection across the United Kingdom.

And the term from time to time to assess the number of individuals expected to be present on the premises would, I think, ensure that the objectives of the bill were not met. So, I cannot support the noble Lords amendments that have been put before the House today. The amendments in the name of Lord Murray of played with and Lord of Lister discussed the question of threshold and the two figures I would suggest with the 300 qualifying condition and the 500 figure in the name of Lord Lister.

Now, again, my Noble Friend Lord Harris of herring guide indicated that we have reached a consensus. The original bill proposed by the previous Government had a figure of 100. My Noble Friend himself I think if he was putting this would wish to have 100 figure. The liberal frontbencher is said they have a figure of 100. But this bill has been through a wide ranging element of consensus. When the current Government came in we did consult again.

We have listened to the Home Affairs Select Committee. We have listened to the consultations that are taking place and we have settled on a figure of 200. No, the 200 does not satisfy certain members of this House. It did not satisfy the last Government who had the 100 figure. Which the Noble Lord Maru was a member of in the Home Office team at that time of the genesis of this bill was being developed. But we have had to settle on a figure. And the figure is one which I hope allows premises to be brought into scope to undertake the good practice that is present in clause 5 of the bill.

The Government has already increased the threshold for qualifying premises, following the pre-legislative scrutiny and the public consultation focused on that standard TR. And the Government considers the figure of 200 and 800 to take the point from the Noble Lord tamales amendment which he may still move but was not able to speak The right balance. And as I have said noble Lords of the Committee stage and as with the requirements of the standard duty are relatively straightforward and are, what I would term, good practice, and are to be put in place only suffer as is reasonably practical and have an assessment, although the Noble Lord Murray put a very large five year figure from the impact assessment before the House.

The reasonable cost to standard duty premises is estimated to be £330 per year and that is not in cash up front. That could be in the opportunity time for volunteers to undertake training and others as it relates to staff developing time and implementing procedures and within the standard tier there are premises belonging to key sectors which are important to public protection objectives in the bill stop retail, hospitality, visitor attractions, are within that standard TR. And to raise the figure would, I think, be very difficult.

The retail and hospitality sectors, for example, with the target of the London project attack and the visitor attractions are important given their typically high-profile nature. Now, what is the impact? If we accept Lord Lister's proposal, or indeed the Noble Lord Maru's proposal what would be the impact? Let's look at the 500 figure. Only 4% of premises now would be within the scope of the bill as specified. And the bill across the UK in that standard TR, only 4%.

Now, does the Noble Lord, I ask him, if he genuinely believes that only 4% of premises should be covered by this bill stop had he done the calculation is when he put the figure of 500 forward? Does he believe that 4% is a reasonable figure? Because I say to the House that I do not. I understand it is an honest opinion, it is an honest view, he has put it forward in a constructive way. But I cannot accept that because I do not want to see 4% of premises in a retail hospitality community group sector covered by this bill, I want to see a greater percentage.

And, indeed, when we move the premises threshold from 100 to 200 we took out a significant number of premises in doing that because we wanted to try to strike that fair and appropriate balance, so I say to him that scope figure for his 500 would be extremely damaging and would effectively wreck the purpose of this bill for the House today. The figure of 300 would have a similar effect. It would have, the Noble Lord raises an eyebrow at me.

We have hit a figure. His Government have hit a figure. His Government wanted 100. Lord Lister and others have argued for 500. We are arguing for 200. That is a reasonable balance, I think, between the two. I have given him assurances at selectivity and others at the Committee stage and others that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

figure is an appropriate figure. But of course I will give way to him. Are grateful to the Noble Lord must have a giveaway. Could he give us the percentage figure? If it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

us the percentage figure? If it is for % for the 500 threshold which is the figure for 300? The figure, if he allows my one moment to find that figure. If he moment to find that figure. If he allows my one moment, I have the figure in this pile somewhere. And I will await some dissection of the file to arrive shortly to give him a file to arrive shortly to give him a definitive figure on those issues if you will allow me, and if not I will come back to that in a moment.

But from my perspective the figure of 800 and 200 are correct. If he will allow me, I do not wish I do have that figure to hand, somewhere, there we go, if you will allow me, yes, there we go, is standard, see, I knew at the end of the day with a little bit of diligence and no ambush and advanced notice I could find the figure. And raising the threshold to 300 would mean that only 92,288 premises or 10% down from 17% of eligible premises will be captured and that compares to the figure that we have got currently which is significantly higher to that.

Again, 92,288 as a significant number of premises covered by the bill stop but, again, if I go back, as far as I may, to close five of the bill, clause 5 part three of the bill, those requirements are not what I would term. There good practice. There are things that a good employer should do stuff they are things that good volunteers should do. There are things that are applicable to not stopping terrorism but providing security in the event of a terrorist attack being undertaken and, again, if this were a premise if this were covered by the legislation, which does not, but if it were, then if an attack is happening now irresponsible person here would just have to decide whether we stay under the table, whether we should the door, how do we do it or who do we contact? Those are the requirements in schedule five of the bill.

They are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

onerous and I think that the wider premises with balance as possible is the design but I see to the Minister to intervene. Thank you very much. With the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. With the Minister accept that the percentage of premises is not the same as the of premises is not the same as the percentage of audiences and it is the audiences that we really should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the audiences that we really should be concerned about? Again, I say to the Noble Lord that the Government has made a judgement of an 800 figure which, again, we have estimated is just over £5000 in cost, but the 800 figure which the noble Lords amendments wanted to move to 1,000 is a figure that probably impacts the Wembley stadiums, the big theatres, the big venues, and if I've thousand pounds cost for that is what we have estimated in the impact assessment as a reasonable cost and would probably be consumed in normal training.

Because most of those areas are full-time staff events. Further 200 to 800 threshold, again we have been looking at the whole question of what is reasonable. And in that I think that the 200 figure is a reasonable figure to assess on that. But we are going to disagree and if we disagree the Noble Lord once to move his amendment we will test the will of the House and that is what this place is about. I will say it reluctantly but I hope that he will understand why we have settled on 1,300 figure to date.

Before I sit down I must move Government amendment six, seven, eight, nine, 10, and 11 about which makes small technical amendments to the bill and which are following that reflection we have had at the official level, the ministerial level, the amendments further clarify how the bill is intended to apply to premises and events. They do not change anything in the scope of the bill but they simply increase certainty on premises and scope of the bill. For example, private events such as weddings attended by friends or office parties attended by friends and customers, private events which are not attended by the public and the amendments make clear even more so than they did previously that they should be out of scope.

So, with that, I hope that the Noble Lord will not test the House but if he desired my Noble Friends and anybody else that wishes to join us to put him down. to join us to put him down.

17:11

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

This has been a relatively short but a very good debate and I thank my Noble Friends for the amendments in this group. We address the qualifying premises and amendment to proposes raising the threshold from 255 while Lord Murray's strikes that balance by striking at 300. The facility for the Secretary of State to make determinations in exceptional cases. These amendments recognise the practical implications while ensuring that their duty to protect the public as both proportionate and effective.

It is essential that this administration targets most venues placing burdens on undue small venues and mineable front is mended to test the opinion of the House we will support him. If I cant make reference to amendment five tabled by Lord De Mauley which adjusts the threshold for enhanced process from 802 process from 802,000, this refinement alliance with broader effort to ensure that security obligations are applied appropriately, larger venues naturally impose greater insecurity challenges. Amendment five a would similarly adjust the threshold for qualifying events from 800 to 1,000, this also makes sense to me.

The cost of compliance for events would be larger and thus slightly raising the threshold would allow for greater focus and precision in what this bill intends to remedy. If my Noble Friend also intends to test the opinion of the House we will support him. Turning to amendment G6 and G 11 proposed by the Noble Lord Hanson of Flint I acknowledge the suggested improvements replacing invitations with tickets and substituting with similar. This amendment means that the public protection procedures would only apply when members of the public are in attendance and not private events such as weddings and IM supportive of these amendments and I thank the novel of the Minister for bringing them.

In conclusion, the amendments I have spoken in favour of today enhance the clarity, the proportionality, and practical application of this bill in the face of ever present security threats our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation must be both robust and precise. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. Amendment one, Lord Sandhurst. Not moved. Is it your Lordships this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave withdrawn. Amendment to. I have not said anything which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have not said anything which believes I should not do anything other than divide the House on this one. Wye the question is that amendment to be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question will be decided by division. I would advise the House division. I would advise the House

17:15

Division

17:28

Lord De Mauley (Conservative)

- -

of your Lordships and rise to speak to my amendments 5 and 5A. -- May I. Discussion focused on the lower Discussion focused on the lower threshold qualifying premises. My concern, which is similar to that expressed in committee and earlier today by those proposing those amendments is allowed us. The consequences for those organising small, technical -- ticketed, charitable events are considerably greater because the cost of implementing necessary measures is so much larger. And the noble Lord the Minister gave a suggestion as to what those would be in the debate earlier.

It became clear from the Minister's response to amendments proposing to increase the number threshold at committee that there was a little science to the government's choice of 800 as the upper threshold. He admitted that numbers were arbitrary where he said, we have to land on a figure in the government have determined that that figure should be 200. This is of course the lower threshold but it gives insight as to the government's approach towards the higher threshold as well. And increased to 1000 is even easier to justify in light of the fact that all the public protection procedures require for events and premises with over 200 people specified in section 3 of the bill will still apply.

Laser procedures for evacuating individuals from premises or moving individuals where there is less risk of physical harm, and for individuals leaving premises or at the event. A comprehensive array of public protection procedures will This This will This will give This will give them This will give them tax This will give them tax ability This will give them tax ability that the bill does not currently contain. The government's approach seems to be because I say so, I respectfully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

request that they think again. I beg to move.

17:31

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

17:53

Lord De Mauley (Conservative)

- -

Amendment proposed, clause 5, page 4, line 19. Leave out subsections four to six.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments in my name. Amendment 13 62 introduce a provision for exemptions from public provision for exemptions from public protection procedures under the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill. While I support this Bill. While I support this legislation, I believe that a blanket one size fits all approach blanket one size fits all approach is not a practical solution. It introduces flexibility to ensure that obligations are applied where they are truly necessary without placing undue burdens on venues where the risk is demonstrably low.

Security measures come at a cost, not only in financial terms but also in administrative burden, operational complexity and resource allocation. Many smaller premises, community organisations and low risk venues will struggle to comply with requirements that may be disproportionate to the actual risk profile. For example, village hall hosting occasional galleries, -- occasional garret -- official -- occasional gatherings is not the same as a large venue. But they will be subject to same regulations. This amendment does not seek to weaken security.

It would allow exemptions to be granted were if any would clearly demonstrate it doesn't meet a reasonable threshold of risk. This can be assessed based on factors such as size, location, historical risk data and the nature of the events it hosts. The government must consider whether it is justifiable to place the same regulatory demands on premises regardless of their individual circumstances. The bill must be robust but it also must be fair. An exemption mechanism will ensure that security resources cover both financial and operational, are directed where they will have the greatest impact, rather than being spread thinly across venues that have little realistic security concerns.

I urge the government to consider the practical implications of this legislation to accept this amendment. In committee, the noble Lord the Minister said that the responsible person will consider the appropriate procedures in light of the cost and appropriate resources. He also said, accordingly, no procedures required to be put in place at unreasonable cost to the responsible person. His assurances welcome but the problem is that the bill does not appear to allow the responsible person to consider appropriate procedures in light of the course.

He went on to say, what we are asking for is that he thinks about the consequences and about whether there is a threat. Yet, the bill makes no allowance for the responsible person to make considerations and assess the risk as he suggested. And said, they are expected to put in place the costly As my noble friend Lord Murray said earlier, the terrorists will have earlier, the terrorists will have won. The problem is that the term is subjective. Those enforcing the law a note -- are not the same people who make it.

Furthermore, one of the really important problems of the bill creates is that it is, as bills often are, very broad brush in its drafting, especially in terms of the public procedures and measures. It leaves a lot to be fleshed out. At this stage, we have no way of knowing how difficult they're going to be to comply with. Turning to amendment 25 and returning to the subject of thresholds, which we debated a moment ago. As I then said, when the subject was raised in committee, there is much discussion about the lower threshold.

This amendment approaches thresholds in another way. So seeking to address the concern about the level of thresholds and once the bill has passed, they will stay effective for ever and they cannot go out. It seems to me that the bill would benefit from having an understandable framework under which the Secretary of State could vary the thresholds upwards or downwards from time today. This would also remove an element of time -- element of time as it sounds. The thing that is missing is a lack of any science as to the level of risk, for example as the terrorist attack risk changes from time to time.

The Minister mentioned that the national threat level is now as it was then. As he well knows, there are four other national threats level being low, moderate, severe and critical. The setting of the national threat level is based on the responsibilities by the joint terrorism announcement centre. This seeks to allow the Secretary of State to vary the thresholds with the national threat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

level. First of all, it's really

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all, it's really gratifying to have heard from the Minister at the start that the government is listening and has listened and has acted accordingly, listened and has acted accordingly, and so I really do welcome the reigning in of the Henry VIII powers and the remarks that the Minister made. On listening, do feel free to carry on and some of the arguments

17:59

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

carry on and some of the arguments have already been made and will be made in this group and some groups are's -- are where the government is still considering to ensure that this bill does not have unintended consequences that some of us dread. Throughout the committee stage, in fact, I was very struck that the government stressed that this bill was not one size fits all and it did not feel like that was appropriate. Early on, the Minister made the point that this, there are exemptions for what this bill, this House itself is not under the same requirements as the venues and I have referenced again that there is a different approach to places of worship.

And I think that that is appropriate. We don't want a one size fits all. I think these amendments respond positively to this ministerial commitment to some flexibility and agility. I'm particularly putting my name to amendments 13 and 25. I think that, as we've already heard today, there is a constant theme and a genuine worry of the unintended consequences of this bill harming civil society and the social fabric of communities, that they will have an unnecessary regulatory toll on events and, as I said earlier, I can feel as though the discussions were having here are far removed from the real material threads that society faces in relation to terrorism.

I appreciate what was said earlier that I know this bill is not claiming, if this law passes, no one is claiming this will stop We are told We are told that We are told that if We are told that if we We are told that if we do We are told that if we do pass We are told that if we do pass the bill that lives will be saved, and then there is a moral onus on us to pass it, but I do think that we have a broader approach.

In relation to amendment 13, 25, in the name of the Noble Lord, I think it offers the Government and opportunity to apply something that has been lacking in some instances in relation to this, our discussions. Which is an evidence-based approach in relation to a threat of terrorism or how we respond to the possibility of a venue or an event being attacked by terrorists. That evidence-based approach is very important. Because amendment 30 allows for somebody who is responsible for houses or events to apply for an exemption and they have to prove, they have to show that there is a reason why their event would be exempt.

Well, in amendment 25, which relies on variable threshold based on a national threat level, then surely we will accept that national threat level being different at any given time, no matter but the size of the venue, must have an impact on how we view what is a threat. I think these view what is a threat. I think these things are important. I think in relation to evidence and what is a thread earlier noble Baroness city made the point that this bill should give reassurances to the public.

That they will be safe. And my concern is that the venues and people who organised events might well feel that they are safe if they follow procedures. But in fact what that can mean is that actually a procedural technocratic approach to safety is deployed by the news or events organisers, ironically. It can mean that for very large venues they go through the motions, watch their backs, as it were, jump through the hoops. Boxes are ticked. Smaller venues feel that they need to prove they are doing the right thing, but ironically it puts in place a system where you do not think, you simply follow the rules.

An one thing that I think is key in any approach to dealing with danger or safety is not that you just follow the rules but that you think about issues and it seems to me that an evidence-based approach were you have the call for exemption because you want to show that you have the evidence it will not be detrimentally impacted or you can look at the evidence provided by the different threat levels. But actually at least ensured it was not as it were being used in a technocratic and unhelpful way.

Finally, I wanted to just mention events that I suppose I am worried events that I suppose I am worried , it is a small town and every year it has a Jubilee. I am not suggesting that you will have heard of it, but it is annual and it has been going on for 150 years. It is quite famous in its own locality. It is organised by local churches. Other churches get together and the Scouts and guides. And it is led to forget, it is immortal the way through Buckley, Buckley is not that big, but a mark through Buckley led by the Buckley band.

It is quite an occasion. Everyone goes out on the day of school et cetera. They recently, there has been something of a to-do locally. Because the county's chief officer for street scene and transportation has basically said that from now on in the Buckley Jubilee are going to have to pay for road closures, traffic management and so on that the council previously paid for and it sent a panic through the area of Buckley town because basically it is going to be too expensive.

The reason I should this is because this event, when looking at the coverage of this in the local newspapers, people busy while this event is already under this enormous pressure that it was not under inferiors ago because event organisers of the Buckley Jubilee now need to complete a full risk assessment, including and with reference to traffic program works. They have to produce method statements. They have to have a consultation with the road space manager. They have to provide public liability to the value of millions of pounds, and in addition to that then suddenly they say and apparently there is a regulatory the corner that is going to and starting we also have to watch out for terrorism in Buckley.

I am not saying that no one is going to go to Buckley and Conte Bob, but it is not that likely the reason I am saying that is that I genuinely think there's a huge amount of financial and regulated pressure on the local and regulated pressure on the local community events and so on that are part and parcel about makes a town a time, what brings people together. As I have said, and so I think that we able to call for an exemption is appropriate and if it is a very low level of terrorist risk at any given time, that actually we should be able to say that the requirements of this bill are no longer necessary.

Do just want to make the point that I am not completely saying that there should be no risk, that risk is not ever if each. Because if you, for example, have based on the national threat, it could be the case that the national threat is very high. In which case you would actually, I would argue, that then even smaller venues might need to take precautions that they would not in relation to how the bill is presently worded. I think that it is the flexibility and agility that I am pulling for so that we do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have a one size fits all that will not actually keep anybody safer. I am grateful for another chance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for another chance to address this next group of

18:08

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

to address this next group of amendments and support the ones that the Government has proposed. I am struggling a little bit with the amendments, 13 and 25. I do not wish to deprive the good citizens of Buckley of their annual Jubilee. Some of us thought Jubilee skimmer and rather less frequently than that, but it is good that Buckley have them quite so often. I am not quite your what premises are to be covered by this particular piece of legislation. I think that with the problem I have got with that is that for small premises it would cost you more time and energy and effort to get an exemption under fairly modest requirements on such premises would entail.

I think that it would actually be not much use to them or hear nor there to try to appeal for exemption under the prose amendment 13. While the risks are very large and there was the organisation might mean that they spent years looking at judicial review as to whether or not there premises should be exempt or not. I am not convinced by it, but on amendment 25, I yearn for the day when the threat is low or moderate in this country but I do not see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

I think that we have to work on the basis that we are going to suffer significant threats of terrorism for quite some time to come. And on that basis I think the fact that the novel is sought substantial and tomorrow it might be severe, I think I would rather have the certainty in knowing what we have had to do today and to tomorrow and if it is in twelve- month time if it is a long event, a Longleat uptime, rather than potentially the rules changing depending on what the terrorist threat is having gone up or down or not.

I think that 25 just creates potential confusion and I would rather that we just kept things

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simple if possibly can. We welcomed the Government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We welcomed the Government amendments towards 32. And can I particularly mention amendment 28 on particularly mention amendment 28 on consultation? Something that we were very keen that we should see written very keen that we should see written into the bill when we debated it at

18:10

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

previous stages. With regard to amendment 13, it starts from the point of view that measures in the bill are burdensome and inappropriately so, as we discussed in the previous group. In fact I think that amendment 13 13.2 itself would be burdensome on applicants and on the Secretary of State, I use the words in the amendment, demonstrate materially, these are all things that require some judgement and some work. But the particular point is that not materially reducing the threat of terrorism referred to in this amendment, that is not what Bill is seeking to do, as we have already discussed.

But the public protection procedures in clause 5 are more than a single measure. And as I understand the way the bill will work with premises being different there is bound to be some dialogue between the operator or owner and the SIA. And assessing whether the owner or operator is compliant. That is the time to make these assessments. I do not think it is going to be a box ticking exercise, I do not know the extent to which it has been suggested.

The process is actually to get people to think, which I think was the word used, to think of the planning procedures, the problem with the recession, I hope the novel is going to noble Lords to come and see this, but that sounds to me more like it problem with funding than anything which arises from the bill. Hearing the words flexibility and agility really worries me. We are going to create a lot of work for people.

But my main or our main objection to amendment 13 is that it is neither appropriate nor frankly workable. We cannot support it if the Noble Lord decides that. With regard to amendment 25 of the national threat level, I want to see it goes up and down like a yo-yo but it does not but it does go up and down and so I think that the amendment again would be unworkable. And the first words that I wrote down against this amendment, we know that owners and operators want clarity and certainty and again we could not support this amendment.

I really cannot see how it could work because when the changes that is something that happens quite immediately, and to change the arrangements as the amendment proposes would take time. I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cannot see how it could operate. Just want to support what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just want to support what the baroness said at the Bishop of Manchester about amendment 25. I think it needs consistency. I think that the danger as well as the fact that these two can change quite quickly would be that the SIA would

18:14

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

quickly would be that the SIA would struggle to respond to what would be potentially A wave of applications when probably certain to the people requiring out the safe? Yes there an evacuation plan? Is there an evacuation plan? These are things that I think can be predictable and can be consistent, so I think that it would not be helpful to tie it to the threshold and sometimes the threshold move predictably in the sense that we can see that the threat is rising and see that events that happen but sometimes there based on intelligence which is not always open to public and therefore a rapid change in that could lead to quite a lot of uncertainty in the premises, so I cannot support amendment 25.

18:15

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

I rise to speak in support of amendment 13 and 25, both tabled by Mike Noble Friend Lord De Mauley. Which introduced much-needed flexibility and proportionality into the terrorism protection bill. These amendments recognised that one size fits all approach is neither practical, nor desirable, when it comes to public protection measures. Amendment 13.66 to establish public protection procedures in certain circumstances. While the core purpose of this bill is to enhance security and preparedness it is vital that we do not propose unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on venues where the measures being imposed would not demonstrably make a difference.

There are many premises where the small community spaces, charitable organisations, and certain lawful call -- Medford. Schmitz were the practical application of these procedures may not have any real impact on the security challenges that these venues face. An exception mechanism would allow for a more nuanced and commonsense approaches, ensuring that resources are focused where they are most needed. If my Noble Friend intends to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support. Similarly, amendment 25 introduces the concept of variable rituals based on the national threat level.

This is a highly pragmatic proposal. The terrorism threat and scape is not static. It fluctuates based on intelligence, emerging risks and global events. The rigid fixed threshold does not account for these realities. I alone threshold to be adjusted in response to the national threat level we can ensure that security measures are proportionate to the actual risk at This This introduced This introduced an This introduced an element This introduced an element of flexibility. Security is paramount Must be adaptable to real world conditions so I urge the government to give serious consideration to these amendments and to recognise the benefits of a more tailored and responsive approach to public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection procedures. I'm always grateful for

18:17

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

amendments because they do generate debate and debate is what this house is about and it is an opportunity to test the provisions there are in the bill. -- That are in the bill. I have tried to listen and I have moved on the government amendments tabled in this group but I cannot support either amendment on 13 or 25. The first one allows those responsible for venues to apply for compensation. Noble Lords on opposition benches who have -- have opposition benches who have -- have talked about applying exemption.

-- Have talked about reducing bureaucracy. Applying exemption will create more bureaucracy. I'm not sure which the noble Lord wishes to remove. Is that the guidance on moving individuals to a place on the premises or event where there less at risk of physical harm? Is it providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event so they can manage in the event of the terrorist attack in evacuation or activity around that. I'm not quite sure which of the public protection procedures in clause 5 noble Lord feels is not appropriate to put in place? I remind the house, as set out in the close, the so objective is to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals present at premises or an event if an attack occurs.

It's not about reducing the risk of an attack occurring. We will do that through many other means. Indeed, even with the public protection measures in clause 6, the objectives are not to stop an attack or the threat that terrorism poses to reduce vulnerability in the event of an attack, and those specific procedures in evacuation, lockdown, communication, which ones does the noble Lord think we should put to one side? I'm genuinely interested because I don't see what the benefit of that is and then having potentially premise number one in a high street saying we want to apply for an exemption where premise number two, exactly the same type of premise doesn't apply for an exemption, it creates confusion.

It creates a patchwork and it doesn't really achieve the objectives of the bill which are to provide immediate responses in the event of an attack and to ensure that volunteers or paid staff understand what to do when that attack is occurring, as it did at London Bridge, as it did at the Manchester Arena. And that is the important thing on this. We will be issuing guidance. There will be guidance put in place. The SIA will be there to provide support clause 5, I think meet the objectives and therefore, cannot support it.

Now can I support for the very sound reasons that the right Redland -- Right Reverend Prelate said for the amendment 25. Baroness Fox of Buckley, I may be the only person in this house by now who has visited Berkeley recently because it is five or 6 miles from where I live and it is next door to my former constituency. She mention the problems with the Buckley Jubilee Parade. None of those problems relate to the legislation before this house today.

If there are challenges being put down by a local authority about a range of issues mentioned, it is not because of this bill. And nor would they be in clause 5 additional expense measures of a significant nature. I will go back again to variations on threat level and the provision of evacuating, moving or providing information. So I respect both the noble Lord and the noble Lady but I look at this and I say the revision of the threat level would again act -- add another tier which, in both cases, in clause 5 and clause 6, is good this, which are information about what to do in the event of that moment of an attack.

I really do say to the noble Lord and the noble Lady, the national threat levels may change come about the acts of terrorists remain unpredictable. Attacks may happen at anytime and anywhere. We've seen attacks in smaller locations. Changes to national threat level are not directly aligned with the objectives of the bill and the premises and events which will be in scope, as we've seen from the recent past, those threat levels may change quickly but the level of potential attack is still present on any of those areas that are in scope of the bill and to have the threat level determined whether something is in scope means that it would be a very blunt instrument and it would potentially change and bureaucracy that many noble Lords have been keen to avoid with this bill.

As I've said, in the set of amendments, the government has listened. We listen to Lord Anderson who has raised serious points, we've listened to points raised by the Liberal Democrat benches and points raised by his majesties opposition. But I cannot continue to listen to all representations. There has to be a line drawn somewhere and the provisions in clause 5 and clause 6 are for the government, as it was indeed, dare I say for the previous government, that line, and in that case I would urge the noble Lord and barrenness to withdraw both of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments debated today. I believe the question before the house relates to amendment 12 and I house relates to amendment 12 and I believe the noble Lord has not moved believe the noble Lord has not moved amendments 12. I have moved the amendment standing in my name, my initial contribution. I have to initial contribution. I have to simply respond to the amendments moved by the noble Lord and barrenness in the latter part of the debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Therefore, the question is that amendment 12 B agreed to. -- be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He was asking us to rely on practicable wording and the problem with that is that the wording is with that is that the wording is subjective. Those enforcing the law are not the same as those people who are not the same as those people who make it. Therefore, there are variations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

variations. The question is that amendment 13

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 13

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The question will be decided by vote. I will let the House now when voting

18:26

Division

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order. My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. All of amendment 13 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents will go to content". The contents will go to the right of the throne, the not The The question The question is The question is Amendment The question is Amendment 13 The question is Amendment 13 be There There have There have voted.

There have voted. Content, There have voted. Content, 200, There have voted. Content, 200, not There have voted. Content, 200, not content, 236. The not content habit. content, 236. The not content habit. -- Have it. In clause 6, Amendment 14, Lord Hanson, move formally. The question is amendment 14 be agreed to. The contents have it. In clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lochiel. I beg to move amendment 15 in my name which seeks to enhance the efficiency of providing documents to

18:38

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

the SIA. It was debated at Committee stage. This amendment brought forward in my name offers a small but practical improvement to the bill in my view. I hope I can be brief. It introduces a clear requirement for the document to be provided to the SIA within six months of it being prepared rather than as soon as reasonably practicable. This amendment I suggest will help ensure timely and structured reporting and will help to prevent necessary delays in the increment a and of security measures.

A six month time limit simply provides a definitive timescale and an end date. That brings clarity and certainty and I would suggest is a helpful addition. I would also briefly introduce amendment 18 and 32 tabled in the name of Lord Davies of Gower without stealing his thunder. These important amendments address the need for greater oversight of the SIA, amendment 18 seeking to establish an advisory board of work and amendment 32 proposing an independent review panel to assess its performance.

Both measures would help ensure the SIA remains accountable and thus responsive to emerging threats. More broadly, I hope the Minister accepts all the amendments in the group seek to improve the quality of legislation and I look forward to hearing response in due course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause in page 5, line 4, leave out beginning to prepare and insert within six

18:40

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

months of it being. I am grateful to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel for his moving of the amendments and if I may I would the amendments and if I may I would welcome him to the Frontbench. It is the first time in the House as a whole we had a debate with him as the shadow Home Affairs Minister and I welcome him to his post and wish him as much success as I possibly can given the issues. Amendment 15 is an important amendment.

It looks at timeframe by which the compliance documents will be submitted to the security industry association and as we had previous debates on this issue there is a number of points I wish to pay to him. The number of documents provided to the security industry association is the important document that will detail most of the things, procedures and measures in place under the procedure of the bill to comply with the requirement and it is an important document that enables the SIA to make evaluation of the security approach of the premises to be able to engage with the person responsible and assessed compliance with the bill and the document indeed as the noble Lord mentioned should be sent to the regulator at an early-stage.

We have not stipulated a single deadline for enhanced duty premises because the bill does apply to a wide variety of departments from long established department stores to potential pop- up events and some of them require little change to the security approach where others might need to make a substantive change or in the case of some events may have a long lead time or shortly time and the government determined the document be provided as soon as reasonably practicable. If we accept the amendment and have the proposed blanket deadline of six months following completion across enhanced duty premises and qualifying events, this could hinder the ability to monitor compliance and provide advice and it may result in inaccurate documents being provided and depending on circumstances the submission may be delayed until very close to the deadline and that is not necessarily the best way to do business.

I understand where he is coming from, but I cannot accept the amendment today. Amendment 18, we had extensive discussion about this during Committee stage and I refer back to the public consultations on legislation, the engagement of previous government and current government with hundreds of trade organisations and industry bodies, the work with regular stakeholders, existing regulators, security partners and local government and that is how we put legislation in place in an effective way. In its current role, the SIA already works with industry local authority and civil society and those working relationships won't end with Royal Assent.

The Home Office will build its existing work to ensure the SIA is fit for purpose and as I have said before the Royal Assent is the start of the process of potentially two years or more before implantation. It would replace the burden of statutory duty on the Secretary of State and for that reason I cannot support it and I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. Amendment 32, I hope I can assure them both that clause 12 has been drafted to ensure appropriate oversight by the Secretary of State with checks and balances on the SIA to ensure regulation is delivered as the Home Office intended.

The SIA produces annual report which will follow Royal Assent and encompass regulatory function and provide transparency. The Secretary of State will continue to appoint board members as required and will be held accountable for those board members and it will ensure the significant and it will ensure the significant expertise of the site a -- the SIA will effectively change and work with business and where necessary the Secretary of State will have the power to give directions to the SIA if the Secretary of State so wishes.

The government will be able to ensure the legislation is being implemented as intended and I know that the noble Lord in this House and shadow ministers in the House of Commons will be questioning, holding to account, potentially having debates about the legislation. If we have as is proposed an independent review panel at an extra level of bureaucracy and as I pointed out there are robust powers of oversight to ensure the SIA manages its responsibilities accordingly and therefore I'm ashamed to say yet again I have two rejects the noble Lords amendments and ask the House if he does push them to reject them accordingly.

If the noble Lord accordingly. If the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You very kindly wrote to me after the Committee stage in relation to the Committee stage in relation to the reviews and particularly the post-implementation reviews and a copy of the letter is obviously in copy of the letter is obviously in the House library. For the benefit of noble Lords I will read out one sentence, I would like to reassure sentence, I would like to reassure you that a post-implementation review will be undertaken, which is what we saw, this assessment of the legislation delivers the government legislation delivers the government policy objectives.

This will include the analysis of cost and impact on qualifying premises and events and will naturally include smaller businesses and community premises where they full Interscope. The government's intention is that such review would be conducted at most within five years of commencement. And would incorporate micro businesses and smoke amenity premises will stop I'm grateful to the Minister for that indication in his letter, I would ask him to let us know from the despatch box whether or not it's intended to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

publish the outcome for those reviews. I would certainly fully expect to publish the outcome of those reviews publish the outcome of those reviews and I give the noble Lord assurance that this government will continue that this government will continue that practice and will publish those reviews in the event of a review taking place at the timescale he has taking place at the timescale he has mentioned for the SIA. With that I hope the noble Lord can respond in a hope the noble Lord can respond in a positive way and Lord Cameron can

18:47

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw those amendments. Again briefly can I begin by thanking the Minister for his very generous words of welcome. I look forward to working with him and occasionally against him. In the future. I listened very carefully to what he said and in respect of amendment 15 I don't intend to take it further, although it does remain my view that accountability and oversight should not be seen as bureaucratic however, they are fundamental to ensuring that security measures are properly implemented and continuously improved.

I do wish to make it clear that I do not plan to move among 15 and respectively back to withdraw it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

18:48

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

After clause 11 amendment 16.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 16 and to speak to amendment 17 and 24 a to speak to amendment 17 and 24 a table to my name and that of Baroness Hamwee. Moment 16 and 17 Baroness Hamwee. Moment 16 and 17 are as we debated -- amendment, at Committee stage about the importance of training and guidance and about of training and guidance and about ensuring the quality of that training. It's worth repeating that all of the organisations we have all of the organisations we have spoken to in connection to this bill spoken to in connection to this bill stress the importance of ensuring good quality training.

It was one issue that they all raised with us will stop this is perhaps particularly true for smaller events and premises who have not necessarily previously had experience of drawing up plans for what to do in the event of a terrorist attack. As we have discussed previously during the passage of the bill, many larger venues have already put such training in place. At Committee stage the Minister gave us some reassurances regarding training but we have read table these amendments in order to push the Minister little further on these matters.

The previous draft bill from the Conservative government did have a much more prescriptive approach to training, this has been removed but I do think it's vital that guidance on training has produced a soon as practicable following consultation with the sector. At Committee stage there was much discussion about the risks of expensive consultants and snake oil salesman as other nobles refer to them, we believe that the sooner the guidance is published the less able such consultants will be to promote unnecessary or goldplated training.

Consultation with the industry affected by the provisions of this bill will be absolutely key which brings me onto amendment 24 a. Consultation with those to be impacted will be the very best way impacted will be the very best way to ensure that training is user friendly, of a high standard, comprehensive, but not unnecessarily complex and the guidance is written in plain, easy to understand English. I would be grateful therefore if the Minister could give us some reassurances, further reassurances, he has given us on this evening, in full consultation with the sector to be impacted including the small and rural village halls, the voluntary sector, as well as with big venues and the night-time and creative industry following that consultation exercise will he also commit to publishing guidance on training as soon as is possible, and certainly well before the end of the rollout., Which I believe is currently going to be two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years of this bill. I beg to move. Moment proposed, after clause 11 insert the new clause printed on the insert the new clause printed on the marshalled List. -- Amendment

18:51

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed. I rise to address this group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to address this group of amendments which touch upon critical aspects of training, funding, economic impact and consultation within the framework of terrorism within the framework of terrorism protection premises bill. Whilst I could not support the noble Baroness on Amendment 6970 I wish to express my strong support for amendment 30, 34, and to move amendment 31. First regarding amendment 16 and 17 table by Aaron a city and Hamley -- and Baroness Hamwee. Required for public protection procedures and ensure that training providers meet high and competent standards.

Importance of proper training and counterterrorism, preparedness is self-evident. However there are practical considerations regarding how such training is impairment it. Who bears the cost and how providers are accredited. Whilst these amendments highlight an important issue, further clarity may be needed to ensure that they are applied in a way that is both effective and feasible for those affected. Turning to amendment 30, 31 and 34 I fully support these proposals as they introduce essential provisions to ensure that the implementation of this bill is both fair and practical.

Amendment 30 tabled by the noble Lord calls for additional funding for local authorities. This is an absolutely necessary provision. Local authorities will play Peru brittle role ensuring compliance with the new measures, yet they are already under considerable financial pressure. Without adequate funding we risk imposing responsibilities unlike government without the means to fill government without the means to fill them effectively. -- On local. Security cannot be done on a shoestring budget and if we are serious about protecting the budget -- public must make sure local authorities have the resources to do so.

Moment 31 tables in my name seeks to review the impact of this bill on the night-time economy. This is a crucial safeguard, bars, clubs and entertainment venues are vital to the economic and cultural life of our towns and cities. While security is of course paramount we must ensure that the measures imposed by this legislation do not have unintended negative consequences. Leading to excessive costs, closures or job losses. Structured review will allow us to monitor these effects and make adjustments if necessary.

Finally amendment 34 tabled by Lord Cameron proposes that businesses be properly consulted. This is a matter of both practicality and fairness, businesses, particularly those in hospitality and events will be directly affected by the spill and it's only right they have a voice in shaping how its provisions are implemented. Engaging with businesses will not only improve compliance but also ensure the security measures are designed in a In conclusion I urge the House to support amendment 30, 31 and 34.

These measures provide essential financial support, ensure careful economic consideration and guarantee meaningful engagement with those most affected. A well crafted security framework must not only protect the public but also be practical, proportionate and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sustainable. Gratefully for the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gratefully for the amendments before us today, I hope I can give before us today, I hope I can give some comfort on at least one of the moments during our discussion today. The question of training is

18:55

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

The question of training is extremely important and I have been supportive of the need to make sure that those who have to have a role in the legislation and the premises of events and scope of the legislation that sufficient training and guidance is given so they understand how to follow the procedures and measures in the event of an attack. Such training will be imperative to ensure the procedures are adequately plummeted and the bills public protection objectives are met.

However the government assesses that they one-size-fits-all approach the training would be inappropriate due to the different types and wide variety of premises that fall within the scope of the event. The most important factor is that the public protection procedures are effective and will be able to be carried out in those procedures at any particular event. Again what we have tried to ensure is that the public protection procedures that are suitably in place, the responsible person must ensure that relevant workers or volunteers are adequately instructed as to how to carry out a procedure.

Again those procedures in clauses 5 and six are relatively straightforward and we've been through them in a number of stages of the committee and that report stage and I don't wench to repeat them today. They are designed -- wish, there designed to be simple and low-cost. It's about putting in place appropriate procedures that can help protect people from harm and ensuring staff or volunteers are properly trained in those procedures and how to follow them. The overwhelming majority this should not require specialist training, as I've mentioned previously free guidance will be available, given the procedures and measures that will need to be tabled to relevant premises the content of any staff training will also be very much venue specific, and the generalised scheme for certifying training providers as proposed in amendment 17 is unlikely to be helpful in the circumstances, premises and events in my view again should not have to pay for any specific training and the relevant legislation should be easily understood and put in place without detailed training.

The government will ensure the free digestible guidance on advice and training will be provided and I hope that helps with the first set of amendments. Amendment 24 a in the name of the Liberal Democrat Frontbench Baroness Suttie, can I sound that one much of the debate throughout the bill has rightly focused on ensuring that those responsible for qualifying premises and events have both the time and information needed to ensure that they can plan and prepare for, and ultimately impairment what is reasonably appropriate under the bill.

I hope I can put on record today that the government will publish guidance well in advance of the commencement of the new regime, the government will determine the exact timescale for this in due course, ensuring we strike the right balance between publication and making the guidance as robust as it can be through a period of proper consideration and engagement. I would expect that to last for a few months prior to implementation. The government is therefore happy, and I hope this helps the noble Baroness to support Baroness Suttie's amendment 24 a which would place a statutory duty to consult as appropriate before publication of the guidance under clause 27.

I hope that demonstrates the government's commitment to ensure that we get the guidance right, by having a consultation which will be well in advance of the implementation date, given opportunity for colleagues across the sector to be able to comment on the guidance that potentially is being published and I hope that's a further reassurance to the House. The other members have been tabled, moment 30 which -- amendment 30 which the noble Lord spoke to from the government Frontbench, opposition frontbench, I know that we are mindful of cost.

We discussed the cost issue on several occasions and I know there will be pressures because of the bill on local authorities, it's not the government's intention for the bill to frustrate the vital work they undertake, our intention is to keep the public safe and I would like to reassure the House of the requirements for appropriate procedures and measures in place as far as reasonably practical are designed to ensure the relevant factors, including cost, are considered. Again throughout the debates we have had reasonable, practical, relevant and considered words that I have used from this despatch box in which I wish to read size today.

It is envisaged that the requirements we've discussed on a number of amendments today will be simple and low cost, those in the enhanced table of procedures and measures they prevent the particular circumstances, this includes consideration of resources available to them, I don't believe the government should be looking at financial assistance, however and this is an important point, I mentioned that report at committee and I mentioned again at report today, the security industry authority may wear appropriate engaging local authorities as part of their regulatory activities, they might share information is relevant to each other's functions, however I want to reassure this House this is not anticipating to result in a burden requiring financial support.

But the government will be undertaking as I gave the noble Lord the assurance in the Committee stage that any burdens assessment would be undertaken and we will consider the findings of this and any cost implications for local authorities want that new burdens assessment has been produced. And again is open to And in the House of Commons. In the name of Lord Davies, the careful consideration is gone into how this legislation will affect all sectors including the night-time economy. I made clear on a number of occasions there would be significant implementation period following Royal Assent and it is likely that that will be 24 months and above.

It ensures there is time there is time for the guidance to be examined, looked at and following the acceptance of the amendment of Baroness Suttie that amendment will ensure there is consultation on the guidance and that will help plan and prepare in advance of the bill coming into force. I can also reassure noble Lord that we will keep legislation under review on the impact and effectiveness and I've given that assurance to Lord Murray as well and should any unintended consequences be identified, the bill provides powers for ministers to adjust the scope of the regime as appropriate.

These powers now have been debated in the House and put additional safeguards in for these powers as well, and I would say to the noble Lord that the proposed timescale for a report to be laid before Parliament at 18 months after Royal Assent would entail effectively currently under what I said to the House tonight, the review being conducted prior to the bill effectively coming into force and the bill would hope and again I hope the noble Lord would withdraw his amendment but that remains a matter for him.

Amendment 34, again, this has been before us before and it is back to the House for discussion and I hope we can provide further reassurance about the commencement of the pimento period and it focuses on this particular amendment and I confirmed that there will be an in fermentation period 24 months prior to Royal Assent at commencement and the implementation period is there because we want to make sure the SIA is set up and ready to enforce requirements with the bill at commencement and allows for that to go ahead of requirements and the minimum period will be unnecessary because I am trying to ensure we give plenty of time for that implementation and guidance and scope and fit for purpose activity to be undertaken and ministers are extremely engaged at ensuring with officials we make sure the SIA is in the right place when this bill effectively goes live after Royal Assent and implementation preparation period.

I hope that by accepting amendment 24 a under the name of Baroness Suttie and given the advice I have given in relation to other amendments the consultation we have will take place ahead of publication as we have time for commencement. The engagement will take time, it will be a proper engagement, assessment, and I hope on the basis of that that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment and the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments, but allow me graciously amendments, but allow me graciously to accept amendment 24 20 4A.

19:05

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I thank him for accepting 24 a on consultation and for his clarifications and reassurances on the records regarding training. I think we have come a long way on these matters since the start of debating the bill in the House and I think we are also in agreement that trading and guidance -- training and guidance are a key part of the bill and it is important to avoid smaller organisations paying out extraordinary sums of money to receive training above and beyond what is helpful or indeed necessary.

I accept the reassurances in good faith, particularly on the timescale that he will publish the guidance well in advance of implementation and I baked -- beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the amendment. The amendment is withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. Baroness Suttie? Lord Davies? Not moved.

19:06

Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 19 tabled in the name of my noble tabled in the name of my noble friend and I would speak to that amendment and amendment 20 and 23 in the name of Lord Davies of Gower. Amendment 19 requires the tribunal to consider if a notice should be of no effect in circumstances where the tribunal determines within a reasonable time and is the context for the amendment. The fundamental background is the SIA will issue notices and we do not know how many, but there is a strong likelihood they will be appealed and this will likely be a major additional burden on the first-tier Tribunal raising questions on capacity of speed and response stop it is right to say many regulated people are responsible for events with a hard deadline and carries with it financial and operational consequences.

How will events deal with the situation when the appeal is lodged with tribunal and no tribunal has been made in a reasonable time and amendment 1960 prevent people being left in limbo. That follows on from subsection 7 which allows the tribunal to ensure the order is in no effect until it is concluded and should be read in that context. Amendment 19 is an additional protection for those organising events if for whatever reason the tribunal has not been able to determine the appeal within a reasonable timeframe.

I hope the Minister understands the reasons Minister understands the reasons behind that and I'm keen to hear his response. Looking at amendment 23, it extends the grace period from 28 to 42 days. This is a practical adjustment, compliance with new regulation takes time and security must remain a priority, but we must recognise the operational reality faced by businesses, charities, and community groups and a slightly longer grace period for a fairer time frame proposed without undue pressure and 40 days is a reasonable and fair addition of extra time.

Finally, amendment 23 in the name of Lord Davies of Gower calls for local authority to be consulted, local authorities are on the frontline of implementing security measures on the bill and the insight and expertise should be taken into account. Consultation will ensure security policies are properly resourced and critically aligned with local needs. Effective counterterrorism measures provide cooperation at all levels of this amendments and strengthens that collaborative approach I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to hearing the reply. At the end, insert the words as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall list. I rise to speak to amendment 21,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 21, 22, 26 in this group. I'm sure we 22, 26 in this group. I'm sure we know how important volunteers are in how our society works, and across how our society works, and across the country, many vital QT venues are run on our behalf by volunteers who give up hours and hours of their time to help community enterprises, for example village halls, community centres and I am sure that noble Lords found that it is getting more and more difficult to persuade people to take on voluntary roles and responsibilities and it is harder to persuade people at a senior voluntary role if they carry with them personal risk to that volunteer, either in terms of financial liability or in terms of criminal liability.

As I have made clear in previous debates on legislation, I am concerned that this bill will not intentionally have a significant impact on members of the community volunteering. By amendment 21, 22, 24 and 26, I seek to ensure voluntary unpaid office workers and unpaid trustees are exempt from the personal and criminal liability under section 24, 25 and 26 of the bill. Provided of course that they have acted without wilful misconduct and gross negligence. As I observed in Committee, when the bill was considered in draft by the Home Affairs Select Committee, they heard evidence about the impact of the proposed measures on community volunteering.

The Committee under the chairmanship of Diana Johnson reported in July 23 said in paragraph 39, however we are concerned the capacity figure for the standard here premises which captures small and micro sized businesses and community run voluntary groups can be disproportionate and burdensome and this is troubling category because it includes venues that may not cover the cost of what is proposed and may cover village halls, places of worship, and similar amenities that provide community support and if these places are forced to close down, it represents a win for terrorism rather than an effective means of combating it.

I could not have put it better myself. In light of this and other representation, the present government increased the threshold from 100 up to 200 and I commend them for doing that. I remain concerned the effect of the measures of the bill on top of the other measures that we heard so ably outlined by Baroness Fox in an earlier group that faced volunteers across our community and there is a risk that we have fewer volunteers and fewer volunteer leaders and this may mean widescale closures of other individuals community centres and it is clear to me the measure of the bill as it presently stands, but it runs the serious risk of the new liability to reduce the appetite of members of the public to step forward and volunteer.

This is in an area where in any event public involvement in these sorts of institutions is waning. It is important that the government does not make it harder and harder to be a volunteer or trustee of these institutions. The amendments I propose here are to remove the worst of the disincentives for people to volunteer. Full the way it works in amendment 21 is to remove the risk that a volunteer or unpaid trustee will be held personally liable for financial penalties imposed provided that they were acting in good faith and in scope of their duties.

Amendment 22 excludes a voluntary unpaid office holder or unpaid trustee or on the penalty being up to £25 per day. That measure is a powerful disincentive to people to volunteer due to the risk of their own personal liability in these summons. Amendment 24 exempts them from criminal liability for volunteers, unpaid officeholders and unpaid trustees provided they acted without wilful misconduct or gross negligence. I hope they will agree that it is on a cursory reading of the bill a risk of up to two years in prison failing to adhere to restrictions of the regulations made under the bill.

I appreciate that as the Minister no doubt told the House that these common powers will only rarely be used and there is a maximum, and I'm sure all of that is right. However, the fact is if it is in the statute, it will act as a disincentive to volunteers. People will not want to be the responsible person as they will not want to take the risk of going to prison. Finally, amendment 26 will confirm there is nothing in the act to make an unpaid officeholder or unpaid trustee liable in their personal capacity to be concerned of a breach of duty under the act.

They should not be subject to the same criminal liability as paying professionals when they are acting in good faith. These proposals are clearly both proportionate and in keeping with proportionate and in keeping with This moment does not propose a blanket exemption for trustees and officeholders. Those who act with wilful misconduct or gross negligence will remain accountable. However for those who genuinely seek to comply with the law and act responsibly, the threat of personal, financial or indeed criminal liability should not hang over them like the sword of Damocles.

If we fail to provide this protection we risk discouraging precisely the people we need to set forward. It is of course a balancing act. That these counterterrorism measures in the bill remain robust while preventing unintended chilling effect on volunteering and community leadership. These amendments achieve a balance and I hope become part of the legislation and therefore I also hope the government except these four amendments. -- Accept.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise to support the amendment Lord Murray of Blidworth has just spoken to were largely the same spoken to were largely the same reasons he does. We have many volunteers running church buildings

19:17

The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)

- -

volunteers running church buildings and church halls around the country. I think in addition to what he says, I know in practice it's very unusual for a charity trustee for example to be personally held liable for something unless they haven't something unless they haven't behaved egregiously. I know in many cases some organisations have a structure that allows them to take out insurance against some kind of risks, but perception really matters here to the perception that one might end up going to prison, the perception that one might may be that might be made personally liable as a churchwarden, as a parish clerk, for quite excessively heavy fines comply -- and paired with your own personal income I think the deterrent effect on that we find it so hard in an age where there are few volunteers trying to keep the voluntary structures of this country running.

I do feel that Lord Murray wishes to bring these matters to a division he will certainly have my support and I hope the support of other members of your Lordships house.

19:18

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

The last stage by the amendment requiring the tribunal to issue a determination within a reasonable time as defined by the Secretary of State because it seems to me that was an inappropriate combination of the roles of the judiciary and the executive. That wasn't pressed but this amendment seems to me to be on this amendment seems to me to be on the same page. Others will have experience of the court staying order, I mean professional experience, but I understand that to be all part of proceedings in a lower court.

As I read amendment 19 it would require an extra stage in the proceedings, presumably a hearing on an application at the time before determining an appeal is unreasonable, so a further addition to the tribunal's load and further delay. We can't support that amendment. On amendment 20, having to pay within 28 days does not seem to me to be excessive penalisation, the word used in the explanatory statement, at committee Lord Davies of Gower talked of a grace period being reliant -- aligned with similar.

The Minister disagreed and made the point that 28 days is a minimum. The penalty won't come out of the blue in most cases as I understand it, the SIA has to be satisfied that there has been a contravention or is to be a contravention, and unless the responsible person has refused or completely failed to engage with the SIA there will have been a dialogue. With regard to volunteers, of course we are with the noble Lord with regards to not disincentive eyes in volunteers, but I don't think this is the first or only time that volunteers have been faced with had to think about the responsibilities laid on them as volunteers, particularly if they are trustees or particularly if they are trustees of charities there are a lot of rules that have to be observed by them.

The bill in any event is about taking precautions appropriate to the premises or to the event. The distinction between the operators, volunteers or paid, is so surely irrelevant. I don't know if terrorists would make that distinction as we've reminded this afternoon, the Conservative government was proposing 100 as a threshold, that would have meant a greater problem as the noble Lord defines it. We are I'm afraid not able to support those amendments. able to support those amendments.

With regard to amendment 23, clause 22 allows for consideration of matters it considers relevant which presumably will include the local authorities view. Having to specifically to obtain the local authorities view seems to me to be another bureaucracy in certain cases. If it is relevant then it will be considered and provision is Can Can I Can I thank Can I thank noble Can I thank noble Lords Can I thank noble Lords for contributions which have been made so far.

Particularly the contributions of the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and Lord Murray, if I could briefly turn to those amendments my noble friend Lord Murray dealt with the treatment of volunteers and he spoke eloquently about the principle that volunteers acting in good faith should not be subject to financial penalties, criminal liability or civil liability, he made a point that the volunteers play a vital role in many public and community settings. Often set stepping forward to help in times of crisis, to penalised those acting voluntarily and in good faith would be both unfair and counter-productive.

If this ability were encouraging culture shed response penalty for public protection must also offer reasonable protections to those who contribute to that effort and volunteers should not be deterred from assisting by fear of punitive measures. Those amendments strike the right balance by ensuring that only those who act negligently or with intent are held responsible. On amendment 19 I respectfully don't accept that Lady Hamwee's argument that this creates an additional court process, the bill already contains a mechanism for rendering a notice, having no effect in subsection 6 and seven.

The memo 19th simply seeks to add another scenario to that. Taken together I would suggest these amendments improve the bill and I would urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government to accept them. I'm grateful for the amendments, I will try and run through them and

19:24

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I will try and run through them and do them justice in short order as I can. In 19 first of all, I don't consider it necessary to require the bill that the tribunal considers To determine whether the bill would in reasonable time. The tribunal is already subject to relevant procedures, it makes provision for the tribunal to consider whether a notice variation should in effect be put in place pending the outcome of an appeal for the bill gives the right of appeal to such notice, not automatic and allows the tribunal to make an order to suspend its effect pending the appeals.

Determination. I hope that addresses the issues in amendment 19. I'm on 20 -- amendment 20 talks about the penalty period being the period of 28 days to the date of the penalty notice being issued, I want to reassure the House that the period of 28 days as mentioned by Baroness Hamwee is a minimum period that the essay IA -- SIA may specify and they may for -- therefore may specify any period post that 28 day period and I hope on that basis the flexibility for the SIA on the 28 day period is one that is acceptable.

I fully understand, we've had this debate on a number of occasions, we've been around this at second reading and committee and now reports, it's because it's a valid issue to raise. We want to ensure that we encourage volunteers to continue to meet their responsibilities and I understand that there are concerns, that have been expressed today by Lord Murray, about the liability of voluntary officeholders and unpaid trustees. The government is mindful of the pressures of voluntary and community run organisations face and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester endorsed those pressures and I understand having been voluntary trustee on a number of small bodies myself, I understand where noble Lords and the Right Reverend Prelate are coming from.

But again I go back to the requirements for clause 5 of the bill, the requirements of their to achieve public protection outcomes and they are not there to put disproportionate burdens on trustees or indeed organisations. As to the consultation we have had, the government has increased the threshold from 100 to 200 to ensure that we take out a number of smaller bodies and we have done that an estimated 13% of village halls, 10,000 community centres have been taken out of scope by that change of the threshold level that we put.

What we are trying to do is to ensure that these are voluntary simple measures where no specific expertise will be required. I do understand and accept that in some cases could that put people off? Well any more than potentially any other legislation that is health and safety legislation or anything else. That could put people off but this is meant to be a simple, in clause 5 measure that allows individuals to undertake and to do so in a way that meets the obligations but doesn't discourage volunteering.

Amendment 21 and 22 under the bill penalties can only be issued for non- compliance with the requirements and indeed daily penalties can only be issued where penalty notice for a country venture has been issued. Again I would hope that the SIA well in the first instance, if any contravention is there, be there to provide guidance, support and help individuals and organisations to meet their responsibilities which I reiterate once again a relatively low under the provisions of clause 24 in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth there are limited circumstances in the bill where an individual would be liable for an offence committed by a body in connection with failure to comply with a requirement.

That will only happen and apply to certain persons in control, and again it's only an offence to fail to comply with compliance or restriction notices in relation to enhanced duty premises and qualifying events. The offence is therefore less likely to be implemented against village halls or community premises in any event. Again, it is our intention as it has been all the way through this bill, amendment 26 again I reiterated to that, that a civil claim for breach of that is true duty may not be brought to an individual.

The House I hope can accept those reassurances, there are limited proposals in clause 5, there are responsibilities that are therefore responsible person, but those responsibilities are not ones that we do not seek to have guidance from the SIA, advice in the event of non-compliance and persecution would be in the very last resort for any particular instance. That applies equally as I mentioned to other amendments also to amendment 23. I hope those reassurances allow the noble Lords to withdraw the amendments, and again let me finalise by saying this.

The implementation period of potentially two years, the guidance issued by the SIA, the reviews we have put in place, the insurances I've given to the noble Lord Lord Murray in the last set of amendments that any review on implementation would be published and open to scrutiny, I hope they all give noble Lords the reassurances they seek by tabling these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having prematurely been enthusiastic I beg to withdraw a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moment 19. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment is withdrawn? The that the amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 20 Lord Davies of Gower? Amendment 21 Lord Murray of

19:31

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 21 Lord Murray of I take some heart from the fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I take some heart from the fact that a review will be conducted and I'm very grateful for the support expressed in the amendments from the Right Reverend Prelate. I've also been frankly disappointed by the approach from the Liberal Democrat benches and it seems to me we could have chosen the remark on this legislation to help volunteering, but with that, and the fact that there is little prospect of this amendment succeeding, I would seek

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not to move amendment 21. Amendment 23, Lord Davies of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 23, Lord Davies of Gower? Not moved. 24 a, Baroness Gower? Not moved. 24 a, Baroness Suttie, move formally. This is on a Suttie, move formally. This is on a separate sheet of paper. Insert the words on the Marshall list. As many words on the Marshall list. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Which brings me to amendment 25. Amendment 26, not moved. Lord Amendment 26, not moved.

Lord Hanson? Amendment 27? Insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment 28, move formally, the question is the amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Lord Hanson move formally. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment 30.

Not moved. Amendment 31, Lord Davies of Gower. Not moved. Amendment 32, Lord Davies of Gower. Not moved. Amendment 32 a, a manuscript amendment in the name of Lord Hogan-Howe. I do not propose to read it out unless you proposed for that to be done. to be done.

19:33

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

I beg leave to move the manuscript amendment in my name on the Order Paper will be quite brief and I do not intend to push this to a vote. My reason for bringing this forward is a repeat of the amendment suggested in Committee and the reason for bringing it forward is it is fundamental for the aim of this particular bill and what will become an act which is the design of new premises and I think one of the most strategic things is the president designed to mitigate the effect of a terrorist attack or prevent it altogether and the Minister to be fair reassured us in Committee stage that some action would be taken and it wasn't that I wasn't reassured by the Minister, but not by the government response in two respects.

When that change would happen and the method by which the advice to planners would be effective. I thought the best way to change this might be on the act itself in this act, not in another act. Because it is so important and we designed places to enable evacuation, reduce the risk of a rampant gunmen running around the building all of which is entirely possible by design, particularly new venues, and I would not give this to every venue, but certainly major venues where perhaps 1% of venues can account for the high percentage of people that attend public events and frankly will be the targeting for terrorists who will achieve the most impact in their warped view by achieving public outrage.

For those reasons, I would like to hear how the government intend to implement these types of design change in the future in the way that we hope will be more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reassuring at Committee stage. It is entirely to do with the government response. I would like to speak in support

19:35

Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to speak in support of Lord Hogan-Howe and I don't want to repeat everything I said to repeat everything I said previously, but I know the Minister will say this is not the appropriate act, but the problem is there is never an appropriate one and we keep missing the opportunity of starting to design out terrorism, design out crime from the very start and I would hope that after this the Minister would take this on board with his colleagues and pushed hard for people to start thinking seriously about doing this for new developments including the larger ones.

19:36

Lord Harris of Haringey (Labour)

- -

I don't think the chair has put it to us, but I want to say that I think Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Lester have a point that this is an important provision that we should be building into planning legislation and licensing legislation the design of terrorism and designing out crime. What I hope he will be able to say in replying is that that is something the government will bring forward in another way in another time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He correctly picked up on my error. The motion has been moved.

19:37

Baroness Suttie (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

error. The motion has been moved. I would agree with noble Lord Harris. We would also agree this is Harris. We would also agree this is an extremely important matter. It might not be the appropriate piece of legislation that we said at Committee stage and it is an important measure that in the longer term we save time and money.

19:37

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I am grateful to Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Lester for raising this at Committee stage and report stage. The amendment is a late addition but it allows me to put on the record some points. I do not want to revisit the debate from Committee stage, but the national odyssey framework for the devolved government contains provision about the need to promote public safety and take account of the wider security arrangement during the planning process that requires planning authority to take implementation and consider steps that would reduce vulnerability and increase resilience and insecure public safety and security with associated public planning guidance providing greater detail, but I get the sense and I understand where noble Lords are coming from and it is designed in the future new build and it is to put these measures and it is to put these measures downstream equally.

There is the natural rational authority and counterterrorism police will continue to serve as valuable advisers on these issues, but this is where I hope we can help noble Lords to increase Committee stage that we have reflected on this as an important issue. My officials discussed this with the counterpart in the ministry of housing community and local government and we want to consider how we can reinforce planning authority with the existing arrangements and requirements to consider security and part of it in the planning regime.

If this is helpful, the government is updating international design and model design code which provides guidance design code which provides guidance on the very issues the noble Lord mentioned on safety and security in public spaces and that is planned to be published later in the spring. We will consult on changes to the national Planning Policy Guidance to make it clearer and a more rules based approach in spring 2025 and the consultation including policy for addressing security and the very point that noble Lords brought to the attention of noble Lords in this amendment.

I will say what the noble Lord said I would say and it is not the appropriate vehicle for legislation and that is what ministers say in the despatch box and it is the right thing to do in this instance and this is on the government agenda and it will be on consultation and it will address and the noble Lords who spoke at Committee stage and on this matter and I hope with that he will push his amendment.

19:40

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

I thank him for the generous response for a late amendment. I can see why these things need to be considered carefully. I do beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 33. Leave out withdrawn. Amendment 33. Leave out paragraph A and B. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Amendment 34, not

19:41

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. Ukraine, The Lord Privy Seal. I will repeat the statement as the noble Lord said made yesterday the noble Lord said made yesterday in the House of Commons on Ukraine. in the House of Commons on Ukraine. He said it is less than a week since I called on this House to show the courage of predecessors and we have courage of predecessors and we have seen before is clearly the test of our times, a crossroads in our our times, a crossroads in our history, and with permission I will update the House on my efforts to secure a strong, just and lasting peace from Russia's vile invasion of peace from Russia's vile invasion of Ukraine.

On Tuesday, I announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. The condition of the fact that we live in an era where peace in Europe depends on strength and deterrent, but also the rediscovery of the post-war argument long held on these benches is national security, and the demand for Great Britain is the security for working people and the choice that was made last week is not done and we must use process for getting to 3% of our national income spent two fundamentally rebuild British industry using investment military spending to create apprenticeships in every part of our country.

That is why last night I announced a deal that perfectly symbolises the new era, a partnership with Ukraine that deploys £1.6 billion of UK Export Finance to buy 5000 air defence missiles manufactured in fast and that means UK jobs, UK skills, UK finance pulling together for the national interest. It puts Ukraine in the strongest possible position for peace protecting innocent civilians from the terror of Russian trains. My efforts continued when I met president Trump as we look to strengthen our relationship with strengthen our relationship with America.

The what happened in the meeting with Zelenskyy is something nobody in the House wants to see, but I want to be crystal-clear, we must strengthen our relationship with America for our security, our technology, trade and investment, they are and always will be indispensable and we will never choose between either side of the Atlantic. In fact, if anything, the past week has told us that idea is totally unserious. While we may look at the simplicity of taking sides, this shows total clarity the US is vital in the piece we want to see and we welcome the opportunity for an economic deal with the US and we are to welcome positive discussions on European security and clear support for article 5 of NATO and I welcome the dialogue that our nations will work together on security arrangements for lasting peace in Ukraine.

I welcome the commitment to peace that no one in this House should doubt for a second. I will turn to events and the moving scenes that greeted President Zelenskyy when he arrived on Saturday. I saw that he was taken aback by the crowd in Whitehall who cheered at the top of their voices and it represented the country. This government, this House and this nation stand in unwavering support hind him and the people of Ukraine. We resolved together to move forward a strong cause, a just and lasting peace Ukraine and I hosted European leaders from across our continent including President Macron, leaders of NATO, the European Commission and council and the Prime Minister of Canada, a vital ally of this country, the Commonwealth and Ukraine responsible for 40,000 equipment troops.

We also spoke to the leaders of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia each of whom as close as they are to the frontline of Russia stressed the urgency of the moment and the productive summit. Together we made a clear strategy that we will work closely with Ukraine and they plan to stop the fighting which we will then discuss directly with the United States. The plan has four Keep increasing the economic pressure on Russia. That alongside our partnership on air defence we are doubling down in military aid.

Ready this year we have taken our support to record levels. Saturday we also agreed a new £2.2 billion loan for Ukraine, backed not by the British taxpayer but by the profits from frozen Russian assets. Second we agreed that any lasting peace must guarantee the sovereignty and security of Ukraine. And that Ukraine must be at the table when negotiating the future. That is absolutely vital. Third we agreed that in the event of a peace deal will continue to boost Ukraine's defences and Ukraine's deterrence.

Finally force we agreed to develop a Finally force we agreed to develop a coalition of the willing, ready to defend Ukraine and guarantee peace. After all the Ukrainian position is completely understandable. For them, the war did not begin three years ago. It was merely the latest and most brutal escalation. They have signed agreements and treaties before, they have experienced with diplomacy, the calibre of its word and we can't accept a week deal like Minsk again. No, we must proceed with strength and that does require urgently a coalition of the willing.

We agreed on Sunday that those willing to play a role will intensify now, this house will expect, Britain will play a leading role. If necessary and together with others, boots on the ground and planes in the air. It is right that Europe must do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent. But to succeed this effort must also have strong US backing. I want to assure this House I take none of the slightly, I visited British troops in Estonia and no aspect of my role weighs more heavily than the deployment of British troops in the defence and security of Europe.

Yet I do feel very strongly that the future of Ukraine is vital for our national security. Russia is a menace in our waters and in our skies. They've launched cyber- attacks on NHS, Tash nation attempts on our streets. In this House we stand by Ukraine because it's the right thing to do, but we also stand by them because it's in our interest. If we do not achieve a lasting peace, then the instability and insecurity that hit the living standards of working people in Britain will only get worse.

Putin's appetite for conflict and chaos will only grow, so a strong piece, just please, lasting peace, that must now be our goal. It is vital and it's in our interest. In its pursuit, Britain will lead from the front. For the security of our confident -- continent, the scourge of our country and the British people we must now win the peace. I commend the statement to the House.

19:49

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the statement, United Kingdom has long been a bastion of freedom and a stud fast defender of democracy. -- Stead fast. Ukraine has been fighting bravely and bitterly to maintain its sovereignty, its freedom and its democracy for over three years. We salute their courage. And we salute their sacrifice, which has been immense in face of the horrendous Russian aggression which the noble Baroness described so eloquently. As I stated in your Lordships house last week, we on the side of fully committed to supporting the government as they attempt now to forge a path towards peace.

This weekend reminded us of the influence of our nation. The welcome that President Zelenskyy received from His Majesty the King at Sandringham, and the United front of European leaders convened by the Prime Minister demonstrated the best of British diplomacy. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his initiative and I wish him well in his push for a coalition of the willing. Led by the United Kingdom and France to produce a plan to end the fighting in Ukraine.

It is at times like this when our country comes together in unity that it makes us all in this House proud to be British. I also welcome the Prime Minister's acknowledgement that we must not choose between either side of the Atlantic. United States is our longest standing and most important ally as said in the statement was that fact was reaffirmed by the prime ministers visit to the White House last week. We are pleased that the Prime Minister and President Trump had such a successful and cordial meeting.

This is important and his continuing contact with President Trump are equally important. I hope they will continue to demonstrate together the strength of the Anglo-American alliance. The noble Baroness knows that we on these benches support the uplift in defence spending announced last week. And the difficult decisions associated with it. We also welcome the further commitment to reach three% in the next Parliament. As the Leader of the Opposition said in the other place we will support the government in taking tough decisions where they are in the national interest.

That is why we support the difficult decision, and it was difficult, to make the cut in the foreign aid budget to help defend, help bolster the defence budget. There is one thing in my response to the statement in your Lordships house last week, I did ask the noble Baroness a question which she did not then respond and I understand having been there, the exigencies and difficulties of those circumstances. But can I ask, can she confirm that if the deal to surrender the Chagos Islands to Mauritius does indeed go ahead that no payments in connection with that deal will come out of the defence budget? The new money for defence will only be beneficial if every penny is invested in our Armed Forces.

It would be an indefensible position for money to be cut from the aid budget, moved to the defence budget and then be simply funnelled into the deal. Paid to Mauritius. Can I have her assurance that this will not happen in respect of the defence budget. I join the opposition also and welcoming at the prime ministers announcement of the use of the profits from frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine. Yesterday my right honourable friend ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has any plans to use the frozen assets themselves.

I'm grateful for what the noble Baroness said to the House on the subject. Is she able to give the House any further outlook on how the frozen assets themselves will in future be used? We awoke this morning to the news that the United States is pausing its military aid to Ukraine. Can I ask the noble Baroness to update the House on this? Has the prime and has had any discussions or will he be having discussions with President Trump in the light of this announcement? Can I overall reiterate the positive response that my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition gave to the Prime Minister statement in another place? I hope that the Prime Minister will continue channelling this constructive and inclusive spirit, demonstrating the significance of British leadership on the world stage.

As he navigates the long road to peace and faces what will be many difficult decisions ahead, he will have our full consideration and support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also thank the noble Baroness for repeating the statement. The for repeating the statement. The adage that a week is a long time in politics has rarely been so graphically demonstrated and over graphically demonstrated and over the last seven days. In that period the last seven days. In that period

19:55

Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)

- -

the last seven days. In that period The brutal treatment of the Ukrainian president by the president in the United States, the suspension of all US military support for Ukraine and the beginnings of a coordinated European response to this new and dangerous situation. In all of this the Prime Minister has played a statesmanlike and positive role and we commend him for it. No doubt we all found his presentation of the letter from the king to trump cringeworthy, but there is no doubt that it helped to create a positive atmosphere for the talks which ensued.

It was a small price to pay for a relatively positive outcome. But nothing can excuse the new American position. It not only rips up the basis of our support for Ukraine, but undermines Europe's assumption that the US would in all circumstances be as strong and dependable ally. Today's comments by J.D. Ban switch to suspect UK forces and the contribution alongside our American allies in Iraq and Afghanistan is just the latest evidence of an arrogance and ignorance which is chilling.

The response which the Prime Minister is adopting to try and broker re- engagement between the UK -- states in Ukraine while seeking to put together a coalition of the willing to defend it is to be strongly welcomed. I think it's a mistake to believe as the statement does that under this presidency our relationship with America at least in terms of security can be strengthened to any significant extent. Because Trump has made it clear that he doesn't accept a continuing responsibility for the security of Europe.

We need to accept this and plan accordingly. This has major and unpalatable consequences in terms of military expenditure, but it also provides opportunities for the UK to retain, to regain a leading position in Europe and also for our defence Europe and also for our defence industries. In the short-term we welcome the loan to Ukraine backed by the interest from frozen Russian assets, and the use of UK Export Finance to fund the purchase of missiles to be manufactured in Belfast.

But these are relatively small interventions and much more is going to be needed. One idea which is gaining traction is the establishment of an international rearmament bank which would facilitate access to private sector capital for Ukraine's ongoing struggles. Does the government ban to pursue this? Another proposal which we have discussed often in your Lordships house is for the seizure of Russian assets. The capital, not just the interest. In yesterday's questions in the statement, the Prime Minister said that this was being looked at, but that it was very difficult.

At the moment this proposal actually seems to be being taken only half seriously. I accept that legislation might be necessary to enable it to happen, but I am sure that Parliament will fast track such a measure. Can the noble Lady give us any indication of the timescale for further work on these proposals and whether the government is prepared to legislate to implement it. An longer-term move to three% of GDP for defence spending we have suggested that the government should initiate cross-party discussions to see whether a consensus can be reached as to how this might be funded.

Does the government have any plans to do this? Every passing day demonstrate, demonstrates that the UK and our European allies are going to have to accept a step change increasing responsibilities borrowing defence. Prime Minister clearly accepts this also and he has our firm supports in moving to achieve it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank both noble Lords for the comments they have made about the comments they have made about the Prime Minister, and I know the pride in how the Prime Minister pride in how the Prime Minister hasn't been confined to the side of the House and I'm grateful for noble Lords across the House to make that Lords across the House to make that point. It's when things are at their most challenging that we see the most challenging that we see the best in those that step up to take best in those that step up to take the action as needed.

Even when that can be very difficult it is always better to make those attempts to try and make things work better than to walk away or is the premise the said to take sides on the issue. I think the noble Lord Lord True made a similar comment to that and spoke of his pride of the Prime Minister and our government, I can tell him that the Prime Minister spoke to both President Trump and President Zelenskyy on Friday night and Saturday night and both noble Lords are right, the witnessing of the, the meeting between President Zelenskyy and President Trump was uncomfortable I think for anyone to watch.

But the first reaction of the Prime Minister is how do we mend this breach, how do we take things forward from here I think that's the only response the Prime Minister should have something like this. On the frozen assets which both noble Lords raised, the premises spoke about this and I think the noble Lord was uncharacteristically a bit churlish about it. It is something that is very difficult, it's not a case of just bringing forward legislation in this country it has to be something that other countries have to be involved with as well and indeed there have been discussions, you'd imagine discussions involved in that this week as well.

It's ongoing work on that and that work On the Chagos Islands there is no deal at present. There is nothing to comment on with regards to the finances on that one. Lord True will say something more as it is so fast moving and he would have seen the Zelenskyy statement tonight and we do not know if that has had an impact. We do not know what that will engage and we will be happy to share that information but we will appreciate from the statement yesterday I have been getting updated because things are moving updated because things are moving quite quickly on this one.

I thought the description of cringeworthy was not appropriate, and the Prime Minister and King have been clear in their support of President Zelenskyy and the meeting of one that everyone welcomed. I have to say that we spoke about this, but Zelenskyy came to Downing Street and the spontaneous response from the public was something that was quite emotional and Selema ski was removed and so was the Prime Minister. -- Zelenskyy. He has been through a lot, his people have been through a lot and we have seen that emotion in him and how he rises to the occasion.

It is challenging but all efforts must be welcomed. I thought the Prime Minister's response was very positive. It looks at the issues the European leaders discussed and also the issues around what comes next. This is not the end of it. It is the start of it. The idea they took a greater responsibility and it is how they recognise and what they continue to recognise and what they continue to do. We are aware of the impact and implication of that and we have moved to 3% of defence spending in the next Parliament and that is the the next Parliament and that is the commitment that remains and we are determined to give Ukraine all the support they need and to keep that support is the sovereignty of support is the sovereignty of Ukraine and it must be around the table.

table.

20:04

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Labour)

- -

The Prime Minister has shown himself by general acclaim to be a strong diplomat but is dealing with a moving target and we have had that statement in the pausing of military equipment and the conciliatory response of President Zelenskyy and the lawyers will say that the intention shown by the consequences of the action and clearly the supply of material has been a major tilt in favour of Russia in the battlefield as Russia tries to obtain more territory before a potential ceasefire.

This cannot be the intention of president Trump. intention of president Trump.

20:05

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

I'm not sure I quite got the last part of the question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the intention is shown by natural consequences transaction, it natural consequences transaction, it is clear the natural consequences of the pause is to give an advantage on the pause is to give an advantage on the battlefield to the Russians, and that will be the intention of that will be the intention of president Trump.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

president Trump. I would hesitate to say what the intention of trump is. We have been clear and honest that our support is clear and honest that our support is unwavering, but we do not know what the pause will be. We will be happy to come back. If the response has an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

impact on that, I'm not yet sure. I would commend the Prime

20:06

Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would commend the Prime Minister for the stance he has taken and the work he has been doing with European and other allies. It is important and the proposal to bring together a plan for a just and lasting peace which is acceptable to Ukraine and denies Putin a victory is essential work, but as we have seen from the announcement from the White House about the pause in military support for Ukraine, that work is ever more urgent. Can the Minister reassure the House that the government is redoubling its efforts with its allies with the proposal of the United States of America and can he indicate if he has received any suggestion from the trump White House that they are willing to consider seriously the proposal coming forward.

coming forward.

20:07

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

We do have to double our efforts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We do have to double our efforts and we are working on a plan and there are frequent conversations at there are frequent conversations at present and at every stage they will present and at every stage they will present it they will look at the present it they will look at the support and they have to stand up and that is what they are doing and and that is what they are doing and we are at the start of the process of meetings of European leaders and of meetings of European leaders and it is important we get a plan and we will take it to president Trump and we will seek to get an agreement from that.

from that.

20:08

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I join in the praise of the Prime Minister's performance in the last few days which has drawn a great deal of admiration, but it is clear we are operating in difficult circumstances. One understands what he feels he has to say and the Trans-Atlantic relationship, it is very important, but for the Prime Minister to refer to the clear support of article 5 of NATO from Donald Trump, unfortunately I think that is not what we perceive and I'm wondering if the Minister will tell us anything about the current us anything about the current circumstances giving a real boost for the research with the EU including on security and defence cooperation and any news she can give us on that front, not just the intergovernmental cooperation, but also asked plugging in with EU industrial Corporation.

industrial Corporation.

20:09

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

The description of the Prime Minister's performance and feels he has to say things, I don't think it does justice to the gravity of the situation. It is not a performance. It is strongly held views by the Prime Minister that we will work with our American allies. The most important thing is we work with President Zelenskyy to seek peace. We want a stable and enduring peace with Ukrainian sovereignty. The president did commit to article 5 of NATO and we are one of the early defence and security of the cooperation of the EU.

cooperation of the EU.

20:09

The Lord Bishop of Norwich (Bishops)

- -

I thank the noble Minister for the statement and I would echo the comments about the leadership that the Prime Minister showed in recent days. In Norfolk last week, I spent time with some brave Ukrainian men and women who are being trained for a short five week period by the Irish Guards and instructors from a range of international allies under range of international allies under operation into flex learning vital skills they need to defend the nation in the face of Putin's legal invasion -- illegal invasion.

Well the Minister give the assurances that the commitment to operation into flex and to train Ukrainian men and women will be ironclad and as long as it is needed. While on this bench we support the uplift of the defence budget has been shown, we are disappointed that it has been achieved by, after little debate, by taking from the overseas development budget. And building on the question will the Minister accept that if and when we go further and spend 3% of GDP on defence that we will need a wider public conversation as to how that will be funded.

20:11

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

I am grateful. We are not aware of the depth and breadth of support for Ukraine. He made a powerful point. That is what we are committed to. It adds to the disappointment around the cut of ODA budgets. It was a great disappointment to us as well. The comments made in the other place yesterday when he wanted to work with others across the House on other ways of raising money and finance development for overseas aid and he met with the president of the World Bank to look at some options and we have a commitment to return to 0.7%.

I understand that. I think the public are becoming more aware of the need for defence spending. It has been taken for granted for many years and we had the dividends of peace after the Cold War. The world is changing and we must be part of the discussion and part of the awareness and do our to engage with the public on why this is necessary. the public on why this is necessary.

20:12

Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)

- -

On that point, is it not the case that if we do as it seems we have to do increase expenditure to replace the withdrawal of American expenditure to some extent and for other reasons, does it not represent a totally different situation to that which existed in July at the time of the general election and the pledges given not to increase taxation in those circumstances there with lesser elements today and surely it will be fairer all the way around if the cost of defence expenditure fell on the broadest shoulders that can bear it and not on the poorest in the world?

20:13

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

Firstly, the strategic defence review is coming up and we will have the response from Lord Robinson who is not here at the moment. He said already that he is leading and the government will be informed by that. It is probably above my pay grade to touch on the Chancellor of the next budget, but we take all of this into account of how we can do this, but we had stagnant growth for some time and increasing the growth of our economy is crucial to look at how we fund our commitments overseas and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

public services here for the future. I join the unanimous support the House has given to the efforts of

20:14

Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)

- -

House has given to the efforts of the Prime Minister and we congratulate the Prime Minister on what he has been seeking to do in the last few days. Alas, however, his efforts have not been met with success and it is clear, isn't it, that even in the few days that have elapsed since this House last responded to the other place on this issue and the crisis, and it has become more acute and that, though it grieves me to say so, we cannot rely on the United States under this president.

The noble Baroness cannot say that, I understand why she can't and the Prime Minister cannot say that. It is sadly the truth. Isn't it clear that given what has happened even in these last few days that however difficult it may be, we have to have an urgent increase in the defence budget greater and sooner than the Prime Minister indicated. indicated.

20:15

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

He is right, any Prime Minister would be tested to ensure what is best for our country. The first duty is safety and security of citizens and they must do what it takes to achieve that and the Prime Minister reaching out across Europe and took a leadership role of European leaders and it is important in the country as well. Defence spending is not something you turn on by a tap. There is a lot of work to do but we will be led by the strategic defence review and it will indicate where we are leading and the government will take changing circumstances into

20:16

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

It is perhaps symbolic Belfast will be at the heart of the UK support and the aid we are providing to Ukraine, because it symbolically shows that the support for Ukraine is not just from all corners of this House, but from all parts of our nation. I agree with the government that we want to see peace, we want to see a just and lasting peace, the government is also right in saying that the best opportunity of that is through strength and deterrence.

Can I ask the noble minister, in light of the pores of support from the United States which many of us fear will be a long-term cessation rather than simply a pause, what assurances she give the House that this country and other participants in the coalition of the willing would be able to reassure that there is both sufficient aid going to Ukraine and particularly in vitally that it flows quickly enough to ensure that there is, that it doesn't create a vulnerable gap which Putin's regime could try to exploit and where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ukraine would be left vulnerable. The noble Lord is right and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord is right and I don't want to say anything more about it at this stage because recently don't know enough, we don't recently don't know enough, we don't know the impact of President Zelenskyy's response, but we are well aware of those challenges must well aware of those challenges must I mention Strategic Defence Review, there's a national armaments director now in place to look at, will be in place soon to look at these issues as well. The security these issues as well.

The security of Ukraine isn't just about Ukraine, it is also about the security and protection of this country as well. We need to be aware of that at all times because if we ignore the security of Ukraine we've seen Honore ensure's before as we saw in Salisbury for example, Russian aggression is an issue for this country it's not just for overseas so we will work with Ukraine, he made the point and I reiterate that Prime Minister bringing together Prime Minister bringing together across Europe to say the coalition of the willing, one of the things the spin problem in the past as we tend to move slowly as the most tend to move slowly as the most reluctant member.

The prime and this reluctant member. The prime and this is no we got to lead from the front, so we don't delay in anywhere at all, we do as much as we can as quickly as we can.

20:18

Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative)

- -

Can I remind your Lordships house of my interest as a member of the Army Board. I welcome the governance commitment to spending £3 billion in military aid until 2020 -- 2030 but my plea is can we be smart in how we spend it? Firstly to ensure that we use it to re-energise the land industrial base in the UK which we have allowed to atrophy over many years, and secondly to recognise of the nature of warfare has changed.

Historically in the land domain the depth of the battlefield was 80, it is, it is now 800 kilometres and capabilities need to change to adapt for that. So can we ensure that we use as money as a catalyst to developer and capabilities so that we can use then those capabilities to ensure that we can meet chief of the general staff aim of doubling the lethality of the British Army by 2027.

20:19

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord makes an important point and that will be the purpose of the Strategic Defence Review to the cool those issues and bring them to government. I think is also an issue about defence procurement as well that we want to ensure we get the best value, used a weapon to constituency the had a defence industry am well aware of problems existing for some type of procurement looking a procurement review in that, have been informed by the Strategic Defence Review I think we will do our best to get these issues right.

these issues right.

20:20

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

Warmly welcomed the tone of the Leader of the Opposition benches tonight and indeed what Lady May said. I think the prime ministers measured public tone deserves applause. I join those saying that he is handling this crisis very very well. The measured public tone now entitles him to send private messages, and a bit of his statement I most liked I think was him saying that the Ukrainians must be at the table when their future is negotiated.

30 years ago American peacekeepers negotiated at Dayton very successfully, Richard Holbrooke was brilliant in his solution to the Bosnian war. All parties whether in Dayton Ohio. We were there, Baroness Neville-Jones was there. The warring parties accepted US mediation, there was an understanding among them that the US and her allies would be there to enforce their deal to ensure that all parties respected the deal. That was what enabled parties to come to an agreement.

I think it would be very good if the Prime Minister would encourage the President of the United States to maintain open channels of communication with Kyiv. I think that is rather important. I think we should not criticise the president for talking to Moscow. I think that is a perfectly sensible thing to do. What he said to Moscow of course I don't know.

20:22

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

His experience of these issues as well, we would all do well to heed him. He is right, peace negotiated without Ukraine the table is not going to be something that will endure and be sustained. He is also right to refer to a security guarantee which has been part of the issue as well in negotiations as well. The important thing is that everyone strives for peace. At the moment what is clear is there are different ways and different views on how that could be achieved, but the two crucial points he mentioned, Ukraine at the table and the security guarantee the only way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have something that will endure. The prime ministers comments with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The prime ministers comments with regards to President Putin's desire

20:23

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

regards to President Putin's desire for an appetite for chaos. I assume the government believes that he should not be rewarded for that. Can I ask the leader to questions, the first is that there are other countries in the near neighbourhood of Russia who are very anxious at the moment whether UK has been critical supporter in resilience to the interference of Russia, whether it is Moldova or in the Baltics, that has been under UK ODA, so can I ask the leader to ensure that the UK ODA support which is up to £500 million under the integrated security fund would be collected from the cuts of ODA which is being proposed to fund defence expenditure, secondly when it comes to the assets that we are seeking to use the interest of, I'm assuming the government believes that Russia and the Kremlin's apparatchiks should not have that money back, so if they don't have that money back we should be achieving, as Lord Newby said, the capital interest on that and the capital itself so that should be funded towards the Ukrainian recovery..

20:24

Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)

- -

The noble late Lord makes an important point and I think the security of the Balkans and Moldova is extremely important. That's why the prime ministers had long conversations with them recently and he's also spoken to them about ways in which they can be better engaged and ensure we have a wide engagement, talk about Europe in the whole and that will be important. He assured them in his conversations we are going to look again at configurations of these meetings, with them and other allies to ensure that those state property represented and their views can be heard particularly because they are vulnerable position.

You will understand that I'm not going to make particular commitments in different areas of the ODA, we've also heard my noble friend Lady Chapman today say that work on that ongoing how important it is, it's not just the case of pulling the rug from people it's got to be a proper discussion and look at the impact, it's going to take some time to carefully work this through. I will draw his comments to her attention on that one. On the Russian assets, we are using the interest now, there is ongoing discussions about that, I think it was easy it would have been done already but it's not through reluctance that is not being done and something that is being actively

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pursued. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page